Karnataka High Court
Sri. Murali Krishna. T. N vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2023
-1-
WP No. 2920 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.2920 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MURALI KRISHNA. T. N.
S/O SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA T K,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.147,
THAPASAMAKALAHALLI,
THONDEBAVI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561213.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S MS BUILDING,
Location: High Court
of Karnataka BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS
FEDERATION LTD
KMF COMPLEX, PB NO.2915,
DR COLLEGE POST,
-2-
WP No. 2920 of 2023
DR MH MARIGOWDA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M S NAGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI S S NAGANANDA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI PRADYUMNA K V, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED NIL ISSUED IN
RELATION TO NOTIFICATION NO. KA.HA.MA/459
NERANEMAKATHI PRAKATANE/HADAZLITHA-3/2022 DATED
20/10/2022, PERTAINING TO REGISTRATION ID NO. 9038005,
APPLICATION ID NO. 4501130, FOR THE PETITIONER
CANDIDATURE FOR POST OF ACCOUNT ASSISTANT GRADE-I
VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification/order dated 20.10.2022 insofar as petitioner, candidature for the post of Account Assistant Grade-I vide Annexure-A to the writ petition.
2. The brief facts are that, respondent No.3 herein has called for online applications from the eligible candidates for the vacant posts in the respondent No.3-Institution and pursuant to the same, on 20.10.2022, the petitioner herein has applied to the post of Account Assistant Grade-I, under Category-I (Annexure-B) to the writ petition.
-3-WP No. 2920 of 2023
3. The petitioner has uploaded the application through online as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. The petitioner having uploaded the required document i.e. caste certificate at the time of filing of application and respondent-authorities have issued the admission ticket and further petitioner scored 110 marks out of 200 marks. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered for selection to the said post and respondent-authorities have issued Endorsement produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition stating that category certificate was not enclosed properly and considered the case of the petitioner under General Merit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed writ petition.
4. Heard Sri Bhadrinath R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.S. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Pradyumna K.V., for the respondent No.3.
5. Sri Bhadrinath R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that it is not in dispute that petitioner has required qualification as per Notification produced at Annexure- -4- WP No. 2920 of 2023 B to the writ petition. The petitioner has secured 110 out of 200 marks and case of the petitioner was not considered for the interview and accordingly, he submitted that impugned Endorsement produced at Annexure-A is arbitrary in nature and same has to be set aside in this writ petition. He also refereed to the judgment passed by this Court in WP No.24847 of 2022 decided on 31.01.2023 and submits that if any human error occur while uploading the application same has to be considered and therefore, he heavily relied on the order passed by this court in the said writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-Society invited the attention of the Court to the caste certificate uploaded by the petitioner herein and same was marked as Annexure-R1 to the Statement of Objections. He referred to Clause-11 of the general instructions annexed to the impugned notification produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition and submitted that since the petitioner herein has uploaded part of the information and the caste certificate uploaded by the petitioner is not legible and accordingly, the case of the petitioner was considered under the General Merit Category. He also -5- WP No. 2920 of 2023 submitted that interview for the relevant post is completed and accordingly, he submitted that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be considered at this stage.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government justified action of the respondent-authorities.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the notification produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition. Clause 11 of the general instructions given notification dated 20.11.2022 (Annexure-B) reads as under:
"C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ D£ï ¯ÉÊ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ CfðUÀ¼À°è C¥ÀÆtð ºÁUÀÆ C¸ÀéµÀÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CxÀªÁ ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀ°è, CAvÀºÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."
9. Nextly, there is Clause under Bullet Point No.2- application fees category with regard to filing the relevant documents in the Notification which reads as under:
"vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¸ÀéµÀÖ ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ°è CAvÀºÀªÀgÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤ÃqÀzÉà wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."-6- WP No. 2920 of 2023
10. Having taken note of the aforementioned aspects, wherein, it is stated in the Notification dated 20.10.2022 that incomplete application will be rejected without giving notice of such application and taking into consideration documents uploaded by the petitioner herein, produced at Annexure-R1 to the writ petition, prima-facie, it could be inferred that said documents which have been uploaded by the petitioner herein are not legible and same was not considered, for which the category the petitioner is seeking for consideration of his case for the relevant post. In this aspect, I am of the view that since the relevant requisite material along with caste certificate has been uploaded incompletely, and despite the same, respondent No.3 has permitted the petitioner to take examination and having secured the 110 marks out of 200 would make the petitioner to claim right to consider his case for interview and accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. However, insofar as judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, the said aspect with regard to the consideration of the case of the petitioner in the said case, at the time of documents verification on the ground that human error has been caused, however, -7- WP No. 2920 of 2023 same analogy cannot be accepted in the case of the petitioner on the ground that looking into Annexure-R1 to the writ petition. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited and Another vs. H L Kaveri and Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 108 and paragraphs 12 to 15 of the said judgment reads as under:
"12. under its advertisement dated 11.11.2013, it was specifically indicated that separate application should be submitted for each post accompanied with various requirements including qualification, experience, etc. and incomplete application, if any, is liable for rejection without assigning any reason. The first respondent applied for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant vide application dated 29-11-2013. After scrutiny of the applications, the select list of backlog vacancies was published on 16-1-2015 and it reveals from the record that impleaded third respondent in the writ petition (Smt Priyanka A. Chanchalkar) was provisionally selected as Senior Assistant securing 64.65% marks. At the same time, the first respondent secured 65.43% marks but since the first respondent failed to submit experience certificate along with the application form, her application at the stage of scrutiny itself was rejected.-8- WP No. 2920 of 2023
13. The Corporation in IA No. 3457 of 2020 has indicated that total 31 applications for the post of Senior Assistant were rejected in view of not enclosing of self-attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicants for Senior Assistant against the single post of female (Scheduled Caste) which remain unfilled because of the orders of the Court. At the same time, the Corporation rejected 106 number of applications for the post of Junior Assistant for not enclosing the documents required including self-attested copies of experience certificate/caste certificate/computer tally- certificate/graduation certificate/birth certificate, etc.
14. It remains undisputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of which reference has been made that the first respondent had not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013 for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reasons which although was disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.-9- WP No. 2920 of 2023
15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision-making process while rejecting the application which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the of the first respondent for non-fulfilment of the necessary experience certificate advertisement dated 11-11- 2013."
Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that, as material sent by the petitioner himself is incomplete and at this juncture judgment referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts on records. Accordingly, petitioner has not made out a case for quashing the Notification dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure-B) to the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27