Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Neeraj Rakshit vs The Principal Secretary on 15 April, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:14904
                                                       WP No. 10747 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                           BEFORE

                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 10747 OF 2024 (S-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. NEERAJ RAKSHIT
                   S/O SRI HV KRISHNA SWAMY
                   AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
                   NO. 1062, 7TH A MAIN
                   NEAR WIPRO PARK, 3RD BLOCK
                   KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.
                   AADHAR NO. 8028 6594 9569.
                                                               ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. ASWATHAPPA D., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A            TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Location: HIGH           GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF                 VIKAS SOUDHA
KARNATAKA
                         BANGALORE-560 001.

                   2.    KARNATAKA PUBLC SERVICE COMMISSION (KPSC)
                         UDYOGA SOUDHA
                         OFFICE OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                         BANGALORE-560 001.
                         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY/ASST.
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:14904
                                       WP No. 10747 of 2024




3.    ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES
      AIU HOUSE, 16
      COMRADE INDRAJIT GUPTA MARG
      NEW DELHI-110 002.
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R3 IS DEFERRED FOR THE TIME BEING)


       THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ENDORSEMENT      DATED   08/04/2024    ISSUED   BY   THE    R2

PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L. DIRECT THE R2 TO ACCEPT THE

ONLINE APPLICATION BY PROVIDING PROVISION FOR THE

PETITIONER TO SUBMIT THE EQUIVALENCE CERTIFICATE FOR

THE    FOREIGN   BACHELORS    DEGREE    AWARDED      TO    HIM,

PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F.



       THIS WP, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -3-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:14904
                                          WP No. 10747 of 2024




                           ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 08.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 thereby rejecting petitioner's application on the ground that the educational qualification of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Business Management secured by the petitioner from Coventry University London cannot be considered.

2. Since the issue relates to recruitment of civil posts, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence. The objections raised by the counsel appearing for the respondents in regard to maintainability of the writ petition is upheld.

3. Though learned counsel has tried his best to persuade this Court by citing several judgments, this Court is more than satisfied that petitioner has to ventilate his grievance exclusively before the Tribunal. The present matter does not warrant recourse to writ remedy alleging gross violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner to -4- NC: 2024:KHC:14904 WP No. 10747 of 2024 seek redressal of his grievances can maintain an application before the tribunal which has the original jurisdiction to decide all complex issues that are raised in the captioned petition. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.

4. Relegating the petitioner to avail remedy before the Tribunal, the captioned petition stands disposed of.

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the KAT.

Sd/-

JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1