Karnataka High Court
Dr. Nagaveni D/O Shivasharanappa vs The Addl. Chief Secretary To The ... on 23 September, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7226
WP No. 202160 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 202160 OF 2019 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
DR. NAGAVENI D/O SHIVASHARANAPPA,
W/O MALLIKARJUN, AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SEVALAL NAGAR,
TAJ NAGAR ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585104
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR TO THE GOVERNMENT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
KARNATAKA
ROOM NO. 611, 6TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
(AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF GOVT. KARNATAKA),
BIDAR-585401.
3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
AND MEMBER SECRETARY-SELECTION COMMITTEE,
BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, BIDAR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7226
WP No. 202160 of 2019
(AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF GOVT. KARNATAKA),
BIDAR-585401
4. SHIVAKUMAR S/O RAMACHANDRA SANGAN,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST,
R/O KALAGURTI, TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI,
AT PRESENT DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRIC,
BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,
BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4;
NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION ARTICLE
226 AND 3227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
THAT ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO APPOINTMENT OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING
NO.©ÃªÉÊ«¸ÀA/¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ/£ÉêÀÄPÁw/¹§âA¢-1 ¹Dgï/17-18/1246 DATED
12.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-T AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTED THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO SELECT AND APPOINT THE
PETITIONER AS CLINIC PSYCHOLOGIST UNDER CATEGORY-
SC/HK/OTHERS PURSUANT TO RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION
BEARING NO.BRIMS/WI/EST-1/CR-REC-1/2017-18 DATED
18.09.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7226
WP No. 202160 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) The petitioner is challenging the order by which the fourth respondent was appointed as a Clinical Psychologist.
2. The Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences issued a notification calling for applications for recruiting Professors, Associate Professors and Senior Residents for various disciplines. One post for which applications are called for was for the post of Clinical Psychologist. The notification stipulated a criteria for drawing up the merit list for Clinical Psychologist, which reads as under :
"IV. Criteria for drawing up the merit list for clinical psychologist :
The method of recruitment shall be on the basis of merit. The merit list shall be prepared by adding 85% of the aggregate marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the marks obtained in the interview conducted by the selection committee. The maximum marks in the interview shall be fifteen (15) and shall be distributed as follows :
a) Higher Qualification (Ph.D.) - 4 marks. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7226 WP No. 202160 of 2019
b) Gold Medal in Qualifying exam - 1 Marks.
c) Experience in BRIMS or any other Autonomous Govt. Institute (Half Mark for Each year) - Max. 05 marks.
d) Personality/Presentation in the Interview 05 Marks."
3. The petitioner was an applicant and so also was the fourth respondent. A merit list was prepared on the basis of proceedings conducted by the Selection Committee in which it found that the petitioner had been awarded 64.49 marks by the Selection Committee and the fourth respondent had awarded 64.53 marks by the same Selection Committee.
4. The relevant columns relating to the petitioner and the fourth respondent are stated herewith for easy reference of the controversy :-
Selection committee Date of Birth Qualification Percentage Category HK/NHK Gender Sl. Name of CAO, BRIMS Bidar Grand Total 85+15 I/c Direcotr, GIMS, Average of 1, 2, 3, No candidates Director, BRIMS, Bidar (Max-15%) Qualifying exam Principal GIMS, 85% aggregate Subject Expert (MAx -15%) (MAx-15%) Gulbarga Gulbarga 4, 5, 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 xxx
2. Shivkumar MA Psy M 08.08.1994 SC HK 61.25 52.06 12.5 12.5 15.6 12.25 12.5 12.47 64.53
3. xxx
4. Nagaveni MA Psy F 10.08.1982 SC HK 72.35 61.49 03 03 03 03 03 3 64.49 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7226 WP No. 202160 of 2019
5. As could be seen from the above, the fourth respondent was granted 12.5, 12.5, 12.6, 12.25 and 12.5 and had thereby secured an average of 12.47 marks, whereas the petitioner was awarded only 03 marks by all the Members. It may also be pertinent to notice here that the petitioner had secured 72.35 marks in the qualifying exam as compared to 61.25 marks secured by the fourth respondent.
6. As already extracted above, in order to prepare to draw up the merit list, the manner in which the marks are to be acquired to the candidates is also spelt out in the notification. It is only if an applicant is secured a P.Dh. can he or she be granted 04 marks. Similarly, only if the applicant had secured a Gold Medal, he or she can be awarded 01 marks.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Institute was directed to produce the application filed by the fourth respondent to verify whether the fourth respondent had indicated in his application that he possessed a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) degree as on the date of the application, and whether he had indicated that he was a recipient of a Gold -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7226 WP No. 202160 of 2019 Medal. The application produced by the fourth respondent indicates that he had only the following qualification :
17. Details of the qualification Sl. Year of Name of Name of Qualification Marks Percentage No. passing college University 1 MA 1225 61.25% June- Gulbarga Gulbarga 2012 University University
8. The application does not indicate that he was the recipient of a Gold Medal. In fact, when queried, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent admitted that the fourth respondent had not secured a Gold Medal and was studying to acquire a Ph.D., as on the date of the notification. It is therefore clear that if the fourth respondent did not possess a Ph.D. degree as on the date of the application and did not have a Gold Medal, out of the 15 marks ear mark for being awarded in an interview, it is obvious that the petitioner could not be awarded 05 marks because he neither possessed a Ph.D. degree nor a Gold Medal. In other words, in such a situation, the maximum possible marks that could have been awarded by Selection Committee was only 10. However, the Selection Committee has very strangely awarded 12.½ marks on an -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7226 WP No. 202160 of 2019 average, as against the maximum possible 10 marks that the fourth respondent could have secured.
9. It may also be pertinent state that out of he 15 marks that could be awarded by the Committee, 10 marks could have been awarded if the candidate had a Ph.D., a Gold Medal or had experience in BRIMS or other autonomous orginsation. The Committee, in fact, could at best 5 marks for a candidate's performance on the basis of personality or presentation.
10. In other words, out of the 13 marks, 10 marks could be awarded only if the candidate possessed the three specific qualification and a maximum of 5 marks only could be awarded for the performance in the interview.
11. As noticed above, as against the maximum of 5 marks that could have been granted by the Committee, an impossible sum of 12.5 marks have been awarded, which is clearly impermissible.
12. It is therefore clear that the Selection Committee went beyond the terms of the recruitment notification and has awarded marks to the fourth respondent which he did not -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7226 WP No. 202160 of 2019 obviously deserve and this has resulted in a wrongful appointment having been made. The appointment of the fourth respondent is accordingly quashed.
13. It is also noticed that as per the provisional merit list, the next most meritorious candidate was the petitioner having secured 64.49. If the marks awarded to the fourth respondent is eschewed and it is assumed that he was given 10 marks by all the five members of Selection Committee, even then, he would be entitled to only 62.53 as against 64.03 and this would result in the petitioner being more meritorious having secured 64.49. Since the petitioner would be the most meritorious candidate even as per the marks awarded by the Selection Committee, a direction had been issued to the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as a Clinical Psychologist in the place of the fourth respondent.
14. Petition accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13