Karnataka High Court
Sri. Srikanathan K S/O Kristaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
W.P.Nos.106768-106771/2018 &
W.P.Nos.105760-105770/2019 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SRIKANATHAN K S/O KRISTAIAH,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O # 616, OPPOSITE YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
5TH WARD, RANIPET, HOSAPETE-583201,
DIST:BALLARI.
2. SRI SUBRAMANI S/O GANGAMMA,
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O NEAR RAMSWAMY TEMPLE,
2ND WARD, SANDUR-583119,
DIST:BALLARI.
3. SRI UMESH NAIK S S/O CHANDRA NAIK,
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O HOUSE NO.216, WARD NO.1,
SUSHILANAGAR, TQ:SANDUR-583119,
DIST:BALLARI.
4. SRI VEERESH D S/O HANUMANTHAPPA D,
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O NARSINGAPURA VILLAGE,
DONIMALLI(P), TQ: SANDUR 583118,
DIST:BALLARI.
5. SRI VEERESH D S/O HANUMANTHAPPA D,
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O SRIRAKSHE,
NEAR OLD TAHASIL OFFICE,
:2:
SAI TEMPLE ROAD,
LINGASUR 584122.
6. SRI PRASHANTH K M,
S/O MARUTHI,
AGE:29 YEARS,
OCC:NIL,
R/O HIG-02, NETAJINAGAR,
KHB COLONY, BALLARI.
7. SRI ARUN KUMAR M B,
S/O M B VEERESH,
AGE:31 YEARS,
OCC:NIL,
R/O ARUNA NILAYA,
KVOR COLONY,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI-583212
DIST:BALLARI.
8. SRI VENKATESHA BHAJANTRI,
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O HAMPASAGAR 2ND POST,
TQ:HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI 583212
DIST:BALLARI.
9. SRI BALAVANTAPPA S/O GUNDERAO MULAGE.
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O DEVANTI, AT BHUSANOOR POST,
TQ:ALANDA 585302,
DIST:KALABURGI.
10. SRI SURESHA G S/O SHIVANANDAPPA G,
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O BELLIGATTA POST,
TQ:KUDLIGI 583135,
DIST:BALLARI.
11. M.D.SALAUDDIN JS/O JALAUDDIN,
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O KALYANANAGAR,
3RD CROSS,
KOPPAL 583231.
12. SRI VINAYAKA M S/O VEERENNA M,
:3:
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O NANDIHALLI POST,
TQ:HUVINAHADAGALI 583219,
DIST:BALLARI.
13. SRI SRINIVASA NAIK P G,
S/O GANGA NAIK P,
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O POOJAHALLI THANDA,
POOJARAHALLI POST,
TQ:KUDLIGI 583218,
DIST:BALLARI.
14. SRI CHAKRASALI NAGARAJA,
S/O C SHANTHAMMA,
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O SHIVACHANDRA KRUPA,
MILITARY BAYALU,
RAMANAGARA,
GHAGARIBOMMANAHALLI 583212,
DIST BALLARI.
15. JEELAN S/O KHADAR BHASHA,
AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O NO.14/A/197,
NEAR UMMAR MASJID,
SHUBHASHNAGAR,
SANDUR 583119,
DIST:BALLARI.
16. SRI REAVANNA K S/O THIPPESWAMY K,
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O RUPANAGUDI POST 583102,
TQ:BALLARI, DIST:BALLARI.
..... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T HANUMAREDDY, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIKASA SIUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
:4:
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001
3. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
4. THE VIJANAGAR SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYA UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
GNANASAGAR GROUND, VINAYAKANAGAR,
CONTONMENT, BALLARI-583105.
5. THE DIRECTOR
P.G.CENTRE,
VIJANAGAR SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYA UNIVERSITY,
NANDIHALLI, SANDUR 583119, DIST:BALLARI.
..... RESPONDENTS
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5537 TO
5562/2018 WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED
DATED 08.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for orders viz., for non- compliance of office objections and yet again time is prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, prima facie, we are not inclined to grant yet persuaded by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners have good case on merits, we have examined the case papers and on perusal of the same, we :5: are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions for the reasons indicated hereinbelow.
2. Petitioners filed O.A.Nos.5537-5562/2018 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, for quashing the portion of communication dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure-A60) whereunder first respondent had directed the second respondent to proceed with the selection process considering the qualifications prescribed in the notification dated 17.12.2016 (Annexure-A6) issued by third respondent inviting applications for various posts to be filled in various departments of Government of Karnataka and in particular for 137 posts of Geologists, applications have been invited to which petitioners had also applied for. Petitioners had also sought for a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to consider their candidature for the post of Geologists by declaring M.Tech (Mineral Processing) as being equivalent to M.Sc. (Mineral Processing). On account of said prayer having not been considered by Government, they approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, Tribunal) for the said relief contending inter alia that :6: earlier in the year 1975, M.Sc (Mineral Processing) course was renamed as Master of Applied Science in Mineral Processing (M.A.Sc) and again in the year 1990, Master of Applied Science course was renamed as M.Tech (Mineral Processing) and since then Post Graduation in Mineral processing and Master of Applied Science in Mineral Processing are called as M.Tech (Mineral Processing). In other words, it was contended that subjects taught in M.Tech (Mineral Processing) are equivalent to Master of Applied Science in Mineral Processing and the syllabus are one and the same. Tribunal after examining the plea of the petitioners has found that though petitioners were not even eligible for applying had applied to the posts of Geologists notified, by falsely declaring their educational qualification as M.Sc. (Mineral Processing) in the online application filed by them and it was a false declaration. Hence, candidature of the applicants/petitioners are rejected on the ground of false declaration. Their claim for grant of prayer as noticed herein above was not entertained. That apart, the petitioners' qualification being M.Tech (Mineral Processing) has not been declared as :7: equivalent under Rule 2(h) of Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and as such they would not be entitled to apply for the posts of Geologists invited under the notification in question.
3. It is the contention of Mr. Hanumareddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that apart from the declaration of equivalency sought before the Tribunal, petitioners had also sought for a direction to consider their representation to the post of Geologists by declaring M.Tech. (Mineral Processing) as equivalent to M.Sc. (Mineral Processing) and non consideration of this prayer has perforced the petitioners to approach this Court by reiterating their prayer as sought for before the appellate Tribunal.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate Smt. Veena appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, we notice that 3rd respondent herein issued Notification dated 17.12.2016 :8: calling for application for various posts to be filled in several departments of the Government of Karnataka and under the said notification (Annexure-A6) at Sl.No.69, 137 posts of Geologists have been notified and prescribed qualification for the posts of geologist as indicated in the notification are as under:
1. M.Sc. (Earth Science and Resource Management)
2. M.Sc. (Marine Geology)
3. M.Sc. (Earth Science and Natural Resources)
4. M.Sc. (Mineral Processing)
5. M.Sc. (Remote Sensing Application)
6. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that Recruiting Authority would be best judge to arrive at a conclusion as to whether qualification claimed by an applicant is to be treated as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed under the recruitment notification. To arrive at such conclusion, courts would not possess any requisite expertise or in other words it cannot sit in the arm chair of the experts, who would have gathered all such inputs that :9: may be necessary and would have taken into consideration all relevant material at the time of prescribing requisite qualification to the post which is to be filled. Thus, Government is always at liberty to decide as to what educational qualifications are to be treated as equivalent.
In this regard, Rule 2(h) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for brevity) would throw light and as such for the purposes of immediate reference it is extracted herein below:
2. Definitions.- (1) In these rules xxx xxx xxx otherwise requires.- (a) to (g) xxx xxx xxx
(h) "Equivalent qualification" means a qualification notified by the Government to be equivalent to a qualification in respect of any post in the rules regulating recruitment to any State Civil Service;
7. In the Notification dated 17.12.2016 for the posts of Geologists, equivalent posts which have been prescribed as noticed herein above are five in number. Merely because petitioners would contend that syllabus or : 10 : the subjects as prescribed and taught for students of M.Tech (Mineral Processing) is same subjects or syllabus also studied by the students of M.Sc. (Mineral Processing), that itself would not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that they are equivalent. When the appropriate government/recruiting authority have consciously omitted to include degree holders of M. Tech. (MP) to apply for the posts of geologists, it cannot be gain said by them even in such circumstances that appropriate government has to automatically accept their plea or treat them on par with the degree holder of M.Sc. (Mineral Processing). It would be apt and appropriate to notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Shujat Ali and Others Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1974 SC 1631 whereunder similar and identified contention that Government's treatment of US and OCE certificates holders of the Osmania Engineering College as inferior to US and LCE diplomas of the College of Engineering, Guindy and LCE, LME and LEE diplomas of any other recognized institution and equating them with LS and OCE certificates : 11 : of the College of Engineering, Guindy, was erroneous and held at paragraph 13 which reads:
