Karnataka High Court
B N Arunkumar vs The Union Of India on 31 December, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna
1. THE UNIZON IAVNEJIA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MIIN.IS,TRv'oE FINANCE,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31?" DAY OF DECEMBER
PRESENT _' xx
THE HON'BLE MR.Jt}STICE_\»/A,G'ISABHAFAITVi A
AND V ._I
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUST'I_C.E_
WRIT PETITION No.
BETWEEN:
B.N.ARuNKuMAR,'x_J 2. g~
S/O B.K. NANJUNDI1\PP;3fe\,_--.'_ ~ jg
AGED 29 YEARS; 1' _ . '-
ASHA ENTERRRVISE.S;-- . I _ -
GOWRIPET MAIF\I'P..O.AD,'i"} ' _ "
KOLAR -- S63 10:. '
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.' LAKSHMINARAYA/l._NAj ADV.,)
. _ REPRESENTED'i__Ew ITS
SEcRETARY,~*
NEW DELHI.
._THE ;coMMISSI0N ER OF
._ CENTRAL. EXCISE,
BANGALORE I COMMISSIONERATE,
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE -- 560 001. %
..RESPONDTE'NTS
(BY M.V CHANDRASHEKHAR REDDY, CC~§SC.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER5.A'RT'?';;j'L«E$.._e_fI
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1.,!~'1-~P4F:1j1\.YING«.TO;u
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PA'SSE_D~ ._E3:'*{_ THe_':CAT_:,"7IVN'
APPLICATION NO.963/2002 DT.._ 7.A.A5".'10§2-0A03DV .
ANNEXURE F.
THIS PETITION _...H:A'JII'\'t.Q B'E,ENI':,_eT'VHEARD AND
RESERVED FDR*1J.'OR$_'ER;S:5 A'N':i'D"--:."'vC.QT§?EINC3 ON FOR
PRONOUNCEME'N.T75-VOV-ETHIS DAY SABHAHIT I,
MADE Tiv-I__E__§-"C'J~t..Vlb'O°'I'V*?s;':1__i\_IGIj" " °
.7-W5 9.-'U§i0'I'!""i< 3'ilF=':ri by the appiiceht before the
.t"Cent2r'e'i *!i\ndrfIi.n_iStratiI/be' Tribunal (hereinafter calied 'the
VE3'3n.gaiOre Bench, being aggrieved by the
Orde--zt__ Of.~thne'AtTribunaI dated 06.10.2003, wherein the
3"".__V'TrAibTune{l-._.has dismissed the appiication fiied by the
0 "p.e'tE--tiQA.ner herein.
4
Basketball sport, he filed O.A. No.20/1999 before the
Tribunal. In the said application, since the respond'e.n't.--
Commissioner of Central Excise had not tai<en.'__"ii'njtoA'._
consideration the case of those who were_,,25"'--years ,and'~
above in age, the Tribunal held
respondent amounted to overs_teppi'ng"*éits lirni-island tjhat
the committee could not hav'e:"lignored~._the-I relaxation
provided under the adve.rtisem'ent'land.,takenxaibvydecision
which ran Counter to the very a.d'vert:*s.e"rh.en_tf.-issued by the
department andgf'wherefore,"«»th'é"~i,.e§€clusion of the
applicant_'p__s "ca's'e'}.;;if_rVoi'fl_"coAn'sid:eration was invalid and
required to -be 3 Accordingly, the Tribunal
directed th'eg_respo'nd"ent»-- to conduct the written test
for tilgie app|iCa'ii-tntvhere-in -- Sri Venkatesh Murthy by a
particula1'r:.dead.lVine and to consider his performance in the
trial along with the performance of the
V _ other canididates and then finalize the selection.
"Z3 Thereafter, the applicant in O.A. No.20/1999 -~
Sri Venkatesh Murthy participated in the written test and
A' field test. However, he was not selected to the post of
...
~ . 'x , E 3 I
-1' ' ;
5 LDC. Being aggrieved by the same, the said Venkatesh Murthy filed another application -- Cl./Ix. No.92/ZOGQ. the Tribunal contending that the respondent finalized the selection to the post of >E:DC, without*_i.hclVud-lingo,if "
the applicant on the ground that the secure the qualifying marks .ijei.,_V 755/a,_ 'prescriv:'ble.o'~..f_oVr field test and had sought for theEf'o.!,lowxi_ng ieiiiélris; V? "A. Direct :':<esl9.'l3:"lCle'i"-is finalise the selepcitioi'}iswVithoIJt€ 1_referen.ce ' t'o"75% ma rks for the Fl-eldfitest:"afhdz'furth'er"tal<e ste£3% in pu.irsua.n_Vce ofV'°the r'io>t'ifi'cati"oni-for recruitment to that? Best in -'Clerk;
V _ Diif*ecAt'»_tVh'eV respondents to confine _~'t:he__lAselectioi*i..t.Q....the applicant in view of the A 'credtcie.ntila«--l..Vof the applicant in the Basket Ball V Pass any other appropriate order or A. ,_dire"'ction as this Hon'b!e Tribunal may deem _fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends ofjustice. "
5
\,-W , 4 1.1 applicant in the written examination, his contention that he was entitled to be appointed as UDC under theVV.st'p_o'i*ts quota as he had secured more marks in the Fieid;""?'est_~ _ Sri Venkatesh Murthy, who was appointed_as.,.Lt§C"can_not' be accepted and the jtidgen"ientT__of :t.his No.3432/2001, on which theiap4plicaAnt_V_'reiied sitijppofi; of his piea, was of no avaii to hin"ii*.._i'3li'cc_ordin'g-it};'tjheifribunai dismissed the application by the same, this writ petition is fiiietiv-£y,r"'thje__'ei'ppili"tiai?it before the Tribunal. _ .. V
3. Wehave'-vheatgi._the_§ea~:fri~ed counsei appearing for the"ipetiitionerk:aiidf"the iéameia Central Government Stanciin§'.Coun'selVa«p':pear_in'g,for the respondents.
4. 'l*ea'r.ne-d"gcounsel appearing for the petitionier. subn"1iit.ted that no where in the notification or .condition was stipulated that the appiicant sn_o'ii.i_dtiAsec{;rte of marks in the fieid test for quaiifying V _ for a"ppov-i.'ntm'ent to the post of UDC. The learned counsel .jf:uirtsh_er sitbrnitted that Sri Venkatesh Murthy, who was a '16 the formalities relating to appointment of petitioner _~¢_--§ Sri Venkatesh iviurthy on top priority basis within The petitioner herein -- Sri Arunkumar stands ~ footing as Sri Venkatesh Murthy, whosgep ca:se'HW'as;v.de'cided=-_ V' in Writ Petition No.3432/2001 by the D;i_Vis'i0ni'Be*ntil:
Court on 16.10.2001 and ir;iV__t'ie_.e preserlt _Vc:a.:s'e=§_ialso,--~ion verification of the records, wegfilntiiithatgthereiishnofiispeclfic clause or instruction the petitioner should secure 75_%V'.marl<s"in:the' appointment to the post, f%stf.'f1h'éi'i't'he Detitioner has made anaVpVp'l'~l.catVit:;n_ to the said post in the sports Zqvuota sportsman in Basket Ball is not in dispiuteilantii the decision of this Court in _ W.P,i'\io.3.432/20001'dated 16.10.2001 applies on all fours f.aets.wof_the present case for the reasons stated t"l1e';--TQ1iMn 'a',.;i'";;..,,VfolVi':;()ii\'iing the said judgement of this Court, we _ hold'"'that':the""'Tribunai was not justified in holding that the .gappiili_canVt"'; petitioner herein is not entitled to be selected 'reeruitment to the post of UDC as he had not secured
-?5l% qualifying marks in the field test and the impugned 0' order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and necessary 31:
tv ik' \,?,§"
17 direction is required to be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein -~ Sri Arunkurraar to izjheifpostté for which he made an appiication. According-if, V' the foiiowing Order:-
The Writ Petition is aiirgwéed. "*if_he order".i.p.e:séed:'; by i the Central Administrative "1-FiE3'L'i'Vi"..:-til,' BantjaEo're;{ dismissing the appiication fiied "din O./1..
No.963/2002 dated and the appiicatio" " Na...96tB'i"'20'0éfb"ifis...___e{iiewed and the respondentseo.snij:iiet'e the formalities of aDDointf§§'ent"~..:gfh_vdAV':::Ei?Vi5i':t)iri.:f t'i&i'evvvVV'i;etitioner W Sri B.N. Arunkurnarii if VheV:_i's~.v'foon--d:'i"siti.i'tabie to the post for which, appiication ir§1'asV_V'madeiewtgieditiousiy and at any rate not "V"««i.aterv-':i.jt'i*1anfear rri"on't'i"'i'sV from the date of receipt of this of the certified copy of the order, whi<:hever_ is téiarliier.
S-FY38