Karnataka High Court
Sri Pramod Raj B vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2018
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1652 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI PRAMOD RAJ B
S/O. BASAVA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
MUNESHWARA NAGAR,
KOLAR - 563 101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGUPATHY K., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BENGALURU URBAN, BENGALURU RURAL
AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICTS CO-OPERATIVE
MILK PRODUCERS' SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,
DR. M. H. MARIGOWDA ROAD,
D. R. COLLEGE POST,
BANGALORE - 560 029. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JYOTI M., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI B. L. SANJEEV, ADV. A/W
SRI K. S. ABHIJITH, ADV. &
SRI SHRINIVAS B. S., ADV. FOR R-2)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR IN THE
INTERVIEW AS NOTIFIED IN THE INTERVIEW LETTER
DISPATCHED ON 18.12.2017 DATED 07.07.2017 [ANNEXURE-A]
AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO THE
POST OF TECHNICAL OFFICER [ENGINEERING] [COMPUTER
SCIENCE, ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS] AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr. Pramod Raj B., the petitioner, is aggrieved by the fact that in the interview held on 18.12.2017, he was denied the right to appear before the Interview Board.
2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the Managing Director, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagara Districts Co-operative Milk Producers' Society Union Limited, the respondent No.2, had issued a notification on 07.07.2017, for inviting applications for various posts. One of the posts for which the advertisement was issued, was the post of Technical Officer (Engineering), (Electronics & Communication/ Computer Science). Since the petitioner claims that he -3- was eligible for the said post, he applied for the same. According to the petitioner, he had obtained a degree in B.E. (Telecommunication) from the Visvesvaraya Technological University ('VTU' for short). After considering his application, on 22.10.2017, the admission ticket was duly issued to the petitioner for appearing in the written examination. The petitioner not only appeared in the written examination, but had also secured 128 marks. According to the petitioner, thus, he had secured the highest marks in the written examination conducted by the respondent No.2. Consequently, the petitioner was issued an interview letter intimating him to appear for the interview on 03.01.2018, along with the original documents. However, when he appeared for the interview on 03.01.2018, the respondent No.2 declined to interview him, and sent him back without conducting the interview. Hence, this petition before this Court. -4-
3. Mr. K. Raghupathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, according to the application form which had to be filled online, only a single option was given, namely, B.E. in Electronics & Communication/ Computer Science. Although the petitioner had done his B.E. in Telecommunication from the VTU, since there was no other option, the petitioner had to show himself as having done B.E. in Electronics & Communication.
Secondly, Telecommunication is part of Electronics & Communication. Therefore, someone who has done a B.E. in Telecommunication, is deemed to have done his B.E. in Electronics & Communication.
Thirdly, the Registrar of the VTU had issued a clarification dated 30.10.2013, clearly stating that B.E. in Telecommunication Engineering is an offshoot of the Electronics & Communication Branch. Thus, the -5- petitioner should have been considered as being eligible for the post of Technical Officer (Engineering). Therefore, the respondent No.2 was not legally justified in declining to interview the petitioner, especially when the petitioner had scored the highest marks in the written examination. In order to buttress his plea, the learned counsel has relied on the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. VS. SHAIK MAHIBULLA SHARIEF [(2017) 5 SCC 237].
4. On the other hand, Mr. B. L. Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has raised the following counter-contentions:-
Firstly, the respondent No.2 happens to be the Co- operative Milk Producers' Society which requires technical officers to deal with the electronic gadgets, which are employed in modern dairy operations.
Secondly, it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the necessary qualification for a post. In order to buttress his plea, the learned counsel has -6- relied on the case of P.M.LATHA & ANR. -VS- STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [(2013) 3 SCC 541], and on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION -VS- RAJESAB ONTI & ANR. [W.P.NO.27527/2016 & CONNECTED MATTERS DECIDED ON 20.07.2016].
