Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Public Service ... vs Sri. Ananda Kumar on 25 November, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47976-DB
WP No. 17097 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 17097 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAPPANNAVAR BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ANANDA KUMAR
S/O. VENKATESH,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
NANDINI R R/AT KACHANAHALLI, BUDIHAL POST,
Location: High NELAMANGALA TALUK,
Court of BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
Karnataka
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
TTMC BUILDING,SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47976-DB
WP No. 17097 of 2024
4. SRI. RAYAGOND
S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
DANDOTI, HEROOR B,KALABURGI-588 265.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R2 AND R3
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
12/03/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION
NO.4584/2023 AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) The State Public Service Commission is grieving before the Writ Court against State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 12.03.2024 whereby 1st respondent Application No.4584/2023 having been favoured the relief is structured at para 11 as under:
"11. In the matter of the applicant and the fourth respondent, the Application succeeds. The impugned order dated 30-08- 2023 as at Annexure-A5 to the extent it relates to the selection allocation of fourth respondent to Bangalore Urban under GM category quota is -3- NC: 2024:KHC:47976-DB WP No. 17097 of 2024 untenable and is set aside. The applicants selection and allocation to Kolar is set aside and the applicant shall stand selected and allocated to Bangalore Urban in the vacancy of the applicant with regard to the his merit. Revised orders in order of merit in respect of Bangalore Urban including the Applicant shall issue from the third Respondent within fifteen days from the date of this order."
2. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to falter impugned order of the Tribunal by placing reliance on the Karnataka Civil Services (Ministerial Post Recruitments) Rules, 1978. He argues that the additional list of 10% is prepared for the consolidated classification of the posts notified in the Recruitment Notification dated 28.02.2017; the additional select list is prepared and published according to the marks obtained by the candidates and as per Form 7 received from the District Authorities; the amendment vide Notification dated 27.02.1992 made to Rule 10 is offended by the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as this amendment specifically provides for the preparation of additional list dated 30.08.2023 under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 in accordance with the requisitions received from the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:47976-DB WP No. 17097 of 2024 different appointing authorities; this very amendment provides that the candidates in the additional list shall be assigned to each appointing authority in the chronological order in which requisitions are received by the Commission. So arguing he seeks invalidation of Tribunal's order.
3. Having heard the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the official respondents and also having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning on which the Tribunal has structured the impugned order. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons at paragraphs 8 & 9 of its order which read as under:
"8. Both the applicants are in the Additional list which is a common list for all districts and the vacancies from all the districts arising out of non- joining of candidates from the final select list are to be selected from the Additional list. The allocation to districts based on the consolidation of Form 7 received from all the districts sent by the Department in a consolidated manner or which is to be consolidated at the KPSC end based on the various categories in various districts for which selection is sought. Thereafter the allocation has to -5- NC: 2024:KHC:47976-DB WP No. 17097 of 2024 follow the order of merit in the Additional list, with candidates placed higher in the list having being allocated to the vacancy in the district considered in the order of their preferences. Thus, in the turn of the applicant if there is a vacancy in Bangalore Rural in the GM-Other category which is his highest preference, he ought to be allocated to that vacancy, if not he shall be allocated to the next vacancy in the district in order of his preference. The consideration does not end there. If the applicant is entitled to be allocated to his higher preference district with the benefit of reservation for which there is a vacancy in that reservation category then he ought to be given the benefit of reservation as well. ... These considerations shall be done in respect of vacancies for all the reservation categories to which the applicant can be allocated and he shall be allocated to the district with regard to the vacancy in his higher preference district as the case may be. ....
9. In the present case, it is seen that the applicant has been allocated to Kolar when in his turn he could be allocated to GM-Other reservation vacancy in Bangalore Urban. It is also seen that the fourth respondent has been allocated to GM/3B when he is not at all entitled to be allocated to the district under the said reservation category but only under 3B/KMS reservation category ie only for 3B-Other or 3B-KMS categories and not for GM reservation category. Therefore, the allocation of the fourth respondent can be faulted on this ground also. Indeed, the entire allocation process in which the allocation to the districts has not followed the merit principle in the Additional list that is binding on the third respondent is intriguing and indeed rather unfortunate. The allocation to districts without considering the vacancies with regard to reservation is untenable and a negation of the principle of merit by the respondent KPSC."
We are broadly in agreement with the above observations. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:47976-DB WP No. 17097 of 2024 In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly rejected.
The Registry shall send a copy of this order to Respondent Nos. 1 & 4 by Speed Post, for their file.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE VS/snb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17