Karnataka High Court
Sri T K Muralimohan vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2020
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Pradeep Singh Yerur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
W.P. NO.9834/2020 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T.K. MURALIMOHAN
S/O T.M. KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.37 AMBALIPURA
SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD
BELLANDUR GATE
BANGALORE - 560 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.C. PRATEEK, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUGNA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
3. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL OF POLICE
CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:12.08.2020 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2145/2020 A COPY OF
WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.H.C.Pratheek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Arnav A. Bagalwadi for petitioner and Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Petitioner was a candidate for the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) pursuant to the notification issued by the Recruitment Committee on 07.06.2004 (Annexure-A1). Petitioner had claimed reservation under Category-3A and also under Rural Category and Kannada Medium. Having participated in the selection process i.e., written test, petitioner secured 101.66 3 marks namely, 10 marks in Paper-I, 87 marks in Paper- II and 4.66 marks in the interview. Aggrieved by his non selection, he filed Application No.5881/2005 before the tribunal for re-evaluation of his answer script. He also challenged the selection of 3 candidates contending interalia that answer scripts ought to have been valued by the police officers in the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. It was contended that all the candidates except him were valued by the police officers and in his case, it was by the Lecturer of Pre-University College and it was contrary to the Rules. Hence, tribunal by order dated 19.01.2006 had directed the third respondent for re-evaluation of answer script of Paper-I, other than who had valued the answer script and to consider the candidature of petitioner to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) within 60 days.
3. Respondent therein being unsuccessful challenged the said order in W.P.No.10429/2019 and on dismissal of said writ petition on 29.07.2011, petitioner sought for implementation of directions, which came to 4 be rejected on 02.11.2011 and challenging the same, Application No.4964/2014 came to be filed. However, during the pendency of said application Department of Home issued a communication dated 22.03.2018 to the second respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner subject to withdrawal of Application No.4964/2014 before the tribunal. Accordingly, said application came to be dismissed on the strength of memo filed by the petitioner vide order dated 22.03.2018.
4. First respondent by communication dated 02.11.2019 and 23.01.2020 directed the second respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner. However, third respondent by communication dated 01.02.2020 forwarded to the second respondent stated that in re-evaluation of answer script relating to Paper-I of the applicant by Additional Superintendent of Police, Kolar 17½ marks had been awarded and total marks of 109.16 and as such, sought permission to include the applicant's name in the selection list and second 5 respondent had refused to give permission on the ground of valuation of Paper-I by Additional Superintendent of Police, Kolar and his awarding 17½ marks as against 10 marks was not correct. As per re-evaluation of Paper-I by 3 members team, applicant secured only 12 marks as against 10 marks was not correct and thus he secured in all 103.66 marks, which is less than the candidate under the Category-3A Rural Category. Hence, being aggrieved by his non inclusion or non issuance of appointment order, he was before the tribunal by filing an Application No.2145/2020. Tribunal after having noticed that re- evaluation has been done by team of 3 members namely,
(i) Ravi Kala S.B., Principal, Government Pre-University College of Boys, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, (ii) G.Ramachandra, Lecturer, Government Junior College, Doddaballapura and (iii) D.Rajeshwari, Lecturer, Government Junior College, Yelahanaka, Bangalore, found that marks scored by petitioner was 103.66 as against marks scored by the selected candidate, who was last in the selected list namely, Sri. Sridhar H.R., who had secured 105.42 marks and as such tribunal 6 declined to interfere with the said finding. In fact, tribunal had also noticed that petitioner had not even challenged the selection of last selected candidate in the present application and rightly so, tribunal has dismissed the application. We do not find any error having been committed by the tribunal. No other good ground has been made to entertain this writ petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
Learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four (4) weeks from today.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE DR