Karnataka High Court
Gurubasappa vs Government Tool Room And Trining Center ... on 25 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2506-DB
WA No. 200005 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200005 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
GURUBASAPPA S/O ADAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: INSTRUCTOR IN GTTC LINGASUGUR,
R/AT POST KALLI-LINGASUGUR,
TALUKA: LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT: RAICHUR - 584122.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V. K. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. GOVERNMENT TOOL ROOM AND
KARNATAKA TRINING CENTER,
(AN AUTONOMOUS BODY),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
RAJAJI NAGAR,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BENGALURU-560010.
2. SRI. SRINIVAS PUJARI
S/O THIMMANNA P.,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NIL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2506-DB
WA No. 200005 of 2024
R/o GANDHI NAGAR SINDHANOOR,
NEAR VSVN SCHOOL,
TALUKA SINDHANOOR,
DISTRICT:RAICHUR-584122.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 20.07.2023 IN WRIT PETITION
NO.202292/2022 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF FINAL
SELECTION LIST BEARING NO.GTTC/AADALIT/A.P/E.GRE-
1/2022-23 DATED 01.07.2022 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H, ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO
APPOINT THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE POST OF
'INSTRUCTOR GRADE-I' FOR HK REGION IN G.T.T.C. CENTERS
SITUATED HK REGION, ETC..
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
K V ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2506-DB
WA No. 200005 of 2024
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal by the appellant/petitioner under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act impugning the judgment in W.P.No.202292/2022 dated 20.07.2023.
2. Brief facts relevant are, the first respondent invited applications to fill up posts from eligible Hyderabad Karnataka region candidates for various GTCC centers situated in Hyderabad Karnataka region under local cadre as per Article 371J of the Constitution of India. The appellant applied to the post of Instructor, Grade-I in category-I. The appellant was eligible for written test. The appellant was further eligible in the final eligibility list issued by the first respondent. The appellant was invited to attend interview. In the final selection list the appellant was placed in the reserved category and the second respondent was selected under category-I. The appellant preferred the Writ Petition challenging the appointment of the second respondent and also the manner of selection -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2506-DB WA No. 200005 of 2024 process. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 20.07.2023 dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. Sri. V. K. Nayak, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the selection is governed by the GTTC (Cadre, Recruitment and Certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2000' for short]. In terms of Rules 2000, the number of candidates to be called for interview shall not be more than three times the number of posts notified, whereas in the present case five candidates have been called for interview, the selected candidate, the second respondent beyond the first three eligible candidates was not eligible to be called for interview. Hence, selection of the second respondent is contrary to the Rules 2000.
4. The learned counsel further submits that when two or more candidates secured equal number of marks as per the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 (for short, 'Rules 1977') the eligible three candidates should have been invited on the basis of their -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2506-DB WA No. 200005 of 2024 age, the person elder in the age is to be preferred. The second respondent being younger to the appellant was not eligible to be called for interview and hence selection of the second respondent is contrary to the Rules. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the proviso to Rule 4(1) of Rules 1977 and Rule 6.1.9 of Rules 2000 while dismissing the Writ Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the appeal papers.
6. It is the specific case of the appellant that in terms of Rules 2000 the number of candidates called for interview shall not be more than three times the number of posts notified on the basis of the merits secured by them in the test conducted or qualifying examination. It is contended by the appellant that two candidates have secured 56 marks and three candidates have secured 55 marks. The appellant has secured 56 marks. The respondent No.2 secured 55 marks. The first respondent -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2506-DB WA No. 200005 of 2024 has invited five candidates for the interview in terms of proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules 1977. Out of the three candidates who have secured 55 marks only one person was eligible to be called for interview on the basis of the age. If one person was called among three candidates who have secured 55 marks on the basis of the age as per proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules 1977 the second respondent was not eligible to be called for interview.
7. The learned Single Judge considering the contention raised by the appellant/petitioner held that the first respondent has called two candidates who have secured 56 marks and the next highest marks of the candidate to be called for interview was 55. Three candidates having secured 55 marks, in the absence of any specific proviso to priortise among the candidates having secured equal marks under Rules 2000, to avoid discrimination among the said candidates, all the three candidates have been interviewed. It is further held that Rules 2000 has not provided to select one candidate when -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2506-DB WA No. 200005 of 2024 two or more candidates have secure equal number of marks. The learned Single Judge has further held that when Rules 2000 are silent on applicability of proviso to Rule 4 (1) of Rules 1977, the said proviso cannot be applied to Rules 2000.
8. Apart from the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, we have examined the proviso to Rule 4 (1) of Rules 1977. As per the proviso, if two or more candidates have secured equal marks in the qualifying exam, the order of merit in respect of such candidate shall be fixed on basis of their age, the person or the persons in age being older in the order of merit. In view of unambiguous language of proviso, the same cannot be applied to choose the candidates to be called for interview. In other words the said proviso deals with situation post selection and to fix the seniority as per the merit.
9. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge in the absence of any specific Rule in Rules 2000 adopting Rule 4 of Rules 1977 being made applicable to Rules 2000, -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:2506-DB WA No. 200005 of 2024 the proviso to Rule 4 of Rules 1977 cannot be made applicable for recruitment process as per Rules 2000.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit. Dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, same stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT;BN