Karnataka High Court
S Mohan vs Ksfc on 8 November, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing. this day, the Court made the following : ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court see1dng""--.for issue of mandamus to direct the respondentf"
Corporation to waive the training period prescribed and to compute the _er1jtire ':4yserVir:e_wi,n_' reckoning the seniority a1ong'__with',associat'e4;1Vibenegfits flowing therefrom.
2. Heard ._for the parties and perused the V
3. for the purpose of disposaiv_of.yt;he.; that, the petitioner appliedifor' the post of Deputy Manager (Technicaliupursuant notification issued in the p_ yeazaj, V p'er_t___he said notification, the qualification and .expe1?i.enc'e._for the post is, graduation in any branch V.'-Vtofiengineering with two years experience in a reputed organisation. The petitioner being a graduate in it mechanical engineering, and claiming to have i
-« employee is not in the service of the respondent» Corporation any more. Therefore, the benefit granted to the said employee cannot be claimed by the petitioner. Insofar as the appointment of the petitionegrifiit:V.i's..V contended that the application of the petitiolr1:er.jV'euftiichlf was submitted on 30.10.1988 asilat with the objection statementwould :indieatle'.;th'at, regard to column No.13 regarding the.trairiing: period, the same had been and as such, the same VWould_V_indicate'the_l--l*petitioner did not have any ?_recj'ijc1ired:leXperien'c.e the stage of making app1ica'tion;' * of the petitioner could not regard. Further it is contended having considered the representation of lldthge'-,c.. 1:_jC'titiOl1.€;I", theylllhad rejected the same, as the fulfill the requirement.
A ' l_nIT1'1A the light of the contention put forth by the "parties,*..at the outset, it is seen that it is no doubt true thattas contended by the respondent-Corporation, the period of training undergone by the petitioner had not it Writ petition in W.P.N0.4089l/2001. This Court while disposing of the said petition on 05.02.2002 had directed the resp0ndent--Corporation to consider..___i:he representation which had been made by the petitiionergg claiming the said benefit and in that regard; 0' doubt true that this Court had a'ls'o"*i«ndi'eat_ed'that'the"; petitioner would have to bring to"the_lV_1z«tno\Xi1ge.(igezof respondents with regard to "the-gViolation»..o:f:
and Recruitment Ru1es:'.~..V_indicatedthat the violation of the Cadre is one of the aspects, is is that the recruitmentsl who were granted the .-'with reference to the said Rules. _ ln'"'thVat..regard'§: when it is contended by the .0 0. '''petit--ion5eir that othelrhvemployees had been granted the
-said relaxation, the case of the petitioner also is to bev'eori'sidered and the matter would have to be 4"=H'iQoVked. into from that angle.
9. Therefore, having already noticed that the it "proceedings dated 29.08.1997 would be of relevance i 10 indicated is that he does not possess the required training from Central Government, State Government, Public Sector undertakings which according to '"--the respondents was the requirement. However, the_r'e,llis,,";1o'< V. reference to the fact as to whether the p(§fit1fiOI1{_3rxll'1'§1d--,lpp V' training experience in public limited 'c'ompanies;--_wh1'ch was also one of the criteria for relaxation.
10. In this regard, the"docurne_nts_lp.rodii(:ed: by C' C the petitioner would indicatethait Ku'du1na"Fastners is shown as an ISO Company Kirloskar Systems is a, publ.ic and I-IMT is a public sector' 'C "Therefore, keeping these aspects inxvfiew, thedncomuparison sought to be drawn by ..«.Agythefipetitionerl "wit.h_.,.the employee Srnt. C. Latha is application submitted by the said eniployee.'.V'"h_a,s been produced by the respondent-
",Corporati;on along with their additional objection ',dst.aternent at Annexure--R2. The experience indicated thierein would show that the said employee had training in Integra Micro Systems, Computer Point India Ltd., é Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Computer Call. It is needless to mention that experience except for the brief training in the Indian institute of Science, in"'--any event, the other three establishments wou1d...__notdfali'< 3 under the category of a Central or State _ establishment or a public sector there is no material to indicate thatit. is pijhlic' limited company. Therefore, whenkjtlie caselef tiiesaid employee has been conjsidereld, of petitioner should also have been respondentw Corporation "mannVer"to~' the said extent
11., C' 'Furthe'iA,,_dlearr__1ed__ counsel for the petitioner has alsolvlreferred A'to'«...lAnnexurewI attached to the dated----A'29.O8.1997 at Annexure--l-l to other employees were also provided relairation' the respondent--Corporation. The said dl'~..«.,_l'w..contentio1n however is disputed by the respondent by "'-lcentending that no details have been indicated in the petition. Though the said submission is advanced, i, to the existence of such document in any event is not disputed by the respondent, but the application of the same yardstick to the case of the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court since the date of and the requirement of qualification at the manner of rejection as made, cannot-;be'considered'. as similar to the petitioner pin the absence,_"_;of"detailedV' particulars. But what cannio,t"»be ov'erlool¥';ed7_is that persons who have aclquiretil higherjliqualificatilon after joining and persons whVoV_have"_wor1-ied as Lecturers have also been graritettthe i'-ela'pxatioi1,_' =
12. -_ Thei'efore,,jl'ir_eeping these aspects in view, even though yvthepetitijoner had not indicated the experjienice atlthe, of joining employment by filling the appropriate_ column in the application, considering the factlltiilat. same arose for consideration before the responde.nt--lCorporation themselves by way of a Board 9' lC_'resol--1jition dated 29.08.1997, it would suffice for the 9 petitioner to establish that he had sufficient experience if at the time of joining the service. Therefore, insofar as i granting the said benefit in any event. the same cannot be denied to the petitioner. However. the relief as sought for by the petitioner in its entirety cannVot.._pbe granted for more than one reason. In that already noticed, the petitioner had not -- details in the application and thereq1ie_st~:".yas_InaCle.'. only subsequently by way_.of al4repr_esenta"_tion"
12.01.1991. Further, proceedings of the..Bo.r§i-dltieiiéd on as at Annexure--H is HlWhen the request of the petitioner that stage. the petitioner" the first time only invltheea wliereiinder this Court had directed'-. ..-the representation of the petitioner. l'i'h:ere.fore';. the delay which has occasioned "on of the petitioner himself would also have to be the benefit that would be granted to the vpetitironer cannot cause any prejudice to any "other employee who is working the same cadre. ' ":;13. Therefore, keeping this aspect in View and it also considering the fact that I have already come to the .4 *.
conclusion that the benefit of waiver of two years training period in View of the experience of the petitioner is to be granted, it is made clear that the respondent- Corporation would grant the said benefit purpose of fixing the present pay of the notionallly considering the period ._ of .3 including two years which isl7so"u_ght -by"
petitioner. Further, the "=additi'on"*off tvvon years service to the petitionTer.y_ considered for the qualifying length of anyititiire benefits so as to fall zpo-neioi:eonsid'eration for any other post in'Vfnturifandf/sh 'snot greate any other right to be placed a4di'ffere'nt~ the seniority list.
14. ">Her.1ce,._the"petition stands disposed of in the
- folloiiziflg termls; i aaaaa - .
The'-...respondents are directed to grant the V of training period of two years to the petitioner and compute the entire service by reckoning two years also to be added to the length of service.
4.':
ii] iii} The said period shall be considered notionally for the purpose of fixing the present pay, keeping the length of ..
and aiso for the future CO1'1Si(i€1'E£T.i(:}'TiS4A * without disturbing the seniQri.t).}'e4f K V' employee who is workiizg the safi1eve.adfe.\~..t'.. Parties to bear thei'r.:exxrn Coste Sdi.-3 Iii'd§5