Karnataka High Court
Gireesh T S vs State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 25241 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. GIREESH T S
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA T N
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18
SRI. MYLARALINGESHWARA SWAMY NILAYA
DODDAIAHNA PALYA
HALE PALYA POST, TIPTUR TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 201.
2. RAGHAVENDRA MANTA
S/O HANUNMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18/A, GANJIPETER
NEW NEKAR COLONY
GAJENDRAGADA ,
GAJENDRAGADA TALUK
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 114.
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADV.)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESWARAIAH TOWER
-2-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
UDYOGA SOUDHA, PALACE ROAD,
BENGLAURU -560001.
4. UMESH
(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
AGE: MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER)
RESIDING NEAR CHETAK SCHOOL
FILTER BED ROAD,
KALBURGI-585 104.
5. PRAKASH MAGADUM
S/O JINNAPPA MAGADUM
AGE: MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER)
R/AT A P KUSANAL, ATHANI TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 316.
6. DINESHWARI B PATIL
S/O DINESHWARI PATIL
AGE: MAJOR
(EXACT NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER)
RESIDENT OF GOKAK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 307.
7. MANJUNATHA PARASHURAM GULED
S/O MANJUNATH P GULED
AGE MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER)
RESIDING NEAR HOBLI POST,
NAVALAGUNDA
DHARAWADA DISTRICT-582 208.
8. PREETI
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONER)
AGE MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT HOUSE NO.2907/14/43
GUBBI COLONY, GGH GULBARGA
KALBURGI - 585 105.
-3-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
9. MALLANNA GOUDA APPANNA GOUDA BIRADAR
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
AGE MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O HOSAHALLI (POST), TUMBAGI,
TALIKOTI, MUDDEBIHAL TALUK
BIJAPUR DISTRICT - 586 214.
10. MAHANTESH BHAJANTRI
S/O MAHANTHESH HANUMANTHA BAJANTRI
AGE: MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
MANNIKERI (POST), GOKAK TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 227.
11. AFROZ AHMED PATEL
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
AGE MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
RESIDING NEAR BILAL MASJIT,
PATEL GALLI, AFZALPUR,
KALBURGI DISTRICT- 585301.
12. RAJKUMAR GOUDAPPAGOL
S/O R SHIVAPPA GOUDAPPAGOL
AGE MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER)
R/O SHIRAGUPPI
JAMAKHANDI TALUK
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT 587 119.
13. PAVANKUMAR K M
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS),
R/O KAMALAVARAPALLI,
THADIGOL, PANCHAYATH
KASHETTIHALLI
SRINIVASAUPRA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 135.
14. CHANDRAVVA BILUR
S/O CHANDRAVVA L BILUR
AGE MAJOR
(EXACT NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O TAKKALAKI (POST), SAVALAGI
JAMKHANDI TALUK
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT- 586 126.
-4-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
15. MISS. VANITHA BAI
D/O PALITYA TANDA
AGE: MAJOR
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O SALGAR
BASANTHAPUR (POST)
R BASANTHAPUR
CHINCHOLI TALUK
KALABURGI DISTRICT -585306.
16. NAGARAJA KARIWALEPPA
S/O NAGARAJA
AGE MAJOR
(EXACAT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O RAMANA KALLURU
MANVI TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT-584 120.
17. SANJAY KUMAR
S/O SANJYA KUMAR H KOLIGERI,
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O JAI BHEEM NAGAR,
AFZALPURA
KALBURGI DISTRICT-585 301.
18. VINAYAKUMAR HOLEPPAGOL
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O NO.1, DEVI APARTMENT
YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, VIDYAGIRI
DHARVADA - 580004.
19. MAHESH LAXMAN KULALI
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
RESIDING NEAR SIDDESHWAR MUTT,
ALBAL VILLAGE, JAMAKHANDI TALUK
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT - 587 119.
20. BHARATH A
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT NO.1780/6, GANGASHRI,
-5-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
VINAYAKA EXTENSION,
VIDHYANAGAR ,
DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 005.
