Priyadarshini M vs The Karnataka Power Transmission on 9 December, 2020

[Cites 14, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Priyadarshini M vs The Karnataka Power Transmission on 9 December, 2020

Bench: M. Nagaprasanna

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

        WRIT PETITION No.11819/2018 (S-RES)

BETWEEN

PRIYADARSHINI M
D/O. MAHADEVA M
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.24
MIG 2 KHB COLONY
T. NARASIPURA TOWN
TALUK - T. NARASIPURA
DIST - MYSORE
PINCODE - 571 124
                                     ... PETITIONER

[BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE
    (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

AND

1.    THE KARNATAKA POWER
      TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
      LIMITED
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
      KAVERI BHAVAN
      K.G. ROAD
      BENGALURU - 560 009
                           2



2.   THE CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
     SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED
     (CESC)
     MYSORE
     PINCODE - 570 005

3.   SMT. CHANDANA R
     D/O. RAMANJAUNE
     R/O JUNIOR ASSISTANT
     CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
     SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED
     (CES)
     SUB-DIVISION MADDUR
     MADDUR
     DISTRICT - MADDUR
     PINCODE - 571 428
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. PRASHANTH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. SRIRANGA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
    R3 - SERVED & UNREPRESNTED
    (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE
AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                      ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the notification dated 08.09.2016 calling for applications from eligible candidates to the various 3 posts including that of Assistant and Junior Assistant in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KPTCL' for short).

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that, the KPTCL called for applications in terms of its employment notification dated 08.09.2016 from all eligible candidates. The petitioner finding herself eligible to be considered for appointment for the post of Junior Assistant, applied to the said post on 08.09.2016 and also uploaded the documents concerning requisite qualification as obtaining in the employment notification dated 08.09.2016.

3. On scrutiny of the documents uploaded, the KPTCL prepared a list of candidates, who were eligible to be considered for appointment to the 4 respective posts that they had applied in terms of the notification and called them for document verification.

4. It is at the time of document verification, it was found that the petitioner did not posses the qualification that was required in terms of the notification for the post of Junior Assistant as the petitioner had completed PUC in Tamilnadu and the notification had mandated that a candidate, who has completed PUC in the State of Karnataka, would be eligible to apply. It is this Clause that is called in question by the petitioner contending that prescription of PUC from State of Karnataka alone is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Somashekar Kashimath, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel, Sri.Prashanth 5 Murthy for the learned counsel, Sri. Sriranga S., appearing for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prescription of PUC from the State of Karnataka for the post of Junior Assistant is arbitrary as any where in the country, the Pre-University Course Education is the same and has to be treated as equivalent and the candidature of the petitioner will have to be taken into consideration.

He would also place reliance upon a Circular issued by the State of Karnataka declaring that the SSLC and PUC studied in other States of the country to be equivalent and to be considered for employment in the State of Karnataka and he would further place reliance in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Kriti Lakhina Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2018 SC 1657.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - KPTCL would submit that it is for the employer to prescribe a particular qualification and not for the candidate, who seek the qualification that he possesses should be the suitable qualification contrary to the notification issued and would place reliance upon two judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Lata Arun reported in (2002) 6 SCC 252 and Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai and Others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 432.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

9. The requisite qualification in the employment notification dated 08.09.2016 insofar it 7 pertains to the appointment to the post of Junior Assistant reads as follows:

2. REQUISITE QUALIFICATION:

viii. Junior Assistant Should have PUC qualification or Diploma in Accountancy and Auditing or in Accountancy and Costing awarded by the State Council of Vocational Education, Government of Karnataka

10. In terms of the said qualification, a candidate who is applying to the post of Junior Assistant should have a PUC qualification or a Diploma in Accountancy and Costing awarded by the State Council of Vocational Education, from the Government of Karnataka. The purport of the said qualification is that the qualification possessed by a candidate who applies for the post of Junior Assistant should be acquired within the State of Karnataka.

11. The petitioner in terms of the notification applied to the said post notwithstanding the fact that she did not have a PUC qualification or a diploma as needed from the Government of Karnataka.

The certificates that the petitioner produced as a requisite qualification i.e., PUC was a certificated issued by the Government of Tamilnadu though the petitioner had completed her SSLC in Karnataka.

12. The respondents on a verification of documents submitted by the petitioner noticing the fact that the petitioner had studied PUC in Tamilnadu declined to accept the application of the petitioner solely on this score that the Pre-University Course that the petitioner had completed PUC, the requisite qualification, from Tamilnadu.

13. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 28.03.2018, has passed the following order:

" In the meanwhile, there shall be an interim order as under:-

The selection and appointment, if any made by the respondents to the posts of Assistant and Junior Assistant pursuant to the notification Annexure-A will be subject to final result of the writ petition. Respondents shall indicate in every appointment order to be issued in favour of the selected candidates in respect of the posts of Assistant and Junior Assistant that the said appointment will be subject to final result of the writ petition filed in W.P.No.11819/2018 pending on the file of this Court so that appointees will know that their appointments will be subject to result of the said writ petition and they may take steps to get themselves impleaded as additional 10 respondents in the said writ petition, if they so choose to do so."

(emphasis supplied)

14. Even before the aforesaid order was passed, appointment order was issued to one Smt. Chandana R., which became subject to the result of the writ petition. It is germane to notice that the both the petitioner and the third respondent -

Smt. Chandana R., belong to scheduled caste and they had applied under the quota reserved for SC in response to the impugned notification.

15. Petitioner is more meritorious than the third respondent in terms of marks secured by her in the written test conducted by the KPTCL. The marks secured by the petitioner is at 97.79682 which is more than that of the third respondent, who has secured 97.51610.

16. The petitioner though possess a PUC qualification from the State of Tamilnadu, the circumstances under which, such qualification is acquired by the petitioner in the State of Tamilnadu is required to be noticed as stated herein above. The petitioner completed her education upto 10th Standard in the State of Karnataka but did her PUC in the border State - Tamilnadu and has pleaded that she had to pursue her PUC in Tamilnadu due to family difficulties which forced her to attend a college at Tamilnadu and secure qualification of PUC.

17. It is also necessary to notice that the State Government has also notified a Circular on 27.02.2018, that 10th Standard and PUC qualification obtained from States outside the State of Karnataka are valid for taking up employment within the State of Karnataka. Though this Circular is issued on 27.02.2018, the order of appointment of the private 12 respondent was issued on 07.03.2018 long after the Circular was notified by the State Government. the KPTCL ought to have taken this fact into consideration while issuing appointment orders on 07.03.2018 as it was before the order of appointment being issued to the third respondent, which was on 07.03.2018 by the stroke of reasoning of a PUC outside Tamilnadu, the petitioner, who is more meritorious is denied appointment. On all the aforesaid facts, declining to grant appointment of the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner had completed her PUC in Tamilnadu is unreasonable. It is apposite to refer to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Vishal Goyal v State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 11 SCC 456, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

"10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the basis of the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Jain 13 case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] is Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees to every person equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. As explained by this Court in paras 12 and 13 of the judgment in Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 10 SCC 237] : (SCC pp. 244-45) "12. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to every person equality before law and equal protection of laws.

In Jagadish Saran v. Union of India [(1980) 2 SCC 768] , Krishna Iyer, J., writing the judgment on behalf of the three Judges referring to Article 14 of the Constitution held that equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitutional guarantee and therefore merit must be the test for selecting candidates, particularly in the higher levels of education like postgraduate medical courses, such as 14 MD. In the language of Krishna Iyer, J.:

(SCC pp. 778-79, para 23) '23. Flowing from the same stream of equalism is another limitation. The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure all the highest scales of speciality where the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by selecting according to capability. At the level of PhD, MD, or levels of higher proficiency, where international measure of talent is made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in-the-making is a national loss, the considerations we have expanded upon a important lose their potency. Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk.'

13. Relying on the aforesaid reasons in Jagadish Saran v. Union of India [(1980) 15 2 SCC 768] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] held that excellence cannot be compromised by any other consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS and the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of the nation and therefore reservation based on residential requirement in the State will affect the right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution...."

In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India [(2003) 11 SCC 186] and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [(2003) 11 SCC 146] also, this Court has approved the aforesaid view in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] that excellence cannot be compromised by any other consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses such as 16 MD/MS and the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of the

11. Mr Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [(2003) 11 SCC 146] this Court has held that institutional preference can be given by a State, but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri [(2003) 11 SCC 146] , it has also been held that decision of the State to give institutional preference can be invalidated by the court in the event it is shown that the decision of the State is ultra vires the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. When we examine sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, we find that the expression "A candidate of Karnataka origin" who only is eligible to appear for entrance test has been so defined as to exclude a candidate who has studied MBBS or BDS in an institution in the State of Karnataka but who does not satisfy the other requirements of sub-clause (a) of 17 Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. Thus, the institutional preference sought to be given by sub-

clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 is clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] .

12. To quote from para 22 of the judgment in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] :

(SCC p. 693) "22. ... a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university, may be given preference for admission to the postgraduate course in the same medical college or university...."

13. Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins does not actually give institutional preference to students who have passed MBBS or BDS from colleges or universities in the State of Karnataka, but makes some of them ineligible to take the entrance test for admission to postgraduate medical or dental courses in the State of Karnataka to which the Information Bulletins apply.

14. We now come to the argument of Mr Mariarputham that the scheme formulated by this Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College [(1986) 3 SCC 727] pursuant to the judgment in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] is confined to medical and dental colleges or institutions run by the Union of India or a State Government or a municipal or other local authority and does not apply to private medical and dental colleges or institutions. Para (1) of the scheme on which Mr Mariarputham 19 relied on is extracted hereinbelow: (Dinesh Kumar case [(1986) 3 SCC 727] , SCC p. 738, para 12) "(1) In the first place, the Scheme has necessarily to be confined to medical colleges or institutions run by the Union of India or a State Government or a municipal or other local authority. It cannot apply to private medical colleges or institutions unless they are instrumentality or agency of the State or opt to join the Scheme by making 15% of the total number of seats for the MBBS/BDS course and 25% of the total number of seats for the postgraduate courses, available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. Those medical colleges or institutions which we have already excepted from the operation of the judgment dated 22-6-1984 [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] will continue to remain outside the scope of the Scheme.

This Court has, thus, said in the aforesaid Para (1) of the scheme that the scheme cannot apply to private medical and dental colleges or institutions unless they are instrumentalities or agencies of the State or opt to join the scheme. The reason for this is that private medical and dental colleges or institutions not being State or its instrumentalities or its agencies were not subject to the equality clauses in Article 14 of the Constitution, but the moment some seats in the private medical and dental colleges or institutions come to the State quota, which have to be filled up by the State or its instrumentality or its agency which are subject to the equality clauses in Article 14 of the Constitution, the principles laid down by this Court in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] will have to be followed while granting admissions to the seats allotted to the State quota in postgraduate medical and dental courses even in private colleges.

15. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for postgraduate medical and dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and null and void. The respondent will now publish fresh Information Bulletins and do the admissions to the postgraduate medical and dental courses in the government colleges as well as the State quota of the private colleges in accordance with the law by the end of June 2014 on the basis of the results of the entrance test already held. We also order that the general time schedule for counselling and admissions to postgraduate medical courses in our order dated 14-3-2014 in Fraz Naseem v. Union of India [(2014) 11 SCC 453] will not apply to such admissions in the State of Karnataka for the academic year 2014- 2015. Similarly, the general time schedule for counselling and admissions for postgraduate dental courses will not apply 22 to such admissions in the State of Karnataka. The parties shall bear their own costs."

(emphasis supplied)

18. Following the afore-extracted judgment the Apex Court again reiterated that such a clause that restricts filing of applications to a particular class is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiain the case of Kriti Lakhina v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 453 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

"13. In Vishal Goyal [Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 11 SCC 456 : 6 SCEC 688] the challenge was to the validity of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. The eligibility conditions as laid down in said Clause 2.1 are identical to those stipulated in the present clause, namely, Clause 4.1 of PGET-2018. Paras 4, 10 to 13 and 15 of the decision in Vishal Goyal [Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 11 23 SCC 456 : 6 SCEC 688] were as under:

(SCC pp. 459-60 & 462-65) "4. The said Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, which is identically worded for admissions to postgraduate medical and postgraduate dental courses, is extracted hereinbelow:

'2.1. No candidate shall be admitted to a professional educational institution unless the candidate possesses the following qualifications or eligibility to appear for the entrance test, namely:

(a) He is a citizen of India who is of Karnataka origin and has studied MBBS/BDS degree in a medical/dental college situated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka, and affiliated to any university established by law in India recognised by Medical Council of India and the Government of India.

Explanation.--"A candidate of Karnataka origin" means a candidate found 24 eligible under clause (i) or (ii) below, namely:

(i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more government recognised educational institutions located in the State of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN academic years as on the last date fixed for the submission of application form, commencing from 1st standard to MBBS/BDS and must have appeared and passed either SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/12th standard examination from Karnataka State. In case of the candidate who has taken more than one year to pass a class or standard, the years of academic study is counted as one year only.

Documents to be produced, namely:

(1) SSLC or 10th standard marks card.

(2) 2nd PUC or 12th standard marks card of the candidate.

(3) Candidates Study Certificate: A study certificate from the Head of 25 educational institution where he or she had studied. Further, School Study Certificates should be countersigned by the Block Education Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI) concerned COMPULSORILY in the pro forma prescribed.

(4) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card.

(5) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribed pro forma (Annexure I); and if claiming reservation benefits: Caste/Caste Income Certificate issued by Tahsildar concerned, for SC/ST in Form D, Category 1 in Forms E and 2-A, 2-

B, 3-A and 3-B in Form F. (6) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.

(7) Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.

(ii) The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd years Pre-

University Examination or 11th and 12th 26 standard examination within the State of Karnataka from an educational institution run or recognised by the State Government or MBBS/BDS from a professional educational institution located in Karnataka and that either of the parents should have studied in Karnataka for a minimum period of 10 years.

Documents to be produced, namely:

(1) SSLC or 10th standard marks card.

(2) 2nd PUC or 12th standard marks card of the candidate.

(3) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card.

(4) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribed pro forma (Annexure I).

(5) If claiming reservation benefits:

Caste/Caste Income Certificate issued by Tahsildar concerned, for SC/ST in Form D, Category 1 in Forms E and 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B in Form F; and 27 (6)(a) A study certificate for either of the parent having studied for at least 10 years in Karnataka from the Head of the educational institution where he/she had studied. Further, school study certificates should be countersigned by the Block Educational Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI) concerned COMPULSORILY in the pro forma prescribed (Annexure III).

(b) The candidates study certificate for having studied both 1st and 2nd PUC or 11th and 12th standard in Karnataka issued by the Head of the educational institution.

(7) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.

(8) Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.' ***

10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the basis of the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Jain 28 case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, paras 20, 22 and 24] is Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees to every person equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. As explained by this Court in paras 12 and 13 of the judgment in Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand [Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 10 SCC 237, para 3 :

6 SCEC 497] : (SCC pp. 244-45) '12. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to every person equality before law and equal protection of laws.

In Jagadish            Saran v. Union            of
India [Jagadish     Saran v. Union      of   India,

(1980) 2 SCC 768 : (1980) 2 SCR 831] , Krishna Iyer, J., writing the judgment on behalf of the three Judges referring to Article 14 of the Constitution held that equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitutional guarantee and therefore merit must be the test for selecting candidates, particularly in the higher levels of education like postgraduate 29 medical courses, such as MD. In the language of Krishna Iyer, J.: (SCC pp. 778-

79, para 23) "23. Flowing from the same stream of equalism is another limitation. The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure all the highest scales of speciality where the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by selecting according to capability. At the level of PhD, MD, or levels of higher proficiency, where international measure of talent is made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in-the-making is a national loss, the considerations we have expanded upon an important lose their potency. Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk."

13. Relying on the aforesaid reasons in Jagadish Saran v. Union of India [Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768 : (1980) 2 SCR 831] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, paras 20, 22 and 24] held that excellence cannot be compromised by any other consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS and the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of the nation and therefore reservation based on residential requirement in the State will affect the right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution....' In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India [Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 186, paras 3 and 8 : 2 SCEC 492] and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, paras 29, 69 and 70 : 2 SCEC 452] also, this Court has 31 approved the aforesaid view in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, paras 20, 22 and 24] that excellence cannot be compromised by any other consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS and the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of the nation and will affect the right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution.

11. Mr Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, paras 29, 69 and 70 :

2 SCEC 452] this Court has held that institutional preference can be given by a State, but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri [Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, paras 29, 69 and 70 : 2 SCEC 452] , it has also been held that decision of the State to give institutional preference can be 32 invalidated by the court in the event it is shown that the decision of the State is ultra vires the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. When we examine sub-

clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, we find that the expression "A candidate of Karnataka origin" who only is eligible to appear for entrance test has been so defined as to exclude a candidate who has studied MBBS or BDS in an institution in the State of Karnataka but who does not satisfy the other requirements of sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. Thus, the institutional preference sought to be given by sub- clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 is clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, paras 20, 22 and 24] .

12. To quote from para 22 of the judgment in Pradeep Jain case [Pradeep 33 Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, paras 20, 22 and 24] : (SCC p. 693) '22. ... a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university, may be given preference for admission to the postgraduate course in the same medical college or university....'

*** 34

15. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for postgraduate medical and dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and null and void. The respondent will now publish fresh Information Bulletins and do the admissions to the postgraduate medical and dental courses in the government colleges as well as the State quota of the private colleges in accordance with the law by the end of June 2014 on the basis of the results of the entrance test already held. We also order that the general time schedule for counselling and admissions to postgraduate medical courses in our order dated 14-3-2014 in Fraz Naseem v. Union of India [Fraz Naseem v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 453 : 6 SCEC 653] will not apply to such admissions in the State of Karnataka for the academic year 2014- 2015. Similarly, the general time schedule for counselling and admissions for postgraduate dental courses will not apply 35 to such admissions in the State of Karnataka. The parties shall bear their own costs."

14. Paras 13 and 15 of the judgment of this Court in Vishal Goyal [Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 11 SCC 456 : 6 SCEC 688] are clear that the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 did not actually give institutional preference to students who had passed MBBS/BDS from colleges or universities in the State of Karnataka but made some of them ineligible to take the entrance test for admission to postgraduate medical or dental course in the State of Karnataka and that the said clause was held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and declared null and void. The relevant clause under consideration, namely, Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2018 is identical in substance to the one that was considered in Vishal Goyal [Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 11 SCC 456 : 6 SCEC 688] . The matter is 36 thus no longer res integra and is completely covered by the decision in Vishal Goyal [Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 11 SCC 456 : 6 SCEC 688] . In the circumstances, we respectfully follow the decision of this Court in Vishal Goyal [Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 11 SCC 456 : 6 SCEC 688] and hold Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) which was published on the website on 10-3-2018 to be invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners and similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS degree courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for admission to postgraduate medical/dental courses in government medical colleges and against government quota seats in non-

governmental institutions.

15. This writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. The State of Karnataka and Respondents 2 and 3 are 37 directed to suitably modify and amend the Information Bulletin in question in keeping with the observations made in this judgment and re-publish the Calendar of Events in terms of this judgment and complete the entire process within the timeline stipulated by the regulatory authorities concerned."

(emphasis supplied) Though the afore-extracted cases related to admission to post graduate courses the ratio that is laid down with regard to Article 14 of the Constitution of India is equally applicable to the case at hand notwithstanding the fact that it concerns employment as the basis for selection is the educational qualification.

19. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, the question that arose before the Apex Court in the case of State of 38 Rajasthan v. Lata Arun reported in (2002) 6 SCC 252, is as follows:

"4. The question which arises for determination in this case is whether the respondent had the eligibility qualification for admission in General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course (hereinafter referred to as "Nursing Course") commencing in the year 1990. The Director, Medical and Health Services had invited applications by 15-12-1989 from eligible candidates for admission in the Nursing Course to be started from January 1990. It was stated in the notification that the candidates should have passed first year of three years' degree course (TDC) or 10+2; and that the candidates with Science subjects (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) will be given preference. During the period, the Indian Nursing Council had issued a set of Syllabi and Regulations for courses in General Nursing and Midwifery in which the prescribed minimum educational qualification for all candidates was 12th class-pass or its equivalent preferably with Science subjects."

20. Answering the said question, the Apex Court has held as follows:

"13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.

14. Testing the facts of the case in hand on the touchstone of the principles, it is clear that on the date of submission of the application for joining the course the respondent did not possess the prescribed qualification of 10+2 or 1st year TDC from a recognized institution. The Madhyama Certificate from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad had been deleted from the recognized qualification by the notification dated 28-6-1985. The respondent submitted the application for admission to the course in December 1989. In the circumstances the High Court was in error in issuing a direction to the appellants to treat the respondent as a candidate possessed of the prescribed educational 40 qualification and to declare her result on that basis.

15. At this stage we may take note of the decision of this Court in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana [(1987) 2 SCC 445 : (1987) 3 ATC 675 : AIR 1987 SC 2027] on which much reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In that case this Court issued a direction to the Government of the State of Haryana to recognize the certificate obtained by the petitioners therein and other similarly situate candidates in completing the certificate course in Sri Hanuman VyayamPrasarak Mandal, Amravati, Maharashtra for the post of Physical Training Instructor in government schools in Haryana. This Court appears to have issued such direction taking note of the factual position that the petitioners had joined the institution relying on the recognition granted by the State of Haryana to the certificate course of Physical Education in that institute and while they were in the midst of the course the State Government had derecognised the certificate course of the institute. Taking note of the particular facts of the case, this Court issued the direction noted above and made it clear that if any person 41 who has joined the course after 9-1-1985 i.e. the date of derecognition he would not be entitled to the benefit of the order and any certificate obtained by him from the said institute would be of no avail. The decision in our view does not lay down any general principle of law applicable in all cases. It was based on the facts and circumstances peculiar to that case. Therefore, the decision cannot be of any avail to the respondent in this case.

21. The next judgment relied on by the respondent is in the case of Basic Education Board (supra), the question that arose before the Apex Court in this judgment is as follows:

"5. The question in this case and the connected appeals is about the qualification of the respondent for being appointed as Assistant Master in junior basic schools in U.P. The essential academic qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of junior basic schools in U.P. is mentioned in Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the 42 Rules") which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972."

22. Answering the said question, the Apex Court has held as follows:

"14. The respondent admittedly got appointment after the Circular dated 11-8- 1997 and hence this circular applies to him. Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the qualification mentioned in the said circular. He does not either possess BTC, Hindustani Teaching Certificate, JCT or Certificate of Teaching. The DEd Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after the Circular dated 11-8-1997. This was a policy decision of the U.P. Government, and it is well settled that the court cannot interfere with policy decision of the Government unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional provision. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Master of a junior basic school in U.P. 43

15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it."

23. Therefore, in terms of what was the issue before the Apex Court and the answers in both the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the KPTCL are distinguishable without much ado. As the Apex Court in the said cases has held that the Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in judicial review cannot tinker with the qualification that is prescribed under the notification. The principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments are not 44 applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the case at hand challenges the notification on the ground of discrimination and not on eligibility conditions. The case at hand is one of a particular set of candidates belonging to a homogeneous class possessing qualification of 'PUC', the KPTCL in terms of its Notification seeks to make a division on the basis of acquisition of the said qualification of 'PUC' in different States of the country. This would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as formation of a class within a class is impermissible classification.

This division is set right by the State Government by issuance of a Government Circular on 27.02.2018, directing that 10th Standard and PUC acquired from states outside the Karnataka would be valid for taking employment within the State of Karnataka. The Circular was already in place before the appointment could be offered to the third respondent. Therefore, 45 there is no justification of not appointing the petitioner to the said post as she was more meritorious than the appointed candidate i.e., third respondent. Apart from the prescription of a PUC within the State of Karnataka being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India the resultant action is that, a meritorious candidate has become ineligible for appointment.

24. Therefore, the following:

ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.


      ii.    The prescription of PUC only from the

             Government         of         Karnataka         in      the

notification dated 08.09.2016 is illegal and unenforceable.

iii. Sequentially, the petitioner shall be considered for appointment to the post of 46 Junior Assistant in place of the third respondent.

iv. The appointment of the third respondent to the post of Junior Assistant which is made subject to the result of the writ petition shall give way to the appointment of the petitioner.

v. The KPTCL is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment for the post of Junior Assistant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE SJK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court