Karnataka High Court
Krishnamurthy D H vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.24206 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAMURTHY D H
S/O HOBYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT POOJARAHALLI THANDA (POST)
KUDLIGI TALUK
BALLARI DISTRICT
PIN-583135
2. SOMASHEKHARA
S/O VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.48,
BEERAIAHANA PALYA
MADHURE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-561203.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PARASHURAM R. HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
2
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-01
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RECRUITMENT AND CO-ORDINATOR,
CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
CARLTON BHAVAN
PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OR CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE COMMON ORDER DATED 13.10.2020 PASSED BY THE
KSAT IN APPLICATION NO 88-93/2020 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KSAT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
M.G.S.KAMAL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the common order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Tribunal in Application Nos.88-93/2020.
2. The petitioners/applicants have filed the above application before the Tribunal contending inter alia that in response to the recruitment notification dated 21.06.2018 calling online applications for recruitment to the post of Civil Police Constable, they had applied and attended the written examination. Their names were included in the eligibility list. That they were subjected to Physical Standard Endurance Test and were called upon for document verification. That in the provisional selection list dated 29.08.2019, their names were included, but thereafter, they did not receive any intimation regarding validation of document, though the candidates who were provisionally selected along with them had received 4 intimation in that regard. That on enquiry with the authorities, the petitioners were orally informed that the candidates with only diploma course certificate without passing the language course for Pre-University Board would not be considered for selection. Consequently, the petitioners submitted a representation to the Respondent No.2 requesting to consider their candidature for selection. Since there was no response thereof, the petitioners filed the above applications before the Tribunal.
3. It is contended by the petitioners that as per the recruitment notification, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Civil Police Constable is pass in Pre-University course (PUC) or equivalent qualification and on the basis of treating the job oriented course (JOC) as equivalent to PUC, the petitioners were permitted to appear for written examination and hence, non-selection of the petitioners even though they possess requisite 5 qualification was arbitrary. That after subjecting the applicants to tests and inclusion of their names in the provisional select list, the respondent ought not to have denied selection on the premise of petitioners not possessing requisite qualification and such rejection of their candidature for selection was per se arbitrary and illegal.
4. On behalf of the State, it was contended that based on the provisional selection list, the applicants were called to appear for medical examination and to produce original documents in respect of eligibility and in the course of examination of the same it had come to light that the petitioners had not passed "One Language Course conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and one curriculum subject (Distance Education Method) that they had neither passed the examination in the local language nor one subject conducted by the Pre- University Education Board." Hence, the petitioners did 6 not fulfill the eligibility criteria. Hence, sought for dismissal of application.
5. The Tribunal has noted that as per Clause-6 of the Recruitment Notification, the qualification prescribed for the post of Civil Police Constable is pass in PUC or 12th standard or equivalent examination and that the petitioners had passed only Job-Oriented Diploma course which was equivalent to PUC. That the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms by its Circular dated 27.02.2018, had prescribed additional qualification, i.e., a candidate holding JOC is required to pass one language paper and one subject in the examination conducted by NIOS. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the petitioners have not possessed the aforesaid additional qualification of pass in one language course conducted by NIOS and one curriculum subject (Distance Education Method) or pass in examination in one language or one subject conducted by the Pre- 7 University Board. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the statements of marks produced by them for having passed Diploma examination also did not reflect that they having passed any subject as required under the aforesaid Circular. Consequently, held that the petitioners were not eligible for consideration of their candidature for selection and appointment to the post of the Police Constable and rejected their application as devoid of merits. Aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2020, the petitioners are before this Court in the above petition.
6. Sri.Parashuram R. Hattarakihal, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition submitted that:
(a) Passing of course conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling- NIOS is not a requirement, since it is not notified during the course of selection of the petitioners. As such, their case needs to be 8 considered with reference to Government Order dated 27.01.2015.
(b) Respondent No.3 has not published final selection list and has not even considered the representation made by petitioners to include their names in the final selection list. As such, the action of the Respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal.
(c) He further submitted that the
Apex Court in the case of Bedanga
Talukdar vs. Saifuddin Khan and
others reported in 2011 (12) SCC 85
has held to the effect that selection
process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. That when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained and there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved. Thus, he submits that the Tribunal has not taken 9 these aspects of the matter into consideration while rejecting the application.
7. On the other hand, Sri.B.Rajendraprasad, learned HCGP for the respondents justifying the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the petitioners are not eligible as they have not fulfilled the qualification criteria prescribed under the Notification dated 21.06.2018 and there cannot be any relaxation in that regard. It is only for the said reason, the case of the petitioners has not been considered. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. The educational qualification prescribed for the post of Civil Police Constable (Men and Women) as per Clause-6 of the notification dated 21.06.2018 is pass in 10 PUC or equivalent qualification. It is necessary to note that by an earlier Circular dated 27.02.2018, the 1st respondent-State Government has clarified the qualification equivalent to SSLC, PUC and Degree for the purpose of Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. Courses equivalent to PUC, relevant for the purpose of this case is extracted hereunder:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð ²PÀët ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉUÀ¼ÀÄ:
1. ¹.©.J¸ï.E ªÀÄvÀÄÛ L.¹.J¸ï.E ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ PÁè¸ï 12 ¥ÀjÃPÉë;
2. EvÀgÉ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀjÃPÁë ªÀÄAqÀ½UÀ½AzÀ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ PÁè¸ï 12 ¥ÀjÃPÉë;
3. £ÁåµÀ£À'ï E¤ì÷ÖlÆåmï D¥sï N¥À£ï ¸ÀÆÌ°AUï(J£ï.L.N.J¸ï) ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ G£ÀßvÀ ¥ËæqsÀ ²PÀët PÉÆøïð/ºÉZï.J¸ï.¹;
4. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ CxÀªÁ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À L.n.L PÉÆøïð CxÀªÁ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÀÈwÛ ²PÀët r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ (eÉ.N.¹/eÉ.N.r.¹/eÉ.J'ï.r.¹) C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ J£ï.L.M.J¸ï £À ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ ¨sÁµÁ PÉÆøïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è (zÀÆgÀPÀ°PÉ ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ°è) CxÀªÁ ¥ÀzÀ«¥ÀƪÀð ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ¨sÁµÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è GwÛÃtðgÁzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ."
10. In the instant case, though the petitioners are contending that selection process has to be conducted in accordance with stipulated selection procedure, the Notification dated 21.06.2018 specifically provides that 11 the candidates shall have passed P.U.C or equivalent educational qualification. What is equivalent educational qualification has been clarified by the Government in the aforesaid Circular as extracted hereinabove.
11. Though, the petitioners claim to have passed the job oriented Pre-University Diploma (2 years) and that the same to be treated as equivalent to the PUC, there is no material produced by the petitioners satisfying the requirement of they passing "One Language Course conducted by the NIOS and one curriculum subject (Distant Education Method) or passed examination in one Language or one subject conducted by Pre-University Education Board." The aforesaid requirement of qualification was made known even prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 21.06.2018. The Tribunal taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The reliance placed 12 by the counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra) is of no avail. No grounds made out by the petitioners. Hence, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bnv/RU