Karnataka High Court
Manika S/O Narayan Rao Shahpur vs The State Through Principal Secretary & ... on 12 October, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.203888/2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Manika S/o Narayan Rao Shahapur
Age: 41 years, Occ: Advocate
R/o # 9-12-419, Om Sai Nivasa
9th Cross Road, Vidhyanagara Colony
Bidar-585402.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Manure Ashok Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State through Principal
Secretary, Department of Law
Selection Committee
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-560001
2. The Member Secretary
Assistant Public Prosecutor
& Assistant Government Advocate
Selection Committee
6th Floor, Kaveri Bhawana
K.H.B. Complex,
Bengaluru-560009
...Respondents
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus thereby directing to the respondents to provide
reservation quota while considering the representations filed by
the petitioner before the respondents on dated 07.04.2015
under the Article 371-J(2) (b) for the post of Assistant Public
Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleaders to the petitioner.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 8th May 2015 at Annexure-G to the writ petition, interalia seeking for a direction to the respondents to provide reservation quota while considering the representation filed by the petitioner before the respondent on 7.4.2015 for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor and Assistant Government Pleaders.
2. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification bearing No. DPD/APP/RC/01/2011-12 dated 16.5.2012 for appointment of 197 posts of Assistant Public 3 Prosecutors and Assistant Government Pleaders. The petitioner a law graduate being qualified, applied for the same. The petitioner belongs to Hyderabad-Karnataka area. The petitioner was issued with an admission ticket for preliminary examination by the respondent No.2 to attend the written examination and he successfully completed the same. The petitioner was issued with an interview letter to attend the oral interview and he attended the same accordingly. The respondent No.2 issued the final merit selected candidates list for the said posts on 15.2.2014 wherein the petitioner's name was not found. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 proceeded with the selection of the candidates for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant Government Pleaders without providing reservation to the persons of Hyderabad-Karnataka area as per Article 371-J(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. It is the further contention that, being aggrieved by the said merit list, one Sri. Matapati Sanjay S/o Kantayya challenged the same before this Court 4 in W.P.No.202797/2014 and this Court was pleased to pass an order that the last date of submission of application having expired under the notification issued on 16.5.2012, question of quashing the said notification do not arise. However, if any statutory representations are pending before the respondents, it is then for the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In furtherance of the said observations made by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner submitted the representation to provide reservation under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India for the appointments to the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant Government Pleaders. In the light of the order of this Court in W.P.No. 202797/2014, the said representation was considered by the respondent No.2 and the same is disposed off observing that the notification dated 21.6.2012 calling for the post of appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant Government Pleaders being published before 1.1.2013 and the appointment process has reached its final stage by 5 issuing the final merit list of selected candidates as far as back on 15.2.2014, the representation of the petitioner cannot be considered. The said endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 is impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel Sri Manure Ashok Kumar appearing for the petitioner would contend that despite the Government order passed by the respondent No.1, to the effect that Article 371-J (2)(b) of the Constitution of India shall be applied for any recruitment and promotion in respect of Government department/Corporation/Board or Universities for all categories of posts, reservation policy has to be adopted in the area of Hyderabad-Karnataka, the same is violated by the respondents in issuing the endorsement impugned herein. The same is hit by Article 371-J (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and is in violation of the order of the State Government at Annexure-J to the writ petition dated 23.2.2013. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner being the permanent resident 6 of Bidar belongs to the region of Hyderabad-Karnataka and is badly affected and deprived of Article 371-J (2) (b) of the Constitution of India in not reserving the post for the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The respondent No.2 failed to appreciate the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 202797/2014 wherein it was categorically observed, if any representations are pending before the authority and if the representations are statutory representations, the same has to be considered in accordance with law. Despite such directions issued by this Court, the respondent No.2 proceeded to reject the request made by the petitioner to consider his case under reservation category of Article 371- J(2) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that though the notification was issued prior to amendment to the Constitution, the process was finally completed subsequently and as such reservation has to be provided to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region and the petitioner would have been considered in that reserved category. Thus, he 7 seeks for setting aside the impugned endorsement at Annexure-G by allowing the writ petition.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt Archana P. Tiwari appearing for the respondents placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and another V/s State of Bihar and others reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 357 would submit that the petitioner has participated in the written examination held pursuant to the notification issued by the Government. After the final merit list has been declared, he being unsuccessful, has challenged the notification proceedings on the ground, no reservation was made for Hyderabad-Karnataka area under Article 371-J(2)
(b) of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the learned counsel that the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. It is further contended that the respondent has considered the representation in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No. 8 202797/2014 (D.D. 12.2.2015) and passed the endorsement which is in conformity with the Government orders dated 23.2.2013 and 7.10.2013. Accordingly she seeks for rejection of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The prayer as regards quashing of Annexure-G deserves to be rejected firstly for the reason that, the 2nd respondent has specifically referred to the Government orders dated 23.2.2013 and 7.10.2013. Referring to the Government order dated 7.10.2013 it was observed that the cases wherein notification issued prior to 1.1.2013 and the appointment process initiated have reached the final stage, are not falling under the notification dated 23.2.2013, i.e., in other words the reservation under Article 371-J (2) is not applicable to such cases. If so, the petitioner challenging the endorsement merely on the ground that such 9 Government orders are in violation of Article 371-J, without challenging the said Government Orders is wholly untenable and any arguments advanced without challenging the said Government order cannot be countenanced. Secondly, it is an undisputed fact that the final selection list has been announced by the respondents on 15.2.2014. Any challenge made to the appointments of the candidates already selected by virtue of final selection list, without impleading them as a party to the proceedings, is unsustainable. Thirdly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the written examination as well as the oral examination, has moved the representation before the respondent No.2 to consider his case under the reservation category of Article 371-J(b) after he being declared unsuccessful.
7. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar supra. Their lordships referring to the judgment of 10 Ramesh Chandra Shah V/s Anil Joshi reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 and Chandigarh Admn V/s Jasmine Kaur reported in 2014(10) SCC 521 held that it was not open to the candidate after participating in the selection process to question the result, once they were declared to be unsuccessful candidate, cannot question the notification subsequently. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. As regards the direction sought by the petitioner to provide reservation quota considering the representation, the same has been duly considered by the respondent No.2 and rejected which do not call for any interference by this Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK