Karnataka High Court
Dr Nischitha B M vs The Registrar on 6 March, 2023
-1-
WP No. 2846 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2846 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. NISCHITHA B M,
D/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT BYRASANDRA,
SHIDLAGATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
JANGAMAKOTE POST - 562 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MARUTHI S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE REGISTRAR,
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL AND FISHERIES
Location: High Court
of Karnataka SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
BIDAR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
INELIGIBLE LIST PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE
POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (BACKLOG RECRUITMENT)
IN THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE AFTER ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
-2-
WP No. 2846 of 2023
VERIFICATION CONDUCTED ON 12.10.2022 AND 13.10.2022,
DATED NIL , PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the provisional list of the In-eligible Applicants for the post of Assistant Professors (AP) (Backlog Recruitment) for Assessment after Original Document Verification conducted on 12.10.2022 and 13.10.2022 (Annexure-G to the writ petition).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has completed Master of Veterinary Science in the year 2020 and pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent-University on 30.10.2021 (Annexure-B), petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Professor, backlog post under prescribed profarma in the Department of Instructional livestock farm complex (ILFC) and Assistant Professor in the Department of Veterinary -3- WP No. 2846 of 2023 Gynecology obstetrics, and Assistant Professor in the Department of Teaching Veterinary Clinical Compex (TVCC) as per Annexure-C, D and E respectively.
3. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the name of the petitioner was also forthcoming in the intimation letter issued by the respondent-University on 28.09.2022 and the respondent-University has published the eligible and ineligible candidates list in their website, as per Annexure-G and H respectively whereby, it is remarked that the petitioner has not attached KVC Certificate to the Application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
4. Heard Sri. Maruthi. S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent-University.
5. Sri. Maruthi. S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner has furnished the entire documents required by the respondent-University -4- WP No. 2846 of 2023 for the post of appointment as claimed by the petitioner herein and in that view of the matter, rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not enclosed/produced KVC certificate is incorrect. Accordingly he sought for interference of this Court.
6. Per-contra, Smt. Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent by referring to the statement of objections filed today, submitted that the petitioner herein has not enclosed the copy of the KVC certificate as mentioned at clause Nos.9 and 10 of the notification and accordingly sought for dismissal of the case. Smt. Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University further invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 11 of statement of objection and submitted that the respondent-University has completed the selection process from 15.02.2023 to 17.02.2023 and therefore contended that the case of the petitioner, at this juncture cannot be considered and accordingly the learned counsel -5- WP No. 2846 of 2023 appearing for the respondent-University sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. In light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the notification produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition dated 30.10.2021 wherein at General Instructions for the candidates, point Nos 9 and 10 reads as under:-
"9. Candidates should possess a valid registration of KVC/VCI for the posts under Veterinary faculty.
10. While filling up of the application form Application in 03 sets should be submitted along with all enclosures including publications in A4 size in spiral bound form".
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as it is the contention of the petitioner that the candidates must possess the valid registration of KVC/VCI Certificate as per clause 9 of the notification however, the same was not enclosed, mandatory However, taking into consideration clause 10 of the notification dated -6- WP No. 2846 of 2023 30.10.2021 would indicate that the candidates are required to enclose all the required documents stated in the said notification.
10. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that taking into consideration the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited and another vs. H.L.Kaveri and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 108 paragraph 12 to 15 of the said judgment reads as under:
12. under its advertisement dated 11.11.2013, it was specifically indicated that separate application should be submitted for each post accompanied with various requirements including qualification, experience, etc. and incomplete application, if any, is liable for rejection without assigning any reason. The first respondent applied for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant vide application dated 29-
11-2013. After scrutiny of the applications, the select list of backlog vacancies was published on 16-1-2015 and it reveals from the record that impleaded third respondent in the writ petition (Smt Priyanka A. Chanchalkar) was provisionally selected as Senior Assistant securing 64.65% marks. At the same time, the first respondent secured 65.43% marks but since the first respondent failed to submit experience certificate along with the application form, her application at the stage of scrutiny itself was rejected.
13. The Corporation in IA No. 3457 of 2020 has indicated that total 31 applications for the post of -7- WP No. 2846 of 2023 Senior Assistant were rejected in view of not enclosing of self-attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicants for Senior Assistant against the single post of female (Scheduled Caste) which remain unfilled because of the orders of the Court. At the same time, the Corporation rejected 106 number of applications for the post of Junior Assistant for not enclosing the documents required including self-attested copies of experience certificate/caste certificate/computer tally- certificate/graduation certificate/birth certificate, etc.
14. It remains undisputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of which reference has been made that the first respondent had not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11- 2013 for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reasons which although was disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.
15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision-making process while rejecting the application which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the of the first respondent for non-fulfilment of the necessary experience certificate advertisement dated 11-11-2013.
11. Following the declaration of law made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case as well as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, that the University has completed -8- WP No. 2846 of 2023 the entire selection process and forwarded the same to the Government for final approval and at this juncture interference cannot be made in this writ petition.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28