Suma B vs The Chairman on 17 April, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Suma B vs The Chairman on 17 April, 2018

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION Nos.51947-51948/2016 (S-Res)

BETWEEN :

1.   Suma B.
     W/o.M.K.Vijayakumar,
     Aged about 50 years,
     R/a Building No.146,
     House NO.16, 1st Floor,
     KHB Colony, K.S.town,
     Kengeri, Bangalore - 560 060.

2.   Shivanna,
     S/o.Late Kariappa,
     Aged about 51 years,
     R/a No.25, 21-B Cross,
     MRS Layout, Sunkadakatte,
     Bangalore - 560 091.            ...Petitioners

     (By Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, Adv.)

AND :

1.   The Chairman,
     Karnataka Power Transmission
     Corporation Limited,
     Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road,
     Bangalore - 560 009.

2.   The Managing Director,
     Karnataka Power Transmission
     Corporation Limited,
                           -2-


     Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road,
     Bangalore - 560 009.

3.   The Director (Admn. & HR)
     Karnataka Power Transmission
     Corporation Limited,
     Cauvery Bhavan, K.G.Road,
     Bangalore - 560 009.         ...Respondents

     (By Smt.Padma S. Uttur, Adv. for R3)
                     . . . .
      These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash
the impugned notification dated 08.09.2016 issued by
the respondent No.3 vide Annexure 'G' to the writ
petition insofar as non-consideration of preference to
the apprentices trained by them is concerned and etc.

      These writ petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:

                       ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court assailing the notification dated 08.09.2016 impugned at Annexure 'G' to the petition. The petitioners are seeking that the respondents be directed to give preference to the petitioners in the present recruitment for the posts of Clerk/Junior Assistants and consider their candidature for employment in the light of the notification dated 13.03.1997.

-3-

2. The case of the petitioners is that they have undergone Apprenticeship training with the respondent

- Corporation. In that light they contend that this Court in the earlier writ petition had considered the preference to be given to the persons who have completed the Apprenticeship training, through the order dated 19.08.1997 in W.P. No.21894/1997. It is also contended that even otherwise as per the notification dated 13.03.1997 of the respondents, other things being equal, a trained Apprentice should be given preference. The contention presently put forth is that in the employment notification dated 08.09.2016, no such indication is made and therefore the petitioners would not be in a position to participate in the said recruitment process despite they having undergone the apprenticeship training. It is in that light the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the relief as noticed above.

3. Though on the aspect relating to the person who has undergone Apprenticeship training being given -4- preference on other things being equal, there is no serious dispute, the learned counsel for the respondents would at the outset point out that the petitioners were even otherwise not qualified to respond to the notification dated 08.09.2016 since the petitioners have exceeded the age criteria as provided therein. Therefore, in the circumstance when they are not even qualified to apply, considering the case of the petitioners to provide the weightage of Apprenticeship training does not arise. Having taken note of this aspect and on taking into consideration the age of the petitioners as depicted in the very petitions filed by them, any further consideration herein would not arise.

Accordingly, these petitions being devoid of merits stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court