Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Public Service Commission vs Sri Rajkumar S/O Sang Shetty on 5 September, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
WRIT PETITION NOs.9335-9338/2012 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Represented by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha
Bangalore - 560 001.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Reuben Jacob, Adv., for
M/s. Jacob Co.)
AND:
1. Sri. Rajkumar
S/o. Sang Shetty
Age: 28 years, Occ: Nil
R/o. Katak Chincholli
Tq. Bhalki, Dist.Bidar.
2. Sri. B.V. Hari Prakasha
S/o. Veera Kambhaiah
Age: 27 years, Occ: Nil
R/o. Post - Mathikere
Balenahalli Village
Tq. Magadi, Dist. Ramanagar
2
3. Sri. B.C. Mapi Gowda
S/o. Chandrahasa
Age: 37 years, Occ: Nil
R/o. Post - Ummadahalli
Bellundgere Village
Tq. Dist. Mandya
4. Sri. Sharanappa
S/o. Kanteppa
Age: 33 years, Occ: Nil
Tq. Humnabad
District Bidar.
5. State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Secretary
Horticulture Department
M.S. Building
Bangalore - 560 001. ...Respondents
(By Sri. R.A.Shiraguppi, Adv., for C/R.1 to R.4
Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde, HCGP, for R.5)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 02.01.2012 passed by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, in Application Nos.3139/2011
C/w. 3134/2011, 3141/2011 & 3152/2011 filed by the
R.1 to R.4 herein vide Annexure-c to the writ petition.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, N. Kumar J., made the following:-
ORDER
The Karnataka Public Service Commission has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed 3 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, permitting the applicants to appear for interview and directing the Selecting Authority to consider their performance in the interview and take further steps in the matter, within two months holding that the applicants, who possess PUC (Dip. in Voc) and had undergone successful 10 months training in Horticulture satisfied the requirement specified in the notification.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original application.
3. The applicants are candidates for the posts of Horticulture Assistants in pursuance of the notification dated 06.09.2010. The qualification prescribed for the post is PUC or equivalent qualification and the candidate must have under gone 10 months successful training in Horticulture conducted by the Horticulture Department. The 4 alternative qualification is that the candidate must possess JOC Certificate in Horticulture subject conducted by the Directorate of Vocational Education. All these applicants possess JOC Certificate Course in subjects other than Horticulture. They contended that PUC (JOC) is PUC prescribed as qualification for the post and they having the said qualification and 10 months successful training in Horticulture conducted by the Horticulture Department, they are eligible to apply for the said post. The Selecting Authority was of the opinion that PUC (Dip. in Vocational Education) cannot be considered as PUC prescribed in the Notification and since the Government had not declared PUC (Dip. in Vocational Education) as equivalent to PUC conducted by the Educational Universities, the applicants were not eligible to apply for the posts of Horticulture Assistant. Therefore, the applications were rejected. Challenging the said rejection, they filed applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Selecting Authority as well as the 5 Government contested the matter on the aforesaid grounds. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Narasimha Khataroth and Others' V. State of Karnataka and Others' in Writ Petiton No.29048/2002 and connected cases, decided on 28th November, 2002, held that the qualification prescribed in the notification that the candidate shall possess PUC amounts to candidate possessing qualification above SSLC and shall be qualified to be admitted to degree courses like B.A./B.com/B.Sc. and consequently, held that the stand of the Selecting Authority is not legal and therefore, they allowed the applications and issued aforesaid directions. Aggrieved by the said order, these petitions are filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contended that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which was followed by the Tribunal in Lingaraj's case, has no application to the facts of this case. In the judgment of 6 the Division Bench relying on Entry 66 of the Recruitment Rules, it was held that what is defined in the General Recruitment Rules is equivalent qualification, wherein, the term used in Entry 66 of the Recruitment Rules, is equivalent examination. The contention that the State Government has to notify P.U.C. (Dip. in VOC) conducted by the State Council of the Vocational Education is equivalent to P.U.C. conducted by the Department of Pre-University Education, was not required. But in the instant case, it is clear from the Rules governing the selection process, the words used are; "must have passed PUC examination or possess equivalent qualification".
5. It is only the Government by virtue of Rule 2(1) (h) of the General Recruitment Rules, is vested with the power to declare a qualification to be an equivalent qualification. It is not in dispute that the Government has not declared the qualification of PUC as equivalent 7 to PUC (Dip. in VOC or JOC) and therefore, he submitted that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case and the Tribunal committed error in not holding that the applicant had not passed PUC or possessed equivalent qualification and granting relief to the applicant.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in the aforesaid case the Division Bench of this Court has held that PUC examination includes not only the Pre-university courses conducted by the Department of Pre-university Education, but it also includes JOC Pre-university Diploma Courses known as PUC (Dip. in VOC or JOC) conducted by the State Council of Vocational Education and Directorate of Vocational Education. Both are two years Pre-university Courses. Therefore, it is not a case of applicants possessing equivalent qualification. It is the case of applicants, having passed PUC examination. 8 Therefore, he submits that no case for interference is made out.
7. In the light of what is stated above and the rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration is';
"Whether the applicants in the instant case have passed PUC examination or possessed equivalent qualification?"
8. In Narsimha Khataroth's case this Court formulated two points for consideration. They are;
1) Whether the candidates who have passed two years' Job Oriented Pre-University Course (Dip. in Voc) and TCH can be staid to have passed "PUC & TCH examination or equivalent examination" which is the educational qualification prescribed for the posts of Primary School Assistant Masters under Entry No.66 of the Schedule to the recruitment rules?"
2) Whether the JOC, that is PUC (DIP-in-VOC) conducted by the Karnataka State Council of Vocational Training and Directorate of 9 Vocational Education is equivalent to PUC conducted by the Department of Pre-
University Education.
9. Answering the first point, this Court has held as under;
" The term "PUC" is an abbreviation for 'Pre- University Course'. It is not in dispute that the State Government conducts two Pre University Courses. The first is the Pre-
University Course conducted by the Department of Pre-University Education. The second is the Job Oriented Pre-University Diploma Course [known as PUC (Diploma in VOC) or JOC] conducted by the State Council of Vocational Education and Directorate of Vocational Education. Both are two years Pre- University Courses. Entry No.66 of the Recruitment Rules prescribing the Educational qualification requires that the candidate should have passed PUC. It does not state that the candidates must have passed PUC conducted by the Department of Pre-
University Education".
10
7. It is no doubt true that the Pre-
University Course conducted by the Department of Pre-University Education, is referred to as PUC. But JOC is also known as "PUC (Dip.-in-VOC)". The certificate issued by the State Council of Vocational Education and Directorate of Vocational Education to candidates who have passed the Job Oriented two years Per-University Diploma Course clearly certifY that the Job Oriented Pre- University Diploma is awarded with the privilege to use the title "PUC (Dip.-in-VOC)". Therefore, unless otherwise specified or excluded, Job Oriented course is also a Pre- University Course; and where the educational qualification prescribed for a post is "PUC" and not "PUC" conducted by Department Education", it is not possible to exclude candidates who has passed PUC (Dip-in-VOC) course conducted by State Council of Vocational Education and Directorate of Vocational Education.
10. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the word 'PUC' includes Pre-University Course conducted by Department of Pre-University Education 11 and also the Job Oriented Pre-University Diploma Course [known as PUC (Dip. in VOC) or JOC] conducted by the State Council of Vocational Education and Directorate of Vocational Education. Both are two years Pre-University Courses. Therefore, in the instant case the qualification prescribed is; 'must have passed PUC examination'. The applicants, who have passed the JOC, have passed the PUC examination. Unfortunately, the Selecting Authority was of the view that they are claiming the qualification that they possess as an equivalent qualification with PUC and therefore, it was of the view that unless the Government issues a notification declaring the equivalency, they cannot act upon them. They failed to notice that the first qualification prescribed i.e., 'must have passed PUC examination' is satisfied by the applicants. That is the error committed by the Selecting Authority, and therefore, they were not justified in rejecting the applications filed by the applicants who had passed 12 PUC examination. The said error has been corrected by the Tribunal.
11. This is also clear from the qualification prescribed under the rules, which reads as under;
1) must have passed PUC examination or possess equivalent qualification and must have undergone successful 10 months training in Horticulture conducted by the Horticulture Department;
Or
2) must possess Job Oriented Course certificate in horticulture subject conducted by the Directorate of Vocational Education.
12. A reading of the aforesaid qualification for the post distinguishes between the Job Oriented Course certificate in Horticulture subject conducted by the Directorate of Vocational Education and any other certificates. If a candidate possess Job Oriented Course certificate in Horticulture subject, without anything more is eligible to be appointed for the said post. But, the person, who has passed PUC examination, which 13 includes Pre-University examination conducted by the Department of Pre-University Education as well as Job Oriented Pre-University Diploma Course conducted by the State Council of Vocational Education and Directorate of Vocational Education in the subject of horticulture are put on par. In addition to that, there may be other examination passed, which is declared to be an equivalent qualification by the Government. In all these cases, passing PUC examination or acquiring equivalent qualification is not sufficient, in addition to that, they must have undergone successful ten months training in Horticulture conducted by the Horticulture Department. Therefore, the persons, who have passed PUC examination conducted by these two authorities, are placed on par and unless they completed ten months training in Horticulture, they are not eligible. If candidates, who have completed Job Oriented Course with Horticulture subject are preferred straight away. The intention is clear. The Selecting Authority has missed the substance of the qualification prescribed 14 for being eligible to be appointed to the said post. Therefore, we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal. No case for interference is made out. Hence it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SA