Karnataka High Court
Mr Nizar Ahamed K vs The Director Personnel And Environment on 4 March, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8992
WP No. 13367 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 13367 OF 2019 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
MR NIZAR AHAMED K
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O MR.KHALEEL SAB,
NO.25, GROUND FLOOR,
NANJEGOWDA STREET,
DODDAMAVALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.MANJULA KULKARNI ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.S.NAIK.,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR PERSONNEL AND ENVIRONMENT
Digitally signed
by A K K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES,
CHANDRIKA SHANTINAGAR,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU - 560 027.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL
MANAGER (EST.)
AND APPOINTING AUTHORITY,
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,
SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8992
WP No. 13367 of 2019
DTD:01.02.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 AND THE ENDORSEMENT
DTD:27.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-1, THE ORIGINALS VIDE
ANNX-Q AND S RESPECTIVELY, SINCE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER/ENDORSEMENT ARE TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND
OTHERWISE ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-Conductor in the respondent- Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short "KSRTC") is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 01.02.2017 in Reference bearing No.PgÁ¸Á/PÉÃPÀ/£É /£ÉêÀÄPÀ/Dgï 3/1539/2016-17 (Annexure-Q) removing his name from the 3/1539/2016- select list of Establishment Supervisor under Rule 4(9) of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 (for short "1982 Regulations"); forfeiting his right to appointment permanently and endorsement bearing No.PgÁ¸Á/PÉ PgÁ¸Á/PÉÃPÀ/£É /£ÉêÀÄPÀ/Dgï-
Dgï-3/520
3/520/201
520/2017
/2017-18 dated 27.07.2018
rejecting petitioner's representation to include his name in the select list of Establishment Supervisor (Annexure-S). -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019
2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Manjula Kulkarni for Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined services of respondent-KSRTC as Conductor in the year 1997 and while the petitioner was working as Conductor, the respondent-KSRTC issued employment notification dated 12.12.2012 calling applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts including the post of Establishment Supervisor. The qualification prescribed for the post of Establishment Supervisor was a Bachelor Degree in Arts/ Science/Commerce/BCA 3 years course with Diploma in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations from any University established by law with computer knowledge. The petitioner applied for the post of Establishment Supervisor. Selection for the post of Establishment Supervisor was on the basis of marks obtained in Common Eligibility Test and marks obtained in -4- NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 Qualifying exam i.e., in the ratio of 75% : 25%. The petitioner having qualified in the Common Eligibility Test was invited for verification of original documents by letter dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure-A). The petitioner produced all the original documents in terms of Annexure-B and thereafter, the petitioner was issued with offer of appointment dated 12.10.2013 (Annexure-C) on certain terms and conditions. Under Annexure-D, communication dated 06.01.2014, the petitioner was deputed for training for a period of one year. After training, while the petitioner was working as Establishment Supervisor, a show-cause notice dated 22.12.2015 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why his name should not be struck off from the select list of Establishment Supervisor and why his right of appointment shall not be forfeited on the ground that Diploma Certificate produced by the petitioner is not obtained from any recognized Institution i.e., UGC/AICTE/AIU/DEC. The petitioner said to have submitted his reply dated 01.01.2016. In the meanwhile, the respondent-KSRTC also obtained a report -5- NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 of investigation with regard to genuineness of petitioner's Diploma Certificate. The petitioner in his reply contended that the Diploma Certificate produced by him is issued by the Council for Eradication of Scientific and Technical Illiteracy, a Government Recognized Autonomous Organization. The respondent-KSRTC on consideration of the entire material on record under impugned order dated 01.02.2017 (Annexure-Q) removed the name of the petitioner from the select list of Establishment Supervisor and forfeited petitioner's right for appointment and continued the petitioner in his original post. Against the said order, the petitioner made representation to the Director (Personnel and Environment) and Appellate Authority. The Director (Personnel and Environment) under endorsement dated 27.07.2018 rejected petitioner's request vide Annexure-S.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner possesses requisite qualification of Degree as well as Diplom a from recognized Institution. Learned -6- NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner produced Diploma Certificate issued by the Council for Eradication of Scientific and Technical Illiteracy. The said Institution is recognized by the Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi. Hence, it is contended that the said Institution, from which the petitioner obtained Diploma is recognized Institution. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the respondent-KSRTC without looking into the fact as to whether the Institution from which the petitioner obtained Diploma is a Government recognized Institution or not and without applying its mind passed impugned order, which requires to be set aside. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent- KSRTC failed to take action for more than 2 years and it allowed the petitioner to complete the training. By lapse of time, the petitioner acquired right to continue as Establishment Supervisor, since he has undergone training and was working as Establishment Supervisor thereafter. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Regulation 4.9 of the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 (for short "1982 Regulations") empowers the Appointing Authority to take action against a person who gives false or wrong information in the application which would disqualify the said person. Learned counsel would further submit that the documents were verified and after verification, the Authorities found the petitioner eligible based on the certificates produced by the petitioner. When such is the case, the respondent- KSRTC could not have later initiated action against the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka would support the order passed by the respondent-KSRTC. Learned counsel would further submit that a person who furnishes false information would not be entitled for employment in the respondent-KSRTC. Regulation 4.9 of 1982 Regulations empowers the Corporation to take action -8- NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 against any person who furnishes false or wrong information in the application and it also empowers the Corporation to terminate services of a person if found at a later date, that he has given false or wrong information. Learned counsel referring to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent-KSRTC would submit that PG Diploma certificate produced by the petitioner was sent for verification and the letter sent for verification returned with postal shara "no such addressee found". Thereafter, the matter was referred for investigation to Security and Vigilance Department of the respondent-KSRTC and the said Department conducted a detailed enquiry with regard to authenticity of the certificate issued by the Institution. The investigation reveals that the certificate is not genuine and the certificate did not reflect that the same is by the Institution recognized under law. Learned counsel referring to the Certificate issued by the Council for Eradication of Scientific and Technical Illiteracy would submit that the said Institution is not recognized by UGC/AICTE/AIU/DEC. Therefore, she submits that the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 respondent-KSRTC rightly removed the name of the petitioner from the select list of Establishment Supervisor and forfeited his right of appointment. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order?
8. Answer to the above point would be in the negative and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost, for the following reasons:
The petitioner is working as Conductor in the respondent-KSRTC. In pursuance of the Notification inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts, the petitioner applied to the post of Establishment Supervisor as in-service candidate. The qualification prescribed for the post of Establishment Supervisor in terms of the above employment notice is
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 bachelor Degree in Arts/Science/Commerce/BCA 3 years degree course with Diploma in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations from a University established by law. There is no dispute with regard to bachelor's degree possessed by the petitioner. The question is as to whether the certificate of Diploma in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations produced by the petitioner is from a recognized University or established by law.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner possesses Diploma or Certificate from Council for Eradication of Scientific and Technical Illiteracy, a Government Recognized Autonomous Organization. The Institution is approved by the Government of India, Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Training, New Delhi. A perusal of the certificate which is placed on record at Annexure-E makes it abundantly clear that the Institution from which, the petitioner possesses Diploma is not recognized by University established by law i.e., from UGC/AICTE/AIU/DEC. Further it is also not the case of the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 petitioner that Diploma possessed by the petitioner is from a recognized Institution or Institution recognized under UGC/AICTE/AIU/DEC. When the notice of employment makes it clear that one shall possess a Bachelor Degree and Diploma from a University established by law, the petitioner being in-service candidate ought to have more cautious in submitting his application. The petitioner being an in-service candidate, with an intention to grab higher position, produced the certificate which is not recognized either by UGC or AICTE or any other Institution. The petitioner with an intention to obtain higher post, produced Diploma Certificate from the Institution which is not recognized as required under law.
10. When the respondent-KSRTC found that the petitioner would not possess qualification recognized by UGC/AICTE/AIU/DEC, rightly issued show-cause notice and on obtaining reply from the petitioner, rightly removed his name from the select list of Establishment Supervisor. A person who tries to obtain employment by furnishing
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 marks card or documents, knowing very well that it is not the certificate issued by the recognized Institution established by law, would not be entitled for employment. Knowing fully well that the qualification possessed by the petitioner or Diploma is not from University recognized by law, obtaining employment would amount to playing fraud on the respondent-KSRTC. The question is one of trust. A person who obtains employment by furnishing false information or make believe the certificate produced by him is from a University recognized by law, that too, at initial stage could be trusted. By this conduct of the petitioner, he denied opportunity of employment to another qualified, needy person. Obtaining employment by furnishing false information or misrepresentation would amount to moral turpitude as held by DEVENDRA KUMAR v/s STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [(2013)9 SCC 63].
11. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands rejected, with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The respondent-
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8992 WP No. 13367 of 2019 KSRTC is directed to deduct the same from petitioner's salary at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and remit it to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
Sd/-
JUDGE MPK CT:JR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37