Karnataka High Court
Rajesha P T vs Chief Administrative Officer on 6 November, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.13788/2016 (S-RES)
Between:
Rajesha P.T.
S/o Late Thippeswamy,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at,
Genathikatte
Agrahara Post
Sandur Taluk
Bellary District - 58318.
... Petitioner
(By Smt.Siri Rajashekar, Advocate for
Sri.Ravishankar D.R, Advocate)
And:
1. Chief Administrative Officer,
BWSSB,
Bengaluru
Registered office at
1st floor, Chairman office
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Bengaluru - 9.
2. Ramesh
C/o S.A.Kodandaramaiah,
Aged, Major,
2
# 22, 4th Block,
Doddabommasandra
Vidyaraynapura Post,
Bengaluru - 97.
... Respondents
(By Sri.B.R.Srinivasa, Advocate for
Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, Advocate for R.1;
Sri.S.B.Krishna, Advocate for R.2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of Constitution of India praying to quash final select list
Annexure-F dated 31.12.2015 in so far as it pertains to the
inclusion of the name of the respondent No.2 to the post of
Junior Engineer (Mechanical) Local Cadre of Hyderabad-
Karnataka Region under Article 371J of the Constitution of
India and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for further hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs.
a. Issue a writ of appropriate nature to quash final select list Annexure 'F' in No.BWSSB AKA/MHUAA-KHA/22-32-2015/ 3345/2015-16 dated 31.12.2015 in so far as it pertains to the inclusion of the name of the 2nd respondent to the post of Junior Engineer Local Cadre of Hyderabad-
3Karnataka Region under Article 371J of the Constitution of India and further;
b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue fresh final select list by including the name of the petitioner to the said post on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent were candidates to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) (Local Cadre) under SC category read with Reservation for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region candidates under Article 371(j) of the Constitution of India. The last date prescribed for submission of on-line application was 25.03.2015. The petitioner's candidature was not considered on account of petitioner obtained a residential certificate that he belongs to Hyderabad-Karnataka Region on 25.04.2015, which is subsequent to last date i.e., beyond 25.03.2015. Thereafter, this Certificate had footnote that the petitioner is local eligible certificate pursuant to 09.09.2015 circular 4 read with 25.03.2015 for the purpose of employment under the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region). The petitioner submitted his representation on 01.12.2015 for reconsideration of his candidature. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that belated submission of Local Eligibility Certificate dated 25.04.2015 would not be a hurdle for selection and appointment even though last date was stipulated as 25.03.2015.
3. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of RAM KUMAR GIJROYA VS. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in (2016) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 754 in para No.14 reads as hereunder;
"14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to 5 submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University. The learned single Judge in Pushpa also considered another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh, wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the SC and ST categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate."
Further, relied on RAMANDEEP KAUR VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION AND ANOTHER decided in CWP No.8610/2014 on 07.07.2017 (2017 SCC Online P&H 2300) in para Nos.8 & 9 read as hereunder;
6"8. Consideration of OBC Certificates dated 31.08.2012 and 24.04.2014 by the second respondent are concerned, it is to be noted that status of OBC person relating to caste would not change, therefore, second respondent should have considered the Certificate dated 31.08.2012. If the Certificate dated 31.08.2012 cannot be considered in view of the condition imposed in the advertisement that a candidate must have OBC Certificate during the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, even then the petitioner has OBC Certificate dated 24.04.2014 which was not produced at the relevant point of time but the same could be taken into consideration for the purpose of selection in view of law laid down in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that caste certificate could be taken into consideration even at the later stage.
9. In view of these facts and circumstances, the clause imposed in the advertisement that OBC candidates are required to obtain certificate during the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 is set aside. Consequently, the 7 respondent is hereby directed to entertain the petitioner's OBC Certificate dated 31.08.2012 or 24.04.2014 for the purpose of her selection for the post of CWE Clerk-III within a period of 3 months from today."
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner is bound by the conditions stipulated in the recruitment notification including the fixation of last date for submission of application through on-line, verification of documents and general instructions. No challenge to the aforesaid clauses.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 reiterates the arguments advanced on behalf of the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner is bound by the conditions stipulated in the recruitment notification. He has pointed out in para No.24 of the notification in particular note wherein candidates have been instructed to furnish all certificates/documents within the last date prescribed. The petitioner has not questioned the validity of the last date prescribed so also note incorporated in para No.24. 8
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Core issue in the present petition is, whether petitioner's candidature could be considered as a Local Cadre (Reservation for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region Candidature under Article 371(j) of the constitution) under SC category or not? Undisputed facts are that; recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) Local Cadre among other posts were notified on 23.02.2015 while assigning the last date for submission of on-line application as 25.03.2015. The petitioner is stated to have submitted application for obtaining his Local Eligibility Certificate on 27.12.2014 whereas author of the Annexure- C i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, Revenue Department issued Eligibility Certificate only on 25.04.2015 and further an endorsement has been issued that petitioner is a local candidate and eligible pursuant to the Annexure-D dated 09.09.2015 - Corrigendum to the circular dated 25.02.2015 if there is any lapses on the part of the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, Revenue 9 Department in issuing Eligibility Certificate timely to the petitioner that does not amount to extend the last date prescribed for the post from 25.03.2015 to 25.04.2015. That apart, Annexure-C has no relevance for the present case for the reason that such note has been issued pursuant to the Government circular dated 09.09.2015 read with 25.02.2015. Both the dates are subsequent to the last date prescribed for submission of on-line application. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Apex Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court cited supra has no assistance for the reason that each case depending upon the factual aspects read with relevant notification rules and conditions/criteria imposed in the recruitment notification are binding on employer and candidates. Petitioner has not questioned the conditions imposed in the notification of recruitment to the post, so as to extend the last date and other instructions to the candidates.
10
8. The Apex Court in the case of NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY VS. T.BEERMASTAN AND OTHERS reported in (2009)5 SCC 545 in para 48 held as hereunder.
"48. Several decisions have been cited before us by the respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the State governing that field. Reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and different State Governments can have different methods of reservation. There is no challenge to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the matter of application alone. In our opinion the communal rotation has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a block."
In view of the Apex Court decision cited supra read with the last date prescribed for submission of on-line application, verification of documents and general instructions vide item Nos.8(d), 24 and 26, have not been questioned so also they are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case.
11
9. Thus, Ram Kumar Gijroya and Ramandeep Kaur decisions cited above on behalf of the petitioner is hereby distinguished. It is necessary to reproduce extract of item Nos.8(d), 24 and 26(g).
"8(d). Last date for submission of 'Online' application: 25.03.2015, at 5.30 p.m.
24. Verification of Documents:
The candidate called for documents verification shall produce the following documents.
1. Candidates copy of the 'Hall Ticket'
2. Original Counter foil of challan (payment of application fee).
3. Certificates in original (along with Two sets of Self-attested copies) in support of their age, qualification, reservation etc., i. Diploma certificate/University Degree Certificate.
ii. SSLC/PUC marks card or the Marks card of equivalent qualification in support of age.
iii. Marks cards of all years/semesters pertaining to qualifying examination prescribed to the post.
12
4. Candidates seeking reservation benefits as SC/ST/Categories -1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B/Ex- Serviceman/ Hyderabad - Karnataka Region quota must ensure that they are entitled to such reservation as per eligibility prescribed in the Notification. They should also be in possession of the certificates in the format prescribed by the Government in support of their claim.
i. Candidates claiming Caste/Category reservation have to produce certificate in the prescribed format as under:
a. SC/ST - Form -D
b. CAT-1 - Form -E
c. CAT-IIA/IIB/IIIA/IIB - Form -F
ii. Rural certificate as prescribed in the
GOs. NO. DPAR 08 SRR 2001 dated
13.02.2001 and GO NO.DPAR 96 SRR 2005 dated 10.08.2005.
Candidates claiming reservation under rural quota should have studied from 1st to 10th Standard in rural areas. The Rural Study Certificate should be in the format 13 prescribed in GO as mentioned above, duly attested by the Head Master of the School and countersigned by the concerned BEO. iii. Certificate for having studied in Kannada Medium from 1st Standard to 10th Standard as prescribed in Govt. Notification No.DPAR 71 GPR 2001 dated 24.01.2002, where claim is made for reservation under 'Kannada Medium' category, which should be countersigned by the concerned BEO.
iv. Certificate as prescribed in Govt. Official
Memorandum No.DPAR 115 SRR 2005
Bangalore dated 19.11.2005 where claim is made for reservation under persons with Disability, should possess a medical certificate issued by the competent medical authority to show physical defect or deformity.
v. Discharge Certificate for having served in Military/Defence/Armed Forces in respect of Ex-Serviceman candidate.
vi. Candidates claiming reservation under Hyderabad-Karnataka Region under Article 371(J) should produce relevant Certificate 14 as required under Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Rules (Issue of Certificates) Order, 2013, issued by competent authority as per Government Notification -I & II No:DPAR 43 HKC 2013 dated 29.01.2014.
vii. Ex-servicemen or children of defence personnel killed or disabled in action and Persons with Disability are exempted from payment of application fee (Govt.
Notification No.DPAR 142 SRR 2006 dtd:
05.11.2007) provided they furnish appropriate certificate issued by the Competent Authority at the time of document verification.
Note: All the above Certificates/Documents obtained from the authority should be within the date i.e., last date fixed for submitting applications. Later date certificates/documents will not be accepted. The candidates who fail to produce relevant documents will not be considered for selection.
1526(g). Any representation or correspondence regarding the recruitment process will NOT be entertained. All relevant recruitment process information at various stages will be made available in the BWSSB website." As long as the above mentioned clauses are in tact, both employer and candidates are bound by it. In view of the aforesaid clauses, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to extend the last date prescribed from 25.03.2015 to 25.04.2015, the date of eligibility certificate obtained by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with Annexure-F. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on instructions submitted that due to pendency of the present petition, the 2nd respondent has not issued order of appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). Therefore, the Appointing Authority is hereby directed to examine the petitioner's eligibility and proceed to issue an order of appointment within a period 16 of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM