Karnataka High Court
Manikappa S/O Babu Rao vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Co Ltd on 20 April, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE DATED THIS THE 20" DAY OF APRIL 2611. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23370 OF 2005 (S). BETWEEN: Manikappa, S/o Babu Rao, Aged 26 years, Residing at No. 16. Poorna Pura, 1° Main iRoad.- Gokul, Bangslore-~ 560954... . PETITIONER (By Shri. S.V> Desai, Advocate). 7 . AND: l. Bangalore Electric Stpply Co. Ltd... --_ KR Circles _ Bangalore ~ 560 001. " Represented by its . Chief Manager Ad ministra fion & HRD} "d. Mangalore Electric Su pply : Cow Ltd., 'Paridam Plaza, * A.B.Shet ty Circle, . © Mangalore - 575 001. S. Hubli Electric Supply Co. Ltd, 4S oo Lineman) and etc., ba Navanagar, P.B.Road, Hubli ~ 580 025, Represented by its Chief} Manager (Administration & HRD) 4. Gulbarga Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Near Timmapur Chowk. Station Road, Gulbarga --- 585 102. Represented by its Chief. Manager (Administration & ARD) DS. Chamundeswari Kleétric Suppiy 7 Co. Ltd., an No. 1633, Sr ri Annapurneswari a Complex, 1% Cross, Aniket tan Road, (North), PE & 7 Bloc kK, Kuvenipu Nagar. mo Mysore + 576.022. Repr esented by its Chie of Manage er (Ad feinistration & HRD) ...RESPONDENTS (By Shri. N. K. G fupati al Stal: ding Counsel, Shri. PS. Dinesh Kumar, Adv ocate for Respondent No.1, 2 and 4) oh ah ak we of the: 'Canistiction| of India praying io direct the Respondents fo consider the petitioner's application for the Recruitment of Post "Sahayaka Margadalu" (Assistant "This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, tl ae Court made the following: - "F g ee Ladd ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the.
respondents.
2. it is the petitioner's case that he holds an il ms certificate in Mechanical, Radio and Television branch, He had completed the course in July 2000. "Further, the petitioner had also completed one. year apprenticeship training under "the National Apprenticeship Training Scheme conduct ed | by: th & De p artment | of Employment and Training The petitioner Submits that the respondent had invited applications for the "post known as Assistant Lineman an d the minimum qualification prescribed was
- ne ; in -Blectrician/Electronics / Electronics Mechanic. The 'petitio: er applied in the category of Kannada Medi m and Group-1B in all the Offices of the respondents and ole the same were duly acknowledged. The peUlioner having come to know that they were already cond ucting iaterviews of can cidates, who had applied, had "ee an ei ee "
oe approached the respondents to enquire about the status of his application. He was orally informed that he was not being considered since he did not have the preséribed --
qualification. It is on that ground, this Court.
3. It is contended in support of the grounds urged in the writ petition that. the petitioner's qualifications are equivalent to the qualifications "prescribed by the respondents. cin this regard, he would submit that even the qualifications prescribed have. been acquired by the petitioner by way of apprenticeship training for a period of one year in' Blectrénies Mechanic and that the certificate held by the petitioner in Mechanical, Radio and Television "is "equivalent" to Electronic Mechanic under the Apprenticeship Rules, Therefore, he would submit that the respondents not acknowledging the qualifications in . the course completed by the petitioner results in an *. arbitrary denial of the right of the petitioner to be called for an interview and to be tested on his merit, The petitioner had approached this Court earlier im similar circumstances and it was directed by this Court that the --
petitioner's case be considered in The respondents repeating the same attitude in rejecting.
the petitioner's application is therefore > iHegal and arbitrary and therefore. seeks-interferénce by this Court.
4, The respondeuts have entered appearance and have filed statement of objections to "contend that the prescribed -- qualification for the "post recognized is 4 certificate ia YT "in Electrician / Electronics / Electronic Mechanic Trade, of three . years. The petitioner's marks _ card indicated that he had MPT in Mechanic, Radio and TV "wher cas the. "required qualifications are otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner on the basis of the said certificate did not possess the certificate in the trades that were
- 'called for. The contention of the petitioner that the ¥ *. 'syllabus of Mechanics Radio, TV and Electronics is one Cy 6 and the same and therefore, the Government. has permitted merger of courses is uritenable «as. ine qualification prescribed by the respondent is as per their requirement. It is for the respondents, io prescribe the required qualification. The petitioner cannot eqaate his:
qualification with the one prescribed. itis fisrther pointed out that insofar as Annexure"H", the notification, which is stated to be a true copy at the. original notification inviting applications is. not the 'ofigmal The original notification does: not melude the certificate in Radio and TV as one. of the "requisite qualification. However, Annexure "H" produced alovig with the writ petition includes such 'qualification. Therefore, there is a blatant _ attempt on the part of ihe petitioner to mislead the Court ald as sich' the petition ought to be réjected on that ground alone. -
The claim of the petitioner that the Lal tata " fespondents have acted arbitrarily in rejecting his application, on the face it, is a baseless allegation since it is not the same according to the respondents, ; a' hey are not obliged to consider the equivalence or otherwise unless the respondents have ~ adopted, | any. such equivalence as suggested by any authority and i therefore. the reliance sought to be placed on any c inelars or orders issued by the au thoritics. wouid fot bin the respondents. It is further pointed out itiat WiGie ay are a large number of unemployed youth: in vvaricis'-tiadles, who have readily produced the necessary trade certificates to be considered for appointments, "Therefore, | the contention of the petitioner: that his « case » mitst be closely examined by the respond ents for squivalence to consider his appointment is not tenable, The fact that he was working with M/s. Americ ali, Power Conversion and therefore, he was e ligible for the post ia question is also not tenable nor the fact ee that he v was 26 years old on the date of petition and is fast 'losi rig. any Opportunity of securing employment with the lospondents also cannot be accepted. It is in this vein that the petition averments are sought to be met -by the respondents.
6. Given the above facts and circumstances, the :
contentions taken by the respondents are tenable and it cannot be said that the petitioner has 'madé 'out any case : for interference by | this Court, siitee : the Trade requirements are prescribed by. the respondents and it is the privilege of the respondents: to prescribe the same.
The petitioner seeking to elaim equivalence of the ryt Prade, in which, he hols. the Certificat € is not the privilege of the petitio ner, Therefore, his application having been rejected cannot be 'sai d to be. ines war or illegal. which warrants _ interference by this Court.
7... The petiton is accordingly dismissed.
ali /-.