Karnataka High Court
Dr Siddeshwaragouda vs Karnataka Public Service Commission on 29 January, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:3755-DB
WP No. 17350 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO.17350 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
DR. SIDDESHWARAGOUDA
S/O B. CHANDREGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
HOUSE NO.628/359,
1ST CROSS, LOKIKERE ROAD
DAVANAGERE WARD NO.41
DAVANAGERE - 577005.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA
VANI B 1. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS
HIGH COURT CHAIRMAN
OF
KARNATAKA UDYOG SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, UDYOG SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. SRI. VINYAGOUDA R. PATIL
S/O DR. R.B. PATIL
POST YALIWAL KUNDGOL
NADUVINA ONI, DHARWAD- 581207.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:3755-DB
WP No. 17350 of 2021
4. SRI MANJUNATHA J V
NO.130, KUMBAR BEEDI
MALKALMUR TALUK
BOMMAGONDAN KERE
CHITRADURGA - 577529.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. M. NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.
1961/2020 DATED 11.08.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE - D AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Insurance Medical Officer, was before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal ('KSAT' hereinafter wards) vide Application No. 1961/2020 for laying a challenge to his non-selection. The KSAT vide order dated 11.8.2021 negatived the challenge.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner assails the KSAT order on the following grounds: -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:3755-DB WP No. 17350 of 2021
(a) Petitioner had scored more than what the private Respondents had and his name had figured in the Provisional Selection List above theirs;
(b) that in Final Selection List published on 29.05.2020, his name was not reflected on the ground that he had not produced the prescribed Rural Certificate countersigned by the jurisdictional BEO, although an authenticated copy was produced later on 9.6.2020, there being Covid-19 Pandemic.
(c) In support of his submissions, he banks upon Apex Court decision in DOLLY CHHANDA vs CHAIRMAN, JEE AND OTHERS, (2005) 9 SCC 779, more particularly to Paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 therein.
3. After service of notice, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have entered represented by their panel Counsel. Respondent No.3 has been deleted from the array of parties. Respondent No.4 is represented by his private counsel, who vehemently opposes the petition mainly on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party namely the Govt. of Karnataka which had issued the appointment order, following the selection process done by the KPSC. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:3755-DB WP No. 17350 of 2021
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of 4th Respondent that the State being the necessary party in the matter of appointment, ought to have been arrayed as a Respondent both before the KSAT & this Court. No explanation is offered for not arraying the State as a party to the proceedings. It hardly needs to be stated that after the selection process was over, the State Govt. in terms of extant recruitment rules, had issued appointment order to the 4th Respondent on 9.9.2020 and since then, he has been serving under the State, with no complaints whatsoever.
5. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that his client was more meritorious compared to Respondent No.4 and that he had at a later point of time, produced the Rural Certificate countersigned by the BEO, does not come to the aid of the Petitioner, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:3755-DB WP No. 17350 of 2021 inasmuch as relief is being denied to him on the ground that the necessary party has been left unarrayed. Without a necessary party, no adjudication of the claim can take place vide RAZIA BEGUM vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM, AIR 1958 SC 886. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the Apex Court decision in DOLLY CHHANDA vs CHAIRMAN, JEE AND OTHERS, (2005) 9 SCC 779, does not merit invocation, in that view of the matter. Similarly, we need not much delve into what has been observed in BEDANGA TALUKDAR vs SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN, (2011) 12 SCC 8, which the learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent heavily banked upon inasmuch as the applecart of his client not being toppled.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents points out that the Petitioner has been enlisted in the Additional Selection List and therefore, he can stake his claim for appointment for the other vacancies, if any. We agree with the same and we place on record our deep -6- NC: 2024:KHC:3755-DB WP No. 17350 of 2021 appreciation for the fairness shown by the counsel appearing for the Respondents.
In the above circumstances and with the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.
The consideration of Petitioner's case in terms of Additional Selection List could take place in accordance with law. All the jurisdictional authorities including the State shall accomplish this task, within an outer limit of three months from the date a copy of this order is submitted by the Petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv/cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32