Karnataka High Court
Kum. Supriya V vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2020
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
W.P.NO.4464/2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
KUM. SUPRIYA V
D/O LATE VENKATESH K
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.823, 4TH MAIN,
2ND CROSS, NGOS COLONY,
NEAR SHANKARNAG BUS STAND,
KAMALANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H T, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF
WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE CHAIRMAN
BWSSB, 1ST FLOOR,
CAVERY BHAVAN,
K G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE SECRETARY/
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BWSSB, 1ST FLOOR,
CAVERY BHAVAN,
2
K G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI SANJEEV B.L, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED
20.02.2020 VIDE ANNX-G, ISSUED BY THE R-3 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she has completed her Engineering Course (Electrical and Electronics) from Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi. That respondent Nos.2 and 3 had issued a Notification dated 24.08.2018 calling for application from prospective candidates for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) Group C Cadre. That pursuant to the Notification, petitioner submitted an 3 application online on 21.09.2018. Pursuant to the application, the petitioner was permitted to take up written examination conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority. Thereafter, the marks obtained by the candidates were announced, whereby it was informed that the petitioner had secured a total marks of 216.75.
3. It appears that a call letter was issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the authorities and produce original documents. That petitioner did not receive the call letter. Subsequently, it was informed to her by her friend on 15.02.2020, that she has been selected to the post of Junior Engineer.
4. It is stated that the petitioner immediately rushed to the office of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and on enquiry, she learnt that a similar call letter had been sent to her address and it had been returned with the postal endorsement 'door locked'. 4
5. It is contended that no intimation was left behind by the postman nor the postman had intimated the neighbours and that her mother is a single parent, who is employed in the Court and the petitioner is also employed in a private firm and as there was nobody at home, the intimation was not received by the petitioner. The assertion of the petitioner that no intimation was left behind by the postman is neither disputed nor rebutted by the respondents. It is submitted that mobile phone number of the petitioner was also available with respondent Nos.2 and 3 and they could have intimated her over the mobile phone, the details of which was available with respondent Nos.2 and 3.
6. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 by way of representation setting out the above facts and requesting that she be afforded an opportunity. The said representation was made on 19.02.2020 and despite passage of time, the representation has 5 neither been considered nor has the petitioner been invited to undergo the process of selection.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would fairly submit that respondents would consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
8. Submission of learned counsel is placed on record.
9. This Court has perused the materials placed on record, namely, Annexure-A, which reflects that the petitioner has completed her degree with first class. The petitioner has also obtained high marks in the examinations conducted by Karnataka Examination Authority on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that a failure on the part of the postman in discharging his duty by omitting to leave behind the intimation should not deprive the respondents of 6 a competent candidate. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner has made out a case for grant of relief.
11. In that view of the matter, the endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 requires to be set-aside and is accordingly set-aside. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to positively consider the petitioner's representation produced at Annexure-F to the writ petition within a period of three weeks from today.
The petition stands ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE dn/-
Chs* CT-HR