Karnataka High Court
The Station Commander vs Krishna on 17 December, 2014
Bench: Mohan M Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17 t h DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN .M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
W.A. No.100924 OF 2014 [S-RES]
AND
W.A. Nos.100952-953 OF 2014 [S-RES]
BETWEEN:
1. Union of India,
Reptd. By Station Commander,
Project Sea Bird, HQ
Karnataka Naval Area,
Naval Base, Indian Navy,
Karwar-581308,
Uttara Kannada District.
2. Administrative Officer Grade-II,
Civil Establishment Office for
Station Commander,
Project Sea Bird, HQ Karnataka
Naval Base, Indian Navy,
Karwar-581308. Dist: Uttara Kannada.
3. Flag Officer Commanding in Chief,
Head Office,
Western Naval Command,
Shahid Bhagatsingh Road,
Mumbai - 400 001, Maharashtra State.
... APPELLANATS
(BY SRI M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE)
:2:
AND:
1. Krishna S/o Anant Naik,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o Near Vittoba Temple,
Herrwatta, Kumta,
Kumta Taluk, Dist: Uttar Kannada.
2. Vikram S/o P.Tandel,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o Kumarpanthwada,
Kodibag, Karwar Taluk,
Dist: Uttara Kannada.
3. Gurudas S/o Subrany Fayade,
Aged 34 years,
R/o Devalamakki,
Tq: Karwar, Dist: Uttara Kannada.
4. Prakash S/o Chandrakant Naik,
Aged 34 years,
R/o Bavikeri, Kanbeer,
Tq: Ankola, Dist: Uttara Kannada.
5. Dolla Yanku Gouda S/o Yanku Gouda,
Aged 37 years,
R/o Amadalli, Tq: Karwar,
Dist: Uttara Kannada.
6. Mahesh S/o Vithal Naik,
Aged 38 years,
R/o at: Mudga, Post Amadalli,
Tq: Karwar, Dist: Uttara Kannada.
... RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S.4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE WP ORDER DATED
09.10.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P. Nos.76191-195/2013 AND W.P. No.78295/2013
PRODUCED ALONGWITH THIS APPEAL.
:3:
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY,
MOHAN .M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The names of respondents herein, who are the registrants with the Employment Exchange, were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Fireman pursuant to the Recruitment Notification issued by appellant No.3. The respondents were called for written test and physical test by issuing letter dated 09.07.2004 by appellant No.3 herein. The respondents have got through those tests and consequently, were directed to produce their original certificates. After verifying the original certificates, appellant No.3, by its letter dated 28.02.2006, informed the respondents that they are over-aged for the post of Fireman and therefore, their request for recruitment cannot be processed.
The respondents approached this Court in W.P. No.5484/2006 [S-Res] connected with W.P. :4: No.6908/2006 [S-Res], which came to be allowed on 21.11.2011 by quashing the endorsements issued by the appellants dated 28.02.2006 and directed the appellants to consider the cases of the respondents herein.
Once again, the appellants have rejected the prayer of the respondents on the ground that they are over-aged.
2. Admittedly, the respondents herein are aged in between 25 to 27 years. The prescribed age, as per the Fire Fighting Staff Recruitment Rules, 1982, for the post of Fireman is 18 to 25 years. However, the very Rule specifies that the prescribed age may be relaxed for Government servants upto 35 years. Based on the said Rules, the appellants have rejected the applications of the respondents for considering them to the posts of Fireman, inasmuch as the none of the respondents were within 25 years of age and that they were not the Government Servants earlier. But, in the matter on hand, the Recruitment :5: Advertisement issued by the appellants specify that the age limit for the post of Fireman is 18 to 27 years. The Advertisement also provides for relaxation of the age by 3 years for the candidates belonging to OBC. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are from OBC category. The subsequent Recruitment Advertisement also contains the upper age limit of 27 years; the Recruitment Advertisement published in the Employment News issued on 27.10.2012 to 02.11.2012 also specifies the age limit as 27 years. Since, the recruitment specifies 27 years as the upper age limit for applying to the post of Fireman, the names of the respondents are also sponsored by the Employment Exchange for being considered for appointment, inasmuch as all the respondents are within the age of 27 years.
3. Since, the Recruitment Notification specifies 27 years as the upper age limit for the post in question, the learned Single Judge is justified in concluding that the appellants are bound by the said Recruitment Notification, more :6: particularly, when no corrigendum is issued for correcting the mistake, if any, occurred.
4. Sri.M.B.Kanavi, learned advocate for the appellants, however, submits that this Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition directly under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it was open for the respondents to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').
5. Such contention cannot be accepted. It is, no doubt, true that it was open for the respondents to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in such matters, but they have chosen to approach this Court directly. Merely because an alternative and efficacious remedy is provided, this Court is not debarred from exercising the writ jurisdiction under exceptional circumstances directly. :7:
Added to it, the appellants have not raised such point in earlier litigation i.e., in W.P. No.5484/2006 connected with W.P. No.6908/2006. They have participated in the proceedings before this Court and accepted the order passed by this Court in the said writ petitions.
6. Even while W.P. Nos.76191-76195 of 2013 along with connected matters were being heard before this Court, such contention is not raised by the appellants. If really, the appellants wanted to raise such point, they would have raised the objection at the first instance itself. It is not open to raise such issue in this appeal.
The appellants, having participated in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions, cannot take 'U' turn to contend that this Court had no jurisdiction, particularly, when the order has gone against them. It is not open for the appellants to blow hot and cold at the same time. Hence, the said contention fails. :8:
Hence, no interference is called for. The appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
Since, the appeals are dismissed on merits, there is no need to pass any orders on I.A. No.1 of 2014 filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE RK* Ct:Byg/-