"13. This contention has been adequately dealt with in the judgment given by the division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 23rd February, 1960 in Writ Petition No. 645 of 1967 and other allied petitions and the judgment of the Full Bench impugned in these appeals. We are substantially in agreement with the reasons which have weighed with the Division Bench and the Full Bench in rejecting this contention. It must be noted that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standard, and ,practical attainments of such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government. It is only where the decision of the Government is : 12 : shown to be based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated by mala fides or irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong that the Court would reach out its lethal arm and strike down the decision of the Government. Here in the present case it cannot be said that the view taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh that US and OCE certificates of the Osmania Engineering College were not equivalent to US or OCE diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy or LCE, LME or LEE diploma of any other recognised institution suffered from any of these infirmities. It was based on the re- commendation of an expert high powered body like the State Board of Technical Education consisting of distinguished administrators, educationists and technical experts against whom nothing could be alleged on behalf of the petitioners/appellants. The State Board of Technical Education included inter alia Principals of different engineering ,colleges in the State, the Secretary of the Regional Committee of the All India Committee on Technical Education, retired Chief Engineers as also Chief Engineers in office who would be expected to be familiar with the academic standards and practical content of the different qualifications and the decision taken by the : 13 : Government of Andhra 'Pradesh on the basis of the recommendation of the State Board of Technical Education could not be regarded as unreasonable or perverse ,or manifestly wrong nor could it be said to be mala fide or based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations. Indeed, the Government of Andhra Pradesh could not do better than relay on the recommendation of the State Board of Technical Education. The Full Bench as well as the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court have in fact shown in their respective judgments, on a comparison of the duration and content of the respective courses, that US and OCE certificates of the Osmania Engineering College, were, both from the point of view of academic learning as also from the point of view of practical experience, inferior to US or LCE diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy or LCE, LME or LEE diploma of any other recognised institution. It may also be pointed out that even in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad itself, US and OCE certificates of the Osmania Engineering College were not treated on a par with LCE, LME or LEE diploma.
Firstly, an Overseer holding US or OCE certificate of the Osmania Engineering College was required to put in at least six years service before he could be eligible for promotion as : 14 : Supervisor while a Sub-Overseer holding LCE or LME diploma did not have to put in any minimum qualifying service for the purpose of promotion as Supervisor. Secondly, US or OCE certificate of the Osmania Engineering College was regarded as sufficient qualification only for recruitment to the post of Sub- Overseer, while LCE or LME diploma qualified for recruitment not only to the post of Sub-Overseer but also to the post of Supervisor. It is, therefore, not possible to overturn the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh denying equivalence of US and, OCE certificates of the Osmania Engineering College with LCE, LME or LEE diplomas. It may be noted that the Central Government also affirmed the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its letter dated 17th March, 1966. Even if it be assumed that the Central Government had the exclusive power under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 to bring about integration of services in the reorganised State of Andhra Pradesh, this decision of the Central Government, contained in the letter dated 17th March, 1966 is sufficient to meet. the requirement of the statute and it must be upheld for the same reasons as the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. There was a further ground of attack levelled against the : 15 : decision of the Central Government, albeit faintheartedly, and that was that the decision of the Central Government was arrived at solely on the basis of the communication dated 9th January, 1965 addressed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs without giving any opportunity to the non-graduate Supervisors from the erstwhile Hyderabad State to put forward their case. This charge is plainly unsustainable as it is evident from paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27th July, 1970 filed by K. P. Singh, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in reply to Writ Petition No. 85 of 1969, and it can hardly be disputed, that the representations made, by the non-graduate Supervisors from the erstwhile Hyderabad State against the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh contained in the Order dated 3rd October, 1960 were forwarded to the Central Government and it was after giving due consideration to these representations on the basis of the recommendations of the Advisory Board which consisted of experts, that the Central Government affirmed the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its letter : 16 : dated 17th March, 1966. The present contention of the petitioners/appellants. must, therefore, be rejected."
8. In the instance case, it has to be held that neither the Tribunal nor this Court having expertise with regard to declaring equivalence and the fact that the Government has consciously not included degree possessed by the petitioners namely M.Tech. (Mineral Processing) to be equivalent degree to M.Sc. (Mineral Processing) and also the fact there being no notification issued by the Government as required under Rule 2(h) of Rules declaring these two degrees as equivalent, the only irresistible conclusion we have to reach is to reject the contention raised by learned counsel appearing for petitioners.
9. Yet another fact which cannot go unnoticed in the present set of facts is that petitioners herein having known that they possessed M.Tech. (Mineral Processing) degree had while submitting their applications online declared their educational qualification as "M.Sc. (Mineral Processing)" which is a false declaration. But for their : 17 : false declaration, applications of the petitioners itself would not have been uploaded to the website or the user agency server, as such the petitioners are also guilty of the doctrine of impari delicto- a person who has wronged would not be entitled to seek the hands of justice.
10. For reasons aforestated above, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case where these petitions requires to be entertained. As such we have examined the merits of the case at orders stage itself particularly in the background of these petitions having been pending from 2018 and found if it is kept pending and adjourned for any reason whatsoever, it will not serve any fruitful purpose. Hence, these writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Naa /JTR