Karnataka High Court
Shruthi S vs The Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage ... on 30 October, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No. 30931 OF 2010 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRUTHI.S
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O S.U.SHIVAPRAKASH,
NO.C-59, PWD QUARTERS,
JEEVANBHEEMANAGAR,
BENGALURU.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.J.PRASHANTH, ADV.)
AND:
THE BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY &
SEWERAGE BOARD,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER/SECRETARY,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
.. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 5.3.2010 AND
ANNEXURE-B DATED 21.06.2010.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
Respondent-Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ('SWSSB' for short) had issued notification on 22.2.2008 for selection and appointment of various posts including the post of Asst. Engineer (Electrical). Petitioner submitted her application under the S.C. category reserved for physically handicapped. As per the notification issued on 22.2.2008 Annexure-C, two posts were reserved under S.C. category, of which one post was reserved for physically handicapped and another under the category of II-B. On completion of process of selection, two provisional lists have been issued, in which petitioner's name has been shown against physically handicapped. As such, the petitioner was awaiting to receive the appointment order, but to her surprise, a corrigendum dated 5.03.2010 was issued cancelling the post reserved for physically handicapped category. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.
3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in accordance with the selection process as per Notification dated 22.2.2008, two provisional lists were issued, in which the petitioner's name was shown as selected. Later, as per the corrigendum issued, the post reserved for physically handicapped person came to be cancelled without assigning any reasons, which is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14(1) of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-BWSSB filed statement of objections inter alia contending that as on the date of issuance of notification dated 22.2.2008, 19th, 59th and 99th in the group of 100 roster points in each category shall have to be reserved for physically handicapped candidates and as per Govt. Order dated 4.1.2008 19th point of each category in the group of 20 posts reserved for physically handicapped candidates has been shifted to 4th point. Learned counsel further submitted that after issuance of 4 provisional selection list, objections were received to the provisional list specifically contending that reservation to the B-group is not satisfying with the terms of G.O. dated 5.9.2005 and G.O. dated 4.1.2008 is not applicable. After scrutinising the same, respondent, in order to rectify the defect, issued corrigendum dated 5.3.2010 withdrawing the earlier classification made under the category of Asst. Engineer (Civil) (Electrical) and (Mechanical) posts. Hence, 19th point in the SC Category, no post has been reserved for physically handicapped candidates, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for appointment.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. It is true that name of the candidate appeared in the provisional selection list in accordance with notification dated 22.2.2008 and cancellation of posts reserved for handicapped would adversely affect the interest of the selected candidate, which is contrary to 5 law. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the error crept in while inviting applications to fill up various posts under notification dated 22.2.2008 was rectified by issuing corrigendum as per Annexure-A. This submission of the learned counsel has to be accepted and accordingly, accepted.
6. Though the petitioner was eligible to be appointed as per the original notification and since corrigendum is issued rectifying the error canceling the particular post reserved for handicapped candidate, respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, if eligible, as per the latest notification, in accordance with law.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln