Karnataka High Court
Shankreppa S/O Manappa Bilupttar vs The Registrar General Ors on 1 June, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
ON THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.81964 OF 2012 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SHANKREPPA
S/O MANAPPA BAILUPATTAR
AGE: 26 YEARS
R/O CHATNALLI
TALUK: SHAHAPUR
DISTRICT: YADGIR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
YADGIR
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT
YADGIR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.4.2012 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A notification was issued by the 2nd respondent, calling for various posts under him. The petitioner applied for the same. He was called for an interview. Interview is said to be consisting of reading, writing, oral etc. It is submitted that the interview went on very well. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner to hold a detail enquiry as to whether the said candidate comes under Category-I and if found correct, to issue a Caste Validity Certificate. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed cancelling the said selection. Hence, the present petition.
3
2. Sri P. Vilaskumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the termination of the petitioner is illegal. That he has been terminated on the ground that his character and conduct are not good and not up to the mark and has submitted false information. Therefore, it is contended that the same is stigmatic and liable to be set aside. He firstly relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 LAB I.C. 1808 in the case of V.CHARULATHA AND OTHERS VS. S. GUNALAN, CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, MADRAS AND OTHERS with reference to para-3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondents to make the appointments.
3. I have considered the judgment at length. The facts therein are different. Primarily in the said order the number of posts called for at the time of interview was substantially reduced at the time of appointment. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no fault could be found with the persons seeking appointment. 4 Therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalized. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered appointment to all the remaining candidates. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case herein.
4. He further relies on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2006 KAR 1772 in the case of MARY KUTTY VS. THE HINDUSTHAN TIMES AND ANOTHER. He contends that when a letter of termination is with reference to character and conduct of the petitioner such a termination becomes unsustainable and therefore relief has to be granted.
5. In the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner was appointed by the respondents as a Telex Printer Operator. Subsequent to an appointment order being issued and on training the employee was terminated. However, the facts herein are different. There is no appointment at all herein. The right to challenge the action of the respondents would arise only when an appointment is made. In the absence of 5 any appointment, the aforesaid judgment would not come into play.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed by the respondent-authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that after the appointment, he was terminated. In the absence of any appointment of the petitioner, he would not have any legal right to contend before this court. In the absence of any appointment, it cannot be said that the impugned order becomes stigmatic. It would become stigmatic only when an appointed person has been terminated. When the person not even been appointed, there is no question of a stigma being attached. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner counsel that the termination is stigmatic, cannot be accepted.
7. Moreover on a report being called for from the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, Caste Validity Committee, the 2nd respondent came to the view that the character and conduct are not good since he has submitted false information.
6
8. Therefore, I'm of the considered view that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The contention that the order of the termination is stigmatic is misconceived. In the absence of an appointment, the impugned order cannot be said to be stigmatic.
9. Hence, I do not find any ground for interference. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu