Karnataka High Court
B. Rajesh S/O Obayya vs The Prl. District And Sessions Judge on 31 October, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12745
WP No. 112724 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 112724 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAJESH B. S/O. OBAYYA B.
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/O: NO.136, SULADAHALLI,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583126.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-583126.
2. KANAKAPPA S/O. DURGAPPA,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/O: ADAVI BHAVI, POST: NEERALAKERI,
TQ: LINGASGURU, DIST: RAICHUR-584122.
...RESPONDENTS
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADV. FOR R2;
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SRI. D.L.LADKHAN, ADV. FOR R2)
SHELAR
Date: 2023.11.02
16:24:48 +0530 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS
COURT TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 16.07.2019 IN
NOTIFICATION NO.25/2019/ADM ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 IN SO FAR AS THE SELECTION OF 2ND RESPONDENT AT
SL.NO.9 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE
CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER AND TO SELECT THE PETITIONER
TO THE POST OF PEON UNDER ST RURAL CATEGORY.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12745
WP No. 112724 of 2019
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the notification dated 16.07.2019 appointing the 2nd respondent as peon. The appointment order is issued by the respondent No.1 pursuant to the selection process.
2. The petitioner who had applied for the said post is before this Court on the premise that he has scored more marks than the 2nd respondent. Thus he seeks writ of mandamus against the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of peon under Scheduled Tribe rural category.
3. In terms of notification dated 05.01.2019 the District and Sessions Judge, Ballary invited applications for recruitment of group 'D' employees. The requisite educational qualification prescribed for being called for interview is 7th standard or equivalent completion. Thereafter the eligible candidates will be interviewed and -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:12745 WP No. 112724 of 2019 based on the marks obtained as in the interview, the top scorers would be selected to the said post.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did possess basic qualification of completing 7th standard. In the interview he scored 7:30 marks out of 10, whereas the 2nd respondent has scored only 6 marks out of 10. Thus this being the position, the 2nd respondent could not have been appointed ignoring the merit of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel Sri.D.L.Ladkhan appearing for 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent has scored 7.50 marks out of 10 in the interview and he has scored 96% in 7th standard and this being the position he is more qualified than the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner has scored only 64.11% in 7th standard. Thus, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment, is the contention.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12745 WP No. 112724 of 2019
6. This Court has directed the 1st respondent to produce original records relating to the selection of personnel under the notification dated 05.01.2019. The original records are produced before this Court. On perusal of the original records, it is evident that the petitioner has scored 7.30 marks in the interview and the 2nd respondent has scored 6 marks in the interview.
7. On perusal of the original records, it is also evident that while finalizing the final list, the score of 2nd respondent in the interview is wrongly noted as 7.50 instead of 6 marks.
8. Though Sri.D.L.Ladkhan, would contend that the petitioner has only scored 64.11% in 7th standard, it is noticed from Annexure-R6 which is the copy of the marks register maintained by the School that the petitioner has scored 96% and it is noticed that during the period in which the petitioner completed 7th standard, examinations were held every trimester for 300 marks. Though, it is submitted by the 2nd respondent that Annexure-R6 is a -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:12745 WP No. 112724 of 2019 created document, no material is placed to disbelieve Annexure-R6. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has not cleared 7th standard. Moreover, the marks scored in 7th standard is irrelevant. What matters is only the marks scored in the interview. The basic requirement is that the applicant must have cleared 7th standard. Since the petitioner has scored more marks in the interview, the 1st respondent could not have appointed the 2nd respondent in the said post.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned appointment order, appointing 2nd respondent is illegal and the same is quashed. Since the petitioner has scored more marks, the petitioner be appointed to the said post of poen, within two months from the date of this order, subject to petitioner complying any other procedural formalities.
10. Though the petitioner is not entitled to salary from the date of appointment of the 2nd respondent, for all other service benefits like fixation of salary and seniority, -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:12745 WP No. 112724 of 2019 the petitioner's appointment is to be construed as the appointment from the date of appointment of 2nd respondent.
11. Since the 2nd respondent has served under the 1st respondent in terms of the appointment order issued by the 1st respondent, the service benefits accrued so far to the 2nd respondent shall not be disturbed and same shall be released in favour of the second respondent.
Writ petition is hereby allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30