Karnataka High Court
Kum. Banashri vs The Mangalore Electricity on 28 February, 2023
-1-
WP No. 14265 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14265 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KUM. BANASHRI
D/O SHANKAR PUJAR
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
by SUSHMA RESIDING AT NO. 2774
LAKSHMI B S SAIKRUPA, NEAR MAMADI GARADI
Location: HIGH MALPE POST
COURT OF UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 108.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRUPESH.M.D, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PADMANABHA.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
CORPORATE OFFICE
PARADIGM PLAZA
A.V.SHETTY CIRCLE
MANGALORE - 575 001.
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS;
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.Pra.Vya(Aa)/Sa.Pra/Vya (C)Le.(P)/Hisa/18-19/2683 DATED
24.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED AT SL.NO.18 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SELECT AND APPOINT
THE PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT UNDER 2A-W CATEGORY WITH
RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
FOR WHICH SHE IS ENTITLED TO AS PER LAW IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 14265 of 2019
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is belonging to Billava Community which has been categorized as IIA by the State Government. Pursuant to the notification dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-A), petitioner has made an application to the respondent / Corporation seeking appointment to the post of "Assistant". It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is meritorious, however, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the selection list issued on 09.11.2017 and accordingly, the petitioner has presented this writ petition challenging the notification dated 24.11.2018 (Annexure-F).
2. I have heard learned counsel Shri Krupesh M.D., appearing on behalf of Shri Padmanabha.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being qualified and meritorious candidature for the post of "Assistant", as notified in the notification dated -3- WP No. 14265 of 2019 08.01.2016 (Annexure-A), however, appointment of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the relevant caste certificate at the time of filing of the application. Accordingly, petitioner has sought for interference of this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / Corporation submitted that the petitioner is duty bound to enclose all the relevant documents and accordingly, he invited the attention of the Court to the terms and conditions stipulated in the notification dated 08.01.2016 and further submitted that the petitioner has submitted the caste certificate after the selection process is completed and therefore, he contended that, the writ petition does not survive for consideration.
5. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the notification dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-A), wherein the terms and conditions at paragraph No.10(e) reads as under:
C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀ×À eÁw, ¥Àj²µÀ×À ¥ÀAUÀq,À ¥Àª æ U À I, IIA, À ð IIB, IIIA ªÀÄvÀÄÛ IIIB AiÀÄ°è£À «ÄøÀ¯ÁwUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÀÄvÀ¼À «ÄøÀ¯ÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, Cfð ¸À°¸ è ® À Ä ¤UÀ¢¥ ü r À ¹gÀĪÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ -4- WP No. 14265 of 2019 ¢£ÁAPÀzA À zÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀz°è ZÁ°ÀA Û iÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ««zsÀ DzÉñÀU¼ À ° À £ è À ªÀiÁ£ÀzA À qªÀ£ÀÄßÀ w½¢gÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ .
A perusal of the said clause enclosed along with the notification dated 08.01.2016 would indicate that the candidates, requiring the benefit under the respective category are bound to produce the caste certificate at the time of filing of the application seeking appointment under the particular post.
6. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner herein, admittedly, has not filed the relevant documents along with the application pursuant to the notification dated 08.01.2016 and in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited & Another v. H.L.Kaveri & Others1, the relevant portion reads thus:
"12. Under its advertisement dated 11-11-2013, it was specifically indicated that separate application should be submitted for each post accompanied with various requirements including qualification, experience, etc. and incomplete application, if any, is liable for rejection without assigning any reason. The first respondent applied for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant vide application dated 29-11- 1 (2020) 3 SCC 108 -5- WP No. 14265 of 2019 2013. After scrutiny of the applications, the select list of backlog vacancies was published on 16-1-2015 and it reveals from the record that impleaded third respondent in the writ petition (Smt Priyanka A. Chanchalkar) was provisionally selected as Senior Assistant securing 64.65% marks. At the same time, the first respondent secured 65.43% marks but since the first respondent failed to submit experience certificate along with the application form, her application at the stage of scrutiny itself was rejected.
13. The Corporation in IA No. 3457 of 2020 has indicated that total 31 applications for the post of Senior Assistant were rejected in view of not enclosing of self- attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicants for Senior Assistant against the single post of female (Scheduled Caste) which remain unfilled because of the orders of the Court. At the same time, the Corporation rejected 106 number of applications for the post of Junior Assistant for not enclosing the documents required including self-attested copies of experience certificate/caste certificate/ computer tally-certificate/graduation certificate/birth certificate, etc.
14. It remains undisputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of which reference has been made that the first respondent had not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms -6- WP No. 14265 of 2019 of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013 for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reasons which although was disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.
15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision- making process while rejecting the application of the first respondent for non-fulfillment of the necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013."
Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss