Karnataka High Court
Huligeppa @ Huliraj T vs The Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 13 October, 2015
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.17071/2010 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
HULIGEPPA @ HULIRAJ T.
S/O RAMAREDDY, AGE: 39 YEARS
OCC: OVERSEER/METER READER
GESCOM, R/O H.NO.4-13-58
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, RAICHUR
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.
KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 009
3. SWETHA S. D/O SIDDARAMAIAH M.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O NOT KNOWN
C/O THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 009
4. VINAYAK AGADI S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O NOT KNOWN
-2-
C/O THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 009
5. RAGHU NAIK J.H. S/O HALA NAIK J.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NOT KNOWN
C/O THE DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 009
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 DEEMED TO BE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO STRIKE
DOWN THE SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 AS ASSISTANT
ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) PURSUANT TO THE FINAL SELECTION
LIST ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J VIDE
NOTIFICATION DATED 20.02.2010, ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court seeking that the selection of respondent Nos.3 to 5 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to the final selection list as at Annexure-J be struck down. The petitioner in that view is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the -3- final selection and appoint petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
2. Petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 had responded to the notification of the respondents seeking to appoint qualified persons to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 to 5 had claimed employment as physically handicapped persons.
3. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has secured 70.0625% of marks in the qualifying examination to apply for the said posts, respondent Nos.3 to 5 who have secured lesser marks than that of the petitioner yet they have been selected. In that regard, it is contended that respondent No.3 had secured 64.87%, respondent No.4 had secured 63.19% and respondent No.5 had secured 45.63%. In that view, it is contended that since the percentage of marks obtained by respondent Nos.3 to 5 is lesser than that of the petitioner, petitioner ought to have been selected. -4- The cut of percentage in that regard is also referred to indicate that in respect of SC category it was 64.87%, in respect of GM/physically handicapped it was 63.19% and insofar as SC/Physically handicapped it was 45.63%. The petitioner therefore claiming to have a higher percentage of marks in the qualifying examination seeks that the selection of respondent Nos.3 to 5 be set aside and on re-allocating the selection, petitioner be included in the selection list.
4. The respondents have filed their objections statement. Though the percentage of marks as referred to by the petitioner relating to himself as well as respondent Nos.3 to 5 is not in dispute, the respondents contend that the marks as claimed by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration since the course undergone by the petitioner from Institute of Advance Studies in Education (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'IASE') Rajastan is not a recognized course and therefore, case of the petitioner cannot be considered. In that -5- regard, the respondents have relied upon the documents produced along with the objections statement to contend that course undergone by the petitioner is not from a recognized university. It is therefore contended that respondent Nos.3 to 5 having secured marks in the examination conducted by the recognized university have been selected and the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.
5. In the light of the rival contention, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers. The only aspect that is required to be taken into consideration in the instant case is as to whether case of the petitioner would arise for consideration merely because the petitioner has secured a higher percentage of marks than respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the qualifying examination without reference to the institution from which the petitioner has secured such qualification. The marks as obtained is detailed and it is indicated at 70.0625%. The petitioner -6- claims to have secured qualification from IASE Rajastan. List of University/Institution approved by the Distance Education Counsel as on 01.02.2010 is produced at Annexure-R1 to the petition. The universities which are recognized in the State of Rajastan has been listed out in Annexure-R1. IASE from which the petitioner has secured qualification is not indicated therein as recognized institution/University. Further, respondents have also relied on the document at Annexures-R2 & R3 to contend that the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited has also made similar consideration with regard to the recognized university and they have specifically indicated that IASE Rajastan is not recognized university.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that attempts have been made by the petitioner to secure details with regard to recognition of the university from the Distance Education Counsel, keeping -7- in view of the fact that the respondents have taken into consideration qualification secured from the same institution by Sri D. Nagarjun and Sri Nagaraj for promotion his case also should be considered, there is no material available on record to indicate that as on the date of notification for the post to which petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 applied, institution wherein the petitioner has secured qualification was recognized institution. If that be the position, the details as indicated in the list at Annexure-R1 cannot be discarded by this Court, more particularly, in a circumstance, when similarly placed authorities of different states have specifically excluded IASE Rajastan from the recognized list. Therefore, if the petitioner has secured a higher percentage of marks from an institution which has not been recognized for the purpose of employment, certainly, the petitioner cannot claim rights above respondent Nos.3 to 5. In fact, respondent Nos.1 and 2 having taken note of the objection which had been putforth by the petitioner and have assigned reasons for -8- non-consideration of the case of the petitioner as depicted in Annexure-R4 to the petition. In the said circumstances, I do not find merit in the case putforth by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*