Karnataka High Court
Abdul Rahaman Nevar vs Bmtc Central Office on 1 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.40763/2014 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
ABDUL RAHAMAN NEVAR
S/O.KHAJESAB, AGED 25 YEARS,
R/AT KOPPA S.M. TQ-HUNAGUND,
DIST.BAGALAKOT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S P SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D, ADV.)
AND:
1. BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE
K.H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. RAJESAHEB AWATI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
TOKEN NO.7721, DEPOT NO.11
BMTC NORTH DIVISION
YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560 064
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. K VISHWANATH NAIK, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT DTD.02.06.2014 VIDE ANNEX-G AND
FURTHER DIRECT TO THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE
CANDIDATURE OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE CATEGORY
OF THE 2B CUM DISPLACED PERSON AND TO FILL UP THE
VACANCY UNDER THAT CATEGORY ALONE.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 02.06.2014 impugned at Annexure-F to the petition.
2. The petitioner who hails from Hunagund, Bagalakot District and having completed his ITI Course had responded to the notification dated 19.02.2014 issued by the respondent-Corporation. Among different categories for which the reservation had been made, one category was the 'Project Displaced Person' to mean that the persons who have lost their lands due to acquisition for public purpose were also entitled to be selected. Ultimately when the provisional list was announced and the intimation as at Annexure-F was tabulated, the percentage as obtained by the petitioner was indicated at 39.04 and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected 3 by stating the reason that it is 'below cutoff percentage'. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent who has been selected under the said category has the percentage of 38.80 which is lesser than 39.04 secured by the petitioner and therefore the case of the petitioner requires consideration.
3. Insofar as the documents which had been produced in support of the claim that the petitioner was a project displaced person, it is contended that at the first instance, the documents relating to the acquisition of the property made in the year 1979-80 was produced. Subsequently when the objections to the provisional notification was sought vide Annexure-K, the petitioner produced the documents for the acquisition having taken place in the year 1980-81 for 'Krishna Meldande Project' and in that view, the petitioner claims that when the petitioner had satisfied all the requirements and secured more percentage of marks than the second respondent, 4 the petitioner was entitled to be selected. It is in that view, the petitioner is assailing the impugned endorsement.
4. The first respondent has filed the objection statement. The post being reserved for the category of 'project displaced person' is not disputed. However, it is pointed out that as per the requirement under the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (Fifty Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2000, the criteria has been prescribed whereupon the consideration could be made. In that view, it is stated therein that the certificate which had been relied on by the petitioner while submitting his application being the details of acquisition during the year 1979-80 and which is more than 20 years prior, the same could not be considered and therefore the case of the second respondent was considered since he had necessary documents to substantiate his claim. It is pointed out that it is only thereafter the petitioner had produced 5 another document to indicate that one more acquisition had taken place in the year 1980-81, but by then since the selection process was almost completed and the second respondent had been selected, the case of the petitioner in any event could not have been considered at that point since the notification itself clearly indicated the documents that were required to be submitted by the candidates and the same had not been produced when it was required to be produced.
5. In the light of the rival pleadings, I have heard Sri S.P. Shankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. H.R. Renuka and Sri Vishwanath Naik, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the petition papers.
6. The emphasis laid by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the acquisition which had taken place in the year 1980-81 is a fact that cannot 6 be denied and therefore even if the documents relating to the said acquisition is produced subsequently, it is only a proof of the existing fact and therefore the said document ought to have been taken into consideration. Learned senior counsel in that regard would refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria and Others -vs- Dr. C. Mathew and Others [AIR 1980 SC 1230] wherein this aspect of the matter has been dealt and it has been held that the documents of a fact which existed earlier even if produced subsequently would be relevant and could be taken into consideration.
7. Having noticed the said decision and also if the same is taken into consideration in the facts arising in the present case, I am afraid that the same cannot be made applicable to the instant facts. It is not a case where the petitioner had not produced any documents at all though 7 the acquisition had taken place and had thereafter produced it at a time prior to completion of the selection process. In fact as per the requirement in the notification, the petitioner had produced all the documents including a document to indicate that he is a displaced person, the said document had been taken into consideration by the first respondent and on finding that the said acquisition was beyond the period which is permissible had rejected the same and the next candidate who had secured the marks had been selected. Therefore, this is a case where the petitioner has relied on a document and when that did not satisfy the requirement and the next candidate had become eligible, the petitioner is attempting to nullify the same by seeking to rely on another document.
8. It is no doubt true that subsequent to the notification at Annexure-G, the petitioner has produced a document to claim that the acquisition of another extent 8 of the land for 'Krishna Meldande Project' that had taken place during the year 1980-81. In fact, the said document if it was beneficial to the petitioner should have been produced at the first instance. When the petitioner has relied on a document, had failed in the said process and the name of second respondent who had already been selected was indicated in the list, if the said document is taken into consideration at this stage, it would not be appropriate as the selection process would not get finalized if the candidates keep on submitting the documents at their convenience without submitting earlier as required under the notification.
9. To the said extent, the action as taken by the respondents in the present case cannot be found fault with. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the endorsement which is impugned herein.
9
10. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that in a circumstance where there were two posts, the petitioner also could have been accommodated when the document was produced subsequently, there is no definite material available on record at this point to come to such a conclusion as it is not clear as to whether any post is still lying unfilled. Therefore, if at all such consideration is sought by the petitioner, it is appropriate that the petitioner without assailing the selection of the second respondent therein may make an appropriate representation which would be considered by the respondents and disposed of in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms