Karnataka High Court
Smt Suma C C vs Karnataka Examinations Authority on 29 June, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.44784 OF 2019(S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT SUMA C.C,
W/O SRI.RUDRESH H.E.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
HYARGUDDY VILLAGE,
BETTAGERE POST MUDIGERE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 132.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 012
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PUC EDUCATION,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2
3. DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
4. SMT. RUKMINI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.196 142,
RAGHAVA NILAYA,
NEAR WATER TANK, SHIVANAGAR,
NORTH BIDAR 585 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.K RAMESH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI.B.RAJENDRA PRASAD.,HCGP FOR R2 AND R3,
SRI. G. NATARAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR R4)
------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RELEVANT RECORDS IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO.4742/2019,
DATED 13.08.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND
QUASH THE APPLICATION NO.4742/2019 DATED 13.08.2019
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE, (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE SAID
APPLICATION VIDE ANENXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, P.N DESAI. J, PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed praying to quash the order dated 13.08.2019 passed in Application No.4742/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal(for short hereinafter 3 referred as 'Tribunal'), Bengaluru, wherein the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected.
2. In brief, the contention of the petitioner is that she is a B.Ed degree holder and Post Graduate in Master of Arts in History subject. The second respondent issued notification dated 08.05.2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the posts of Lecturers in the Government Pre-University Colleges situated in Karnataka for various subjects. Accordingly, the petitioner being eligible also applied for the same through online on 13.06.2015. However, as the second respondent could not complete the process of selection, it issued a revised notification on 03.06.2017 again inviting applications. It is stated in the revised notification that the applicants who had applied pursuant to earlier notification dated 08.05.2015 need not apply again.
3. It is contended that the petitioner belongs to '3A' Women category and is also eligible as a rural Kannada medium candidate. As petitioner belonged to 'Vokkaliga' 4 caste, she applied for the said post under the '3A' category. Thereafter, the first respondent notified the list of eligible candidates in the ratio of 1:2. The name of the petitioner was found at Sl.No.67 under '3A' women, Rural and Kannada medium category candidates. The petitioner was asked to produce the original documents for scrutiny which was scheduled between 15.07.2019 to 20.07.2019 for the post of lecturer in History subject. The petitioner appeared and produced marks card and certificates showing that she had studied in Kannada medium. The petitioner has also produced income and caste certificate showing that she belongs to '3A' category and latest '3A' category caste certificate that was obtained by her in the year 2019 was also produced. But the respondent refused to accept the certificate of '3A' category stating that the income and caste certificate obtained by her is dated 29.10.2009, so it does not have validity. The income and caste certificate are also dated 19.06.2019. It is stated by the respondent authorities that unless she produce the income and caste certificate which had validity during the year 2015, 5 her application cannot be considered under '3A' category. This has resulted in petitioner losing an opportunity for her appointment to the said post.
4. The petitioner approached the tribunal aggrieved by the refusal of her appointment by filing an application. The tribunal also dismissed her application. Hence, this petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned HCGP Sri. B. Rajendraprasad for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri. G. Nataraj, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Respondent State has filed objections.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of candidature by the respondents is illegal. The tribunal without verifying the material, has wrongly rejected the application. Learned counsel also stated that in identical set of facts, the tribunal in application No.11679/2016 dated 28.07.2017 passed an order allowing the application therein where the selection was under '2B' category. Even in the provisional list, a person who has obtained less number of 6 marks was appointed under '3A' women category for the post of the lecturer. Learned counsel also argued that there is no dispute that the petitioner belongs to 'Vokkaliga' caste by birth and that it falls under '3A' category. Therefore, denial of opportunity amounts to denial of right guaranteed under Article 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Constitution of India. As on the date of verification of the documents, the petitioner had produced documents to show that she belongs to '3A' category. It is also relevant to note, that the documents that the petitioner belongs to Rural category are produced at Annexures-A14 to A19 which are issued by the competent authority. Learned counsel also argued that the appointment was issued to a candidate who has secured less number of marks than the petitioner. Hence, urged to allow the petition as prayed.
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM KUMAR GIJROYA v. DELHI SUBORDINATE 7 SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754.
8. Learned HCGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3 justified the impugned order of tribunal and argued that as petitioner has not followed the instructions issued in the notification for appointment, the impugned order is just and correct. Learned HCGP also referred to the terms of instructions at Sl. Nos.3, 4 and 5 to the recruitment notification dated 08.05.2015. With these contentions, he justified the order of rejection of petitioner's appointment to the said post and prayed to reject the petition.
9. We have perused the records.
10. The point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the rejection of application by selection and appointment by the respondent No.1 to 2 to the said post on the ground that the required certificate in '3A' category were 8 produced are earlier to the date of notification or to subsequent date of notification?.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to '3A' category. Infact she had filed online application claiming '3A' category. She has also produced rural study certificate. She has produced caste certificate at-Annexure-A-12 dated 29.10.2009 to show that she belongs to '3A' category which was issued by the competent authority much prior to the date of notification. Said certificate is not denied. It shows she belongs to Vokkaliga by caste and her family income is Rs.80,000/-. Petitioner has also produced another subsequent caste certificate issued by competent authority dated 19.06.2019 which is at Annexure-A13. She has also produced Kannada medium certificate as per Annexure-17 issued by competent authority. Under such circumstances, the respondents' rejection of her candidature stating that certificate are not of the year of notification cannot be accepted.
9
12. This point need no longer detain us any further. The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of MS. RAMJANBEE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS passed in W.P.No.56370/2018(S-KAT) dated 30.06.2021, considered the said aspect and in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM KUMAR GIJROYA v. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 is also relied. At para 9, the co-ordinate bench held as under:-
"9. In a similar case relating to selection to the post of Assistant Professor in History, one Renuka had filed Application No.11680/2016 challenging non-inclusion of her name in the selection list dated 6.12.2016 on the ground that the Income and Caste Certificate produced by her at the time of making application was not valid; that since the subsequent certificate was obtained after the last date prescribed for receipt of applications, in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 85 that strict adherence to stipulated selection procedure is a necessity, certificate produced subsequent to the last date prescribed for receipt of applications cannot be accepted. But this Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAM KUMAR GIJROYA v. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754, 10 held that non-submission of a reserved (OBC) category certificate of the selected candidate within the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement cannot render a candidate ineligible for selection, as it would amount to denial of equality of opportunity contemplated under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the Constitution of India and allowed the application and the KEA was directed to include the name of the Applicant in the said selection list and to appoint the applicant pursuant to the said selection list. The KEA challenged the said 'order before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.49066/2017 (EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER) and connected cases. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 26.03.2018 has upheld the view taken by this Tribunal with regard to claim for reservation by the Applicant in the said Application, but so far as the direction to appoint the Applicant therein is concerned, the Hon'ble High Court has modified the said direction to read that the Government shall issue appointment order to the Applicant after issuance of Validity Certificate by the prescribed competent authority. Hence, a direction has to be issued to the KEA to consider the caste and income certificate produced by the Applicants in relation to income of their husband.'
13. Therefore, it is evident that non-submission of a reserved (OBC) category certificate of the selected candidate within the cut-off date cannot render a candidate ineligible for selection, as it would amount to denial of equality of 11 opportunity contemplated under Article 14, 15, 16 and 39 of the Constitution of India.
14. Therefore in view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya supra, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is stated that the private respondent who is selected under '3A' category in place of the petitioner has scored less number of marks than the petitioner and the private respondent has claimed reservation under Hyderabad-Karnataka Region category also. In the order of appointment issued to the private respondent, it is mentioned that her selection and appointment is subject to the result of this writ petition. It is stated that private respondent will also get an appointment in the said Hyderabad-Karnataka Region reserved category candidates. Therefore, the petitioner who by birth belongs to '3A' category and produced the caste certificate issued by competent authority even prior to the date of calling notification and also subsequent to inviting applications by the respondent No.2 for the post of lecturer is entitled for relief 12 sought for. Therefore, the order passed by the tribunal being arbitrary and illegal needs to be set aside.
Accordingly, we pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 13.08.2019 passed in application No.4742/2019 by the tribunal is hereby set-
aside.
(iii) The application filed by the petitioner in Application No.4742/2019 is allowed.
(iv) The respondents are directed to select the petitioner for the post of lecturer in History under '3A' category in women category in Non-
Hyderabad Karnataka Region based on her marks and in the said selection list issue the appointment order.
(v) Consequently, the appointment of respondent No.4 to the said post is set-aside. The respondent No.4 is otherwise eligible for appointment under other categories to the said post, the same could be considered by 13 respondent Nos.1 to 2 and in accordance with the notification and relevant rules.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-