21. RAMANNA PUJAR
S/O HALAPPA PUJAR,
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT SAJJANAR CHAL,
VIDYANAGARA, MUNDARGI TOWN,
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 118.
22. HANAMANT MUDHOL
S/O SANGAPPA MUDHOL
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O MUGALHOD, RAIBAG TLAUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT- 591 235.
23. RAJESH MOGER
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS,
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O MUGALHOD, RAIBAG TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT- 591 235.
24. NARASIMHA MURTHY P
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT NO.569, 9TH CROSS,
CHOLANAYAKNAHALLI, R T NAGARA
BENGALURU - 560032.
25. SHEELA BAI
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT PLOT NO.3, BHEEM NAGARA
KAKADE CHOWK RING ROAD,
NEHRU GANJ
KALABURGI CITY -585 104.
26. BHARATHI
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
-6-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT NO.3-966/3, BASAVA NIVAS
ATTAR COMPOUND,
GAZIPURA, JAGAT
KALBURGI - 585 101.
27. CHITRA B A
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS,
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT NO.80, 3RD FLOOR,
SANJEEVAPPA LANE, AVENUE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560002.
28. JYOTHI V UPPAR
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/OF JEERGAL (POST), MUDHOL TALUK
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587313.
29. SUMALATHA L
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT NO.209, SRI. RAMA ROAD,
2ND BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGARA,
BENGALURU- 560028.
30. SHANTHALA K
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
C/O NARASIMHARAJU, TANISKA NILAYA
YELLAPURA, TUMAKURU-572106.
31. PARASURAMA S.D.
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT NO.232/3, SHARADA NILAYA
CHIKKANAHALLI,
-7-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
NITTUVALLI NEW EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE-577004.
32. VIJAYANANDINI M A
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT NO.12, C B NAGARA, SULIBELE
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.
33. ASHVINI
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/AT NO. 8-1545/A1D,
SHIVAJINAGARA,
GANDHINAGAR ,
KALBURGI- 585 104.
34. SABA SHEERIN
(FATHER/HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
C/O INAYATHULLA BAIG,
J C CIRCLE, V MOBILES,
K R ROAD, HOSAKOTE TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
35. H AKSHATHA
D/O HANUMANTH SHIVU HALLER,
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O BIRAKODI (POST)
KAGAL, KUMATA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 351.
36. DODDAMALAVAIAH C
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O LALGHATTA VILLAGE POST,
CHANNAPATTNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160.
-8-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
37. ARUN KUMAR E N
(FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS),
AGE MAJOR,
(EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)
R/O SINGIRIHALLI,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-583 137.
38. UMESH SHANKARAPPA GUDDAD
S/O SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NO.14-135/2,
OPP TO I B, CHITRAGUPPA
BIDAR DISTRICT- 585 412.
39. T C MAHESHWARAPPA
S/O CHINNARANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O THALAKATTA (POST)
HOLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 539.
40. MISS K KAVITHA D/O KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.235, 5TH B MAIN ROAD,
REMCO LAYOUT, HAMPINAGARA
RPC LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 040.
41. SMT. RANJINI P N
W/O VIJAYAKUMAR N K
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.120, JAKKARAYANAKERE
NEAR WATER TANKI,
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560020.
42. Y O KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY
S/O OBALESHAIAH Y
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85, BHEEMANAKUNTE
POTHAGANAHALLI POST,
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 141.
43. DEVARAJU H
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH C
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
-9-
WP No. 25241 of 2023
R/AT NO.122, 2ND CROSS,
K K LAYOUT, NEAR DEEPA COMPLEX,
PAPAREDDYPALYA
BENGALURU-560072.
44. KUMAR D S/O DAS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.91, 7TH CROSS, I FLOOR,
SULTHANAPALYA, R T NAGAR,
BENGALURU -560032.
45. ABHISHEK RAJ
S/O A K SHASHI RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
C/O RASHMI SAI RAM AVENUE
FLAT NO.102, 3RD CROSS
NAIDUS LAYOUT
OPP. TO ABBAIAHNAIDU STUDIO
CHIKKALASANDRA
BENGALURU- 560061.
46. SMT. NADIYA R W/O BHUVAN R
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT KERE KODI, KURAHALLI POST,
BANGARAPETE TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
47. MISS. CHANDRIKA M S
D/O M R SULAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT MATHRUSHREE NILAYA,
OPPOSITE TO BANK OF INDIA
SCOUT CAMP ROAD, RAILWAY STATION,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
48. NAGENDRA PRASAD K B
S/O BASAVARAJAIAH K R
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.38/2,
VEERAMANNAVARA MATTA
GANIGARAPETE, HOSAKOTE TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI K M PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R3 SRI K NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R4, R7, R8, R17, R18, R20, R24, R25, R26 & R35
- 10 -
WP No. 25241 of 2023SMT. RATNA BAI, ADV. FOR R11 SRI SYED MASTAN, ADV. FOR R15 SRI K.S. MALLIKARJUNAIAH, ADV. FOR R39 TO 41, R45, R47 AND R48 R5, R10, R12, R13, R14, R16, R21, R22, R23, R28, R30, R32, R33, R34, R36, R37 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.2264 TO 2276/2020 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, CERTIFIED COPY WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 21.02.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The unsuccessful applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), are before this Court questioning the order dated 25.01.2023 in Application Nos.2264-2276/2020, by which the petitioners challenge to Recruitment Notification dated 15.03.2017 insofar as inviting applications to fill up 34 posts of Chief Officer Grade II and also to quash Final
- 11 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
Selection List dated 04.06.2020 of Chief Officer Grade II is rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
The respondent No.3 under Notification dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure-A28) invited applications to fill-up various posts including that of Chief Officer Grade II in the second respondent - Department under Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules 2006 and 2015 Amendment Rules. The petitioners who possess Degree of a University established by law in India and Diploma in Local Self-Government (LSG) submitted applications for the post of Chief Officer Grade II and participated in the selection process. The Final Selection List was published on 04.06.2020, whereunder, the petitioners and respondent Nos. 38-48 were not selected and against their non-selection, they approached the Tribunal in the above stated applications contending that though the Recruitment Rules would give preference to candidates who possess Diploma in LSG, no such preference has been
- 12 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
provided in the selection process and that the common competitive examination conducted for 11 different posts is unreasonable and opposed to Rules. The Tribunal under the impugned order, dismissed the petitioners' applications holding that preference to Diploma in LSG candidates would not mean absolute precedence or reservation when selection is through merit, determined through competitive examination. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioners having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful could not have subsequently challenged the selection process. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri. A V Gangadharappa for petitioners and Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri. K M Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri. K Narasimha Murthy, learned advocate for private respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned counsel Sri. A V Gangadharappa would submit that the prescribed qualification in terms of
- 13 -
WP No. 25241 of 2023Recruitment Rules to the post of Chief Officer Grade II is a Degree of University established by law in India and candidates possessing Diploma in LSG would be preferred. It is his specific contention that though the prescribed qualification requires preferential qualification of Diploma in LSG, no preference is provided to the petitioners who possessed Diploma in LSG. Learned counsel Sri. A V Gangadharappa would submit that the selection has taken place solely based on the marks obtained in the competitive written examination ignoring the preferential qualification of Diploma in LSG. Learned counsel Sri A V Gangadharappa would submit that when the Cadre and Recruitment Rules insofar as Chief Officer Grade II is concerned, provides preference to Diploma in LSG and if that preference is not provided and selection is made only on the basis of marks obtained in the competitive written examination, the Recruitment Rule itself would be rendered redundant. It is the submission that the selection of candidates under Final Select List dated 04.06.2020 (Anenxure-A35) ignoring the candidates who
- 14 -
WP No. 25241 of 2023possessed Diploma in LSG would be contrary to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules to the post of Chief Officer Grade-II.
5. The above apart, learned counsel Sri. A V Gangadharappa contended that conducting common single competitive examination of different posts including Chief Officer Grade-II is irrational and contrary to the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service Rules, 1970. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the Selection List published by third respondent under Notification dated 04.06.2020 and to direct the third respondent - KPSC to provide preference to the candidates possessing Diploma in LSG in terms of the existing C and R Rules.
6. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondent - State authorities and learned counsel appearing on behalf of third respondent - KPSC would submit that the Recruitment Notification made it clear that the selection of candidates is on the basis of the marks obtained in the competitive written examination in terms
- 15 -
WP No. 25241 of 2023of Rules 2006 and 2015 amended Rules. Further, they submit that preferential qualification would come into play when two candidates are placed equally in the Merit List, then a candidate who possess preferential qualification would get selected. Preferential qualification in terms of the C and R Rules would not mean that only the candidates who possess Diploma in LSG are to be selected. It is also submitted that though common written examination is conducted, different syllabus were prescribed for Degree and non-Degree categories. Learned counsel appearing for the private/selected candidates would support the contention of respondents No. 1 to 3 and in addition, he would submit that the selected candidates were appointed on 01.07.2021 and since then, they are working in the Department. Thus, they would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition papers, the following point would arise for consideration:
- 16 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
"Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal refusing to interfere with the Final Selection List dated 04.06.2020 (Annexure- A35) and Recruitment Notification dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure-A28) warrants interference?"
8. The answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:
Under Notification dated 15.03.2017 (Anenxure-
A28), third respondent invited applications from eligible candidates to various posts including that of Chief Officer Grade II in the second respondent - Department i.e., Municipal Administration. In terms of Cadre and Recruitment Rules relating the Chief Officer, Grade II in the Department of Municipal Administration, the prescribed qualification is as follows:
"Should be holder of:-
i. degree of a University established by law in India.
ii. Candidates possessing diploma in L.S.G. will be preferred."
9. In terms of the above C and R Rules, the basic qualification for the post of Chief Officer, Grade II is a
- 17 -
WP No. 25241 of 2023Degree of University established by law in India and preference is provided to the candidates possessing Diploma in LSG. The Notification calling for application makes it clear that the selection is in terms of Rules 2006 and amended 2015 Rules by competitive written examination. The Notification also makes it clear that the selection would be on the basis of marks obtained in the competitive written examination and based on the policy of reservation. When the Notification makes it clear that selection is based on the marks obtained in the competitive written examination, the preferential qualification would have little role to play in the process of selection. When two or more candidates are placed equally, a candidate who possesses preferential qualification, would get preference over other candidates who are equally placed.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihudutta Mohanty v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 16, in an identical situation, has observed that "where any Rule or Ruling provides presence in respect of some other higher
- 18 -
WP No. 25241 of 2023education qualification, it only means that all other requirements being equal, a person possessing higher educational qualification will be preferred. Further it observed that it cannot, however, be considered as the sole criterion for preference in selection and appointment."
11. In the case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 341, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a similar issue in the matter of selection and appointment and at paragraphs No. 10 and 11, it has observed as under:
"10. Both on account of the scheme of selection and the various stages disclosed as necessary to be undergone by every candidate and the manner of actual selection for the appointment in question, the candidates were required to be selected finally for appointment on the basis of the ranks obtained by them in terms of the inter se ranking based on the merit of their respective performance. There is no escape for anyone from this ordeal and claim for any en bloc favoured treatment merely because, any one of them happened to possess an additional qualification
- 19 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
than the relevant basic/general qualification essential for even applying to the post. The word "preference" in our view is capable of different shades of meaning taking colour from the context, purpose and object of its use under the scheme of things envisaged. Hence, it is to be construed not in an isolated or detached manner, ascribing a meaning of universal import, for all contingencies capable of an invariable application. The procedure for selection in the case involves a qualifying test, a written examination and an oral test or interview and the final list of selection has to be on the basis of the marks obtained in them. The suitability and all-round merit, if had to be adjudged in that manner only, what justification could there be for overriding all these merely because, a particular candidate is in possession of an additional qualification on the basis of which, a preference has also been envisaged. The Rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The "preference" envisaged in the Rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. A mere rule of preference meant to give weightage to the additional qualification cannot be enforced
- 20 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
as a rule of reservation or rule of complete precedence. Such a construction would not only undermine the scheme of selection envisaged through the Public Service Commission on the basis of merit performance but also would work great hardship and injustice to those who possess the required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate their superiority meritwise and their suitability for the post. It is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for consideration. On the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when any one or more of them are found equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-à-vis others in the matter of actual selection.
11. Whenever, a selection is to be made on the basis of merit performance involving competition, and possession of any additional qualification or factor is also envisaged to accord preference, it cannot be for the purpose of putting them as a whole lot ahead of others, dehors their intrinsic
- 21 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
worth or proven inter se merit and suitability, duly assessed by the competent authority. Preference, in the context of all such competitive scheme of selection would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred. There is no question of eliminating all others preventing thereby even an effective and comparative consideration on merits, by according en bloc precedence in favour of those in possession of additional qualification irrespective of the respective merits and demerits of all candidates to be considered. If it is to be viewed the way the High Court and the Tribunal have chosen to, it would amount to first exhausting in the matter of selection all those, dehors their inter se merit performance, only those in possession of additional qualification and take only thereafter separately those with ordinary degree and who do not possess the additional qualification. Assuming for consideration without even accepting the same to be right or correct view to be taken, at least among the class or category of those possessing the additional qualification, inter se merit performance should be the decisive factor for actual selection for appointment and relief could not have been granted to the respondents
- 22 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
for the mere asking only on the basis of the interpretation of the provision to someone who came to court, ignoring the fact that those before the court at any rate in spite of the view taken do not come up to the level of selection considered in the context of numerous others with higher ranks of merit performance, in addition to they being also in possession of the additional qualification, as those before the court. That apart, the old rule relating to the post of ACTO, which has become obsolete having been superseded, or even the advertisement if it has stated on the basis of the obsolete rule, that preference will be given first to candidates who possess a degree in Commerce and degree in Law, secondly, to those who possess a degree in Commerce and thirdly, to those who possess a degree in Law, cannot either support the claim of Respondents 1 to 3 nor in any manner lend credence to the interpretation placed by the High Court and the Tribunal. The word "first"
has to be construed in the context of even giving preference only in the order and manner indicated therein, inter se among more than one holding such different class of degrees in addition and not to be interpreted vis-à-vis others who do not possess such
- 23 -
WP No. 25241 of 2023additional qualification, to completely exclude them en bloc."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In view of the above discussion and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the contention of the petitioners that not providing preference to the holders of Diploma in LSG has rendered the Rule redundant, is liable to be rejected.
13. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel since the petitioners participated in the selection process with their open eyes and having failed in the selection process have turned around and chosen to question the method of selection and Selection List itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, has made it clear that a candidate who participates in the selection process upon being unsuccessful, is barred from challenging the selection process or selection list. Relevant paragraphs No.12, 13 and 14 read as follows:
- 24 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
"12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.
13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court held that : (SCC p. 107, para 18)
- 25 -WP No. 25241 of 2023
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 345] .)"
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah [Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627] wherein it was held to be well settled that the candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful."
14. In the present case, the Tribunal on examination of the entire material on record has rightly concluded that the preference would not mean absolute preference or absolute reservation and it would operate only when the candidates are equally placed in the merit list.
15. The petitioners participated in the selection process i.e., in the written competitive examination and the petitioners were aware of the method of competitive
- 26 -
WP No. 25241 of 2023examination and having participated and having failed in the process of selection, they cannot turnaround and question the method of competitive examination.
16. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BSV CT:bms