Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Public Service ... vs Smt Pooja P Nayak on 8 November, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB
WP No. 11233 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 11233 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. POOJA P NAYAK,
D/O LATE PRABHAKAR B. NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.234/A, 40TH CROSS,
RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND FLOOR,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 010.
by SHARADA
VANI B 2. THE COMMISSIONER,
Location: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
HIGH COURT
OF 1ST FLOOR, A BLOCK,
KARNATAKA TTMC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S R KHAMROZ KHAN., AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.09.2022 PASSED IN
APPLICATION No. 1797/2022 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE C AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB
WP No. 11233 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) The Karnataka Public Service Commission is grieving before the Writ Court against the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 29.09.2022 in Application No.1797/2022 coupled with another candidate's Application No.2410/2022 having been favoured, relief has been accorded by directing the petitioner to consider their candidature for selection to the post of Inspector Motor Vehicles in accordance with law, keeping 'in view the revised medical report of the medical board' within three months.
2. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Commissioner vehemently argues that there is a conflict between the earlier medical report and the subsequent medical report; while preparing the subsequent medical -3- NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023 report, the medical test of the candidates concerned was not done in the procedure that was followed by the earlier Board; that being the position, the Tribunal could not have directed the Commission to act upon the subsequent medical report. So arguing, he seeks invalidation of the impugned order. Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent and the learned AGA appearing for the official respondent resist the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. Learned counsel Mr.Satish K appearing for the 1st respondent points out that it was the Commission which had referred the matter for second medical test and therefore, it cannot refuse to act upon the report of the second test. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the private respondent. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023 Ordinarily, soliciting report after report at the hands of multiple experts would create confusion and chaos in recruitment process and therefore, such an exercise is not desirable, subject to all just exceptions vide Ms. DISHA vs. STATE AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401. However, if circumstances do warrant, it is not that in no case, such a course will be open.
4. The above being said, the Commission is not justified in refusing to act upon the second medical report on Knock Knees Test favourable to the candidates itself having resorted to such an exercise. The petitioner-KPSC itself had sent the candidates for second test by writing as under:
"¢£ÁAPÀ 04-02-2016 gÀAzÀÄ C¢ü¸Æ À a¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÁjUÉ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è£À ªÉÆÃmÁgÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ°è 1:2 C£ÀÄ¥ÁvÀzÀ°è 279 C¨såÀ yðUÀ½UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07-10-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®zÁR¯É ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ DºÁ餹 £ÀAvÀgÀ zÉÊ»PÀ CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ ªÀ¼À¥Àr¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ, CzÀgÀ°è M§â C¨såÀ yðAiÀÄÄ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ®ªÀÅ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ C£ÀºÀðgÁzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ CªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è wêÀiÁð¤¹zÀÄÝ, D C¨såÀ yðUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß zÉÊ»PÀ CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ ªÀ¼À¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÄÀ .
-5- NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023 1£Éà ºÀAvÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®zÁR¯É zÉÊ»PÀ CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ PÀæ. ¸ÀA. ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÆAzÀt ¸ÀASÉå ¸ÀܼÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ DºÁ餸À¯ÁzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÃ¼É PÀæ.¸ÀA. 1 04 Mandhar M Muranal - 100008 2 05 Siddappa Malad - 100022 3 08 Shreedhar Nagarabetta - 100068 ¢:05-04-2018, ªÀÄzsÁåºÀÚ 4 09 Pradeepkumar Y.M- 100072 1:30 UÀAmÉUÉ 5 40 Jaheer Abbas Momin-100395 6 52 Ravindra - 100446 «PÉÆÖÃjAiÀiÁ D¸ÀàvÉæ, ¹n 7 64 Soundharya K S -100511 ªÀiÁPÉðmï ºÀwÛgÀ,¥sÉÆmïð 8 79 Pooja. P Nayak-100660 gÉÆÃqï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. 9 138 Jayashree H M -101166 10 212 Sikandrababu M M- 101802 11 240 Harisha N.V - 102058
Name of the private respondent Smt.Pooja P Nayak who was the applicant before the Tribunal figures at Sl.No.8 which is highlighted. That being the position, the Commission cannot now turn around and question the said report too. A contention to the contra would make the exercise ad nauseam.
5. The vehement submission of the Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the second medical board did not conduct the exercise in the procedure which the first one had adopted, does not merit acceptance, in the absence of the breach of any protocol having been -6- NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023 demonstrated. The insistence of the Panel Counsel for the summoning of two of the doctors who had given adverse report earlier, is un-understandable and therefore, cannot be acceded to.
In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been reluctantly made easy.
The petitioner-KPSC shall process the matter and forward the File to the 2nd respondent within three weeks, and the 2nd respondent shall give effect to the order of the Tribunal, within an outer limit of eight weeks in accordance with law.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14