Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddaram vs The General Manager on 10 July, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.1373/2014 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDARAM
S/O. NINGANNA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O. BOMMANAHALLI POST,
SINDHAGI TALUK,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586 206. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH SALMANI, ADV. FOR SRI SATISH R. GIRJI)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027.
2. THE DIRECTOR
THE CHAIRMAN OF
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTHINGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027.
3. THE CHIEF STAFF MANAGER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
RECRUITMENT DEPARTMENT,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
2
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADV. FOR R-1 TO 3)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.12.2013 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE R3.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 19.12.2013 at Annexure-G to the petition. In that light, the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to select the petitioner under IIA category for the post of 'Traffic Inspector' as per the notification at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner had responded to the notification dated 12.12.2012 issued by the respondent-Corporation calling upon the candidates to apply for the post of 'Traffic Inspector', wherein 4 posts were indicated against IIA category. The petitioner contends that when the General Merit list was uploaded, the name of the 3 petitioner was indicated at Sl.No.99, since the petitioner had obtained 62.19 marks in the educational qualification.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, one of the posts under IIA-Category had been reduced and as such, the post being reduced has denied the opportunity to the petitioner to be selected under the IIA category to which he had applied. It is also his contention at the time of argument that a candidate named Sri G. Venkatesh has been chosen over the petitioner, though the said candidate has secured lesser marks in his educational qualification than that of the petitioner and his name was indicated at Sl.No.102 in the list at Annexure-B to the petition. Hence, the petitioner assails the endorsement dated 19.12.2013 and seeks consideration of his case for appointment.
3. The respondent-Corporation has filed detailed objection statement. Insofar as the posts notified for IIA category, it is noticed, though initially 4 posts had been indicated, a petition was filed before the Commissioner 4 for Disabilities contending that no reservation has been made for physically handicapped person and therefore a consideration be made in that regard. Since, the selection process was interfered and in that regard, there was a requirement to reserve one post for physically handicapped, at that stage, the posts for IIA category was limited to three posts. However, the respondents having subsequently obtained exemption from the Government for not reserving any post for physically handicapped in the Traffic Inspector's category, the said post also being available, the person named Sri G. Venkatesh, who had higher merit than that of the petitioner was appointed to the post. In that light, the respondents seek to justify their action.
4. In the above background, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the petition papers.
5. Though in the document at Annexure-E, the register number of the petitioner is indicated above, the register number of one Sri G. Venkatesh and the marks 5 in the educational qualification is shown as lesser in respect of Sri G. Venkatesh, the said tabulation as made is only based on the marks that had been indicated in the application. The said short listing was for the purpose of verification of the documents. In that regard, on verification of the documents, the educational qualification marks of Sri G.Venkatesh was at 62.63% and after taking into consideration the CAT marks, his total percentage was at 62.20% as against 62.19% obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, insofar as the qualification, the said candidate had secured more marks than the petitioner.
6. Insofar as the reservation of the posts, it is no doubt indicated from the notification that 4 posts were reserved for IIA category. At the point when the impugned endorsement was issued to the petitioner, the position was that one of the posts therein was reserved for the physically handicapped persons, keeping in view the interference by the Competent Authority in that regard. However, subsequently on obtaining the 6 exemption from the Government, the said post has also been utilized for the selection of a person from IIA category and in such circumstance, when all the posts which were notified for IIA category has been selected and the person, who was more meritorious than the petitioner has been selected, the grievance as put forth by the petitioner would not merit consideration in this petition.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST