Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri Udaya Kumar K P on 1 March, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB
WA No. 480 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 480 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 020
(APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY SECRETARY
(ESTABLISHMENT) BDA.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by AMBIKA H B (BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SRI UDAYA KUMAR K.P.
S/O K. PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.U 7/3
1st ANJANEYA STREET
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 020
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.R. SHAILENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB
WA No. 480 of 2022
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, PASSED IN WP
NO.30444/2019 DATED 29.11.2021 AND DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr. K. Krishna for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. M. R. Shailendra Kumar for the respondent.
2. The challenge in this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2021. A direction came to be issued by the learned Single Judge inter alia requiring the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to afford an opportunity to all the candidates, who had applied for one backlog post of First Division Assistant pursuing to the notice dated 09.03.2018, to produce the documents required to be produced by them for the purpose of consideration for appointment. It is directed further that BDA shall thereafter finalise the selection process in respect of one backlog post.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB WA No. 480 of 2022
3. In the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, it was prayed to call for the records relating to selection to the post of First Division Assistant in Scheduled Caste category which was advertised pursuant to the backlog notification dated 09.03.2018. Further direction was sought for against the respondent to consider the case of petitioner for selection and appointment to the post.
3.1 It was the case of the petitioner inter alia that pursuant to the aforementioned notification, the petitioner applied for the post in question which was the only one post reserved for Schedule Caste category. The petitioner claims that he possessed the requisite qualification. It was stated that the requirements contemplated for the post were passing of Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) with Kannada as first language and also passing the Data Entry Operator Course. As per the procedure stated in the notification, the merit list was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The last date for receiving the application was 31.03.2019.
3.2 The petitioner stated that the list of selected candidates was posted on the website and as far as the Scheduled Caste category was concerned and 145 names were published. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB WA No. 480 of 2022 The entry reflected in the column mentioned that none of the candidates had furnished all the required documents. The name of the petitioner figured at serial No.2. Regarding production of Data Entry Operator Certificate and Degree of Commerce marks card, it was indicated that the petitioner had not produced the said documents. According to petitioner, however, he had submitted all the documents and thereafter only, the application was accepted.
3.3 The petitioner further averred that the respondent - BDA took a stand that the post of First Division Assistant in the Scheduled Caste category was not to be filled in as much as, none of the candidates had produced the required documents. The petitioner, thus, aggrieved by the non-consideration of his candidature filed the writ petition to assert that he had uploaded all the documents including Date Entry Operator Certificate and Degree Certificate of Commerce. Yet, his candidature was not considered.
3.4 The writ petition was contested by the respondent. In the statement of objections, it was contended that under the Scheduled Caste category only one post was vacant, that the petitioner applied for the post, that the processing cell forwarded -5- NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB WA No. 480 of 2022 the applications received by it to BDA and BDA constituted a Committee for scrutiny of the application. According to the respondent, the report of the Committee showed that the petitioner had not produced Data Entry Operator Certificate issued by the institution recognized by the Government as well as not produced the degree marks card.
4. Learned Single Judge considered the controversy and rival stand to notice that the backlog recruitment advertised in the notification dated 09.03.2018 was in accordance with the notification dated 21.11.2001, namely the Karnataka Civil Services (Unfilled vacancies reserved for the Persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001. The notice indicated all the candidates in the category to upload the relevant documents along with the application. There was also a requirement for fulfilling the age criteria and the age criteria was relevant, noted learned Single Judge. However, no fixed or uniform date was mentioned about the age. The age requirement was between 19.03.2018 to 31.03.2018 depending upon the date on which the candidate submitted his or her application.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB WA No. 480 of 2022 4.1 Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 which prescribed the age limit was noticed by learned Single Judge. The age was 40 years in case of person belonging to Scheduled Caste. It was observed that the rule made it clear that minimum or maximum age prescribed shall be determined on the last date fixed for receipt of application. It was noted that the date of birth of the petitioner was 14.03.1978 and he had attained 40 years on 13.03.2018.
4.2 While the aforesaid were the relevant facts pertaining to the petitioner, it was observed by learned Single Judge that as per the proceedings of the Committee constituted for recruitment of one backlog post of First Division Assistant, a decision was taken on 14.02.2019 to re-advertise one backlog post of First Division Assistant, since there was no eligible candidate available for the appointment. As noted above, none of the candidates who had applied pursuant to the notification dated 09.03.2018, who were 208 in total, could produce all the documents to become eligible for the appointment.
4.3 Learned Single Judge then proceeded to observe as under in paragraph 16 of the order, -7- NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB WA No. 480 of 2022 "... When all the candidates, who had applied for the post of FDA had not produced/uploaded one or the other document, it would have been fair and reasonable on the part of respondent - BDA, if it had given an opportunity to all the candidates to produce relevant documents. If an opportunity was provided to all the candidates, no complaint or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India could be made and on the other hand, it would be in compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ... "
4.4 Accordingly, learned Single Judge directed the respondent - BDA to afford opportunity to all the candidates to produce the relevant documents who had applied pursuant to the employment notice dated 09.03.2018 for the said one backlog post. Learned Single Judge further directed that on receipt of relevant documents, BDA shall proceed further to finalize the recruitment to one backlog post. In order words, all the candidates including the petitioner were permitted to submit their relevant documents within reasonable time before BDA to finalize the selection process, thereafter.
5. Since the fact situation obtained in relation to the employment notice dated 09.03.2018 was that for one or the other reason none of the candidates could produce the relevant documents to establish their eligibility and the only post could not -8- NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB WA No. 480 of 2022 be filled, learned Single Judge was justified in requiring the Bangalore Development Authority to undertake the exercise again of examining the documents by extending opportunity to all the candidates to produce the documents.
5.1 It was a fair treatment afforded by learned Single Judge to all the candidates since all had missed the production of documents. When the entire class of the candidates failed to produce the documents pursuant to the employment notice, no fault could be pinned on any of them. It happened for reasons not known. Nor needed to be probed into. It was eminently just, proper and reasonable for learned Single Judge to extend the opportunity of producing the documents in general to all the aspirants.
6. The view taken and the directions issued by learned Single Judge could hardly be said to be unreasonable. The kind and nature of directions issued is in accordance with tenets of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:8789-DB WA No. 480 of 2022
7. No interference in the order of learned Single Judge is warranted. The writ appeal is not liable to be entertained and the same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications, if any, shall not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76