Thirdly, there is a vast difference between Electronics & Communication, and Telecommunication. According to the learned counsel, Electronic Engineering, dealing with Electronics & Communication, is a discipline which utilizes nonlinear and active electrical components, such as semiconductor devices, especially transistors, diodes and integrated circuits. It also deals with designing electronic circuits, devices, microprocessors, microcontrollers and their systems. However, the field of Telecommunication, as the name implies, deals with long range communications. The field ranges from basic circuit design to strategic mass developments. A -7- Telecommunication Engineer is responsible for designing and overseeing the installation of telecommunications equipment and facilities, such as complex electronic switching systems, and other plain old telephone service facilities, optical fiber cabling, IP networks, and microwave transmission systems. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is a vast difference between the two fields.
Fourthly, since modern dairy plants do not deal with transmitting microwave signals over a long distance. But instead they deal with the extraction and processing of the dairy product, wherein electronic systems are required for specific functions which have to be maintained and replaced. Thus, a person with a degree in Telecommunication is ineligible for the post of Technical Officer (Engineering). In order to buttress his plea, the learned counsel has produced the extracts taken from wikipedia.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. -8-
6. In the case of P.M.LATHA & ANR. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that it is the prerogative of the employer to fix the qualification for a particular post, as it is a matter of recruitment policy to be decided by the employer. Similar view was also expressed by this Court in the case of RAJESAB ONTI (supra), wherein the learned Division Bench had clearly observed that, "it is now well-settled that, what should be the appropriate qualification for a particular post is the domain of the administration or the recruiting agency and the judicial scrutiny cannot be stretched for substituting its own reasons and decision in place of recruiting agency/employer who can be said as an expert body for requisite qualification to be decided for a particular post". Therefore, the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in dealing with a qualification, is an extremely narrow one. Since it is for the employer to consider the expertise required for a particular post, this Court cannot substitute its opinion in place of the employer's. For, -9- this Court neither sits as an Appellate Court in such matter, nor freedom at the joints can be denied to the employer by this Court. It is exclusively the domain of an employer to decide as to what qualifications are required for a particular post.
7. Undoubtedly, Electronics & Communication is a genus, wherein a course in Telecommunication is a species. But admittedly, the two fields are different from each other. While a degree in Electronics deals with the matters mentioned hereinabove, Telecommunication deals with ensuring that communication is available over a long distance. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that a B.E. in Telecommunication should be considered as being equivalent to B.E. in Electronics & Communications. Merely because the Registrar of the VTU has stated in his communication dated 30.10.2013, that Telecommunication Engineering is an offshoot of the Electronics & Communications branch,
- 10 -
the said communication does not clinch the issue. Firstly, this may be the view of the VTU, but such a view is not binding on respondent No.2. It is for the respondent No.2 to decide as to what qualifications are required for the post of Technical Officer. Secondly, considering the fact that dairy centre does not deal with telecommunication or communication over a long distance by installing microwave towers, but deals with extraction of dairy products, and the production of dairy products, the respondent No.2 would necessarily require technical officers who can maintain the electronic machinery employed by it. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is not bound by the opinion expressed by the Registrar of the VTU.
8. It is precisely because the two fields are different, that the respondent No.2 had not even given an option of B.E. in Telecommunication as a possible option for the post of Technical Officer in the application that had to be filled online. The respondent No.2 was
- 11 -
crystal clear that it requires a person with B.E. in Electronics & Communications, and not a candidate coming with the background of B.E. in Telecommunication. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that since there was no other option except B.E. in Electronics & Communications, therefore he had clicked on the said option.
9. Since, indeed, two fields are distinct and separate, since respondent No.2 needed candidates from the field of B.E. in Electronics & Communications, the respondent No.2 was well-justified in not interviewing the petitioner, as he did not fulfill the educational qualification required by the respondent No.2.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of SHAIK MAHIBULLA SHARIEF (supra). However, the said case is distinguishable on factual matrix. For, in the said case, the Government had considered the degree issued by the Open University as
- 12 -
being equivalent to any other degree issued by any other University. Therefore, the denial of an appointment on the ground that the respondent in the said case had the degree from an Open University, was held to be an illegal one. However, in the present case there is no evidence on record which proves the fact that the respondent No.2 has ever held a degree in B.E. (Telecommunication), to be equivalent to a degree in B.E. (Electronics & Communications). Therefore, the case of SHAIK MAHIBULLA SHARIEF (supra), does not support the case of the petitioner.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE RD