Karnataka High Court
Satish vs The Principal Secretary And Ors on 7 December, 2023
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081
WP No. 204154 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.204154 OF 2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SATISH S/O AMBANNA,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O H.NO.19-4-635/1,
SAI NAGAR, NAWAB LAYOUT,
NAUBAD, BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
Digitally signed VIKASA SOUDHA,
by LUCYGRACE BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
KARNATAKA
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY,
CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR (A & HR).
3. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE,
# 29, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE,
HINKAL, MYSURU-570 017,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081
WP No. 204154 of 2018
4. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE,
# 29, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE,
HINKAL, MYSURU-570 017,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
GENERAL MANAGER (A & HR)
5. RAJASIMHA
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY R.,
REPRESENTED THROUGH
APPOINTING AUTHORITY,
GENERAL MANAGER (A & HR),
CESC, MYSURU.
6. VASANTHAKUMAR K.G.
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJASETTY,
REPRESENTED THROUGH,
APPOINTING AUTHORITY,
GENERAL MANAGE (A& HR),
CESC, MYSURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
REPLY DATED 04.10.2018 BEARING NO.P˻
æ ÀiÁAPÀ:¥Àª
æ Àå(D&ªÀiÁ.¸ÀA)/
G¥Àª
æ Àå/¸À¥ª
Àæ Àå/ªÀå/¸À1/PÀ-714/18-19/12729 COMMUNICATED BY E-MAIL
DATED 06.10.2018 AS AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY IN NATURE
AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AS AT
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081
WP No. 204154 of 2018
ANNEXURE-B BY CONSIDERING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE
PETITIONER AS AT ANNEXURE-E AND H.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 04.10.2018 produced at Annexure-J issued by respondent No.4, by which the representation given by the petitioner through e-mail dated 25.07.2018 objecting the provisional selection list has been negated.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, respondent No.1 had issued Employment Notification dated 08.09.2016 inviting the applications from the qualified and eligible candidates through online mode for various posts in KPTCL and Electricity Distribution Company (ESCOMS). The petitioner made an application for the post of Assistant for Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited (CESCOM) under Physically Handicapped -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 reservation quota under II-A Category, which was reserved for II-A Category. The petitioner had uploaded required certificates including the disability certificate, describing the nature of disability as "OL" (One Leg Disability) as per the instructions provided in the notification. That, the result of the Aptitude Test was published, in which the petitioner had initially secured 73.7490 marks and after reconsideration, it was reduced to 70.546125. That, though the petitioner secured highest marks amongst the candidates under II-A Category and also amongst the candidates under GM Category under Physically Handicapped quota, in the notification dated 01.02.2018 issued by the respondent-Corporation notifying the names of the candidates for document verification and physical examination, the name of the petitioner was not reflected. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation through e-mail dated 23.02.2018, requesting for reconsideration of the list by including his name. That, the respondent - Corporation has issued yet another Circular on 07.06.2018 for the purpose of -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 verification of documents and for medical examination for additional candidates enclosed in the list. Even in the said list, name of the petitioner was not included. That, the selection authority without properly verifying the application of the petitioner, issued the Provisional Selection List on 17.07.2018 in respect of the posts of Assistant (Physically Disabled) in CESCOM reflecting the cut off marks under General Merit 2 posts PH at 67.56450, one post under II A PH at 57.71218 and one post under SC PH at 41.23247. In that, respondent No.5 has been shown as selected under GM PH Category with total marks of 67.56450 and respondent No.6 has been shown as provisionally selected under II A PH Category with total marks of 57.71218. The petitioner made yet another representation as per annexure-H dated 25.07.2008 challenging the provisional list which was issued reflecting the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6, to which response was issued vide endorsement dated 04.10.2018 by respondent No.4 contending that the petitioner had failed to disclose the nature of disability in his application, as -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 such, his application was not considered under Physically Handicapped Quota, thereby, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and taking this Court through the records, submits that in the notification, four posts of Assistant were reserved for Physically Challenged candidates. In that, one post was reserved for SC Category, 2 posts were reserved for GM Category and one post was reserved for Category II A. Further, referring to page No.13 of the notification, he submits that though the physically handicapped candidates and the nature of disability is mentioned, no specific details are given as to the reservation with regard to nature of disability. He points out the copy of the application uploaded by the petitioner produced at Annexure-B, in which he has given the nature of disability as "Locomotor Disability One Leg (OL)". He also points -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 out Anneuxre-C, the marks obtained in Online Aptitude Test by the petitioner, which is 73.7490774907749 and revised marks at 70.5461254612546. Learned counsel further refers to page No.41 of the writ petition, wherein list of candidates who are called for document verification and physical examination is provided. In that, 12 names are provided and the nature of disability in the category of II A is shown as 'Low Vision' and 'Blind'. Learned counsel points out that there is no candidate with the Locomotor Disability One Leg (OL) as that of the petitioner, found in the said list. Leaned counsel referring to Provisional Selection List produced at page No.43 of the writ petition points out that four names have been published in the provisional list, which are,
1. Mohankumar B S S/o Swamaiah in the Category of GM-PH, who has secured marks of 70.54613.
2. Rajasimha K S/o Krishnamurthty R in the Category of GM-PH, who has secured marks of 67.56450.
3. Vasanthakumara K G S/o Late Govindarajasetty in the Category of 2A-PH, who has secured marks of 57.71218.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018
4. Siddarajamma S D/o Sangarajaiah in the Category of SC-PH, who has secured marks of 41.23247.
4. Juxtaposing the names found in the Provisional Selection List at page No.43 with page No.41, which is list of candidates called for document verification and physical examination, leaned counsel points out that name of Mohankumar B.S., who is selected in GM-PH Category with the marks of 70.54613 is not found in the list of candidates called for document verification and physical examination. He submits that Rajasimha K., whose name is found in the Provisional Selection List under GM-PH Category has secured only 67.56450 marks and the petitioner though had applied under II A Category of PH OL not only has secured higher marks, but could also have been considered in the General Merit Category. Referring to these documents he submits that the endorsement impugned in this petition has been issued by respondent No.4 without referring to these specific points, defects, errors and anomalies pointed out by the petitioner in the -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 representation. He also refers to statement of objections filed by the respondents, wherein at para 3 it is contended that, the petitioner sought to apply under category 'Physically Handicapped reservation quota under 2A category. One post was reserved for category 2A. In para 4 of statement of objections it is stated that, the petitioner made application online specifically claiming reservation under Category 2A and describing the nature of disability in the column of nature of disability as "OL" (One Leg Disability). Thus, he submits that the statement of objections runs contrary to the reasons given in endorsement. Hence, submits that the entire process of selection to the post of Assistant under the Physically Handicapped Category is mourned with the arbitrary exercise of power warranting interference.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Corporation submits that the respondents have followed the Government Order dated 01.08.2009, which provides for horizontal reservation. In
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 that, in the direct recruitment to the civil service of the servants in the Group-C and Group-D posts, roster system has to be followed. That the post which is being sought for by the petitioner is reserved only for physically impaired (blindness and low vision) candidates. Thus, he submits that though in the notification the said point was not specified, the petitioner is bound to follow the order. As such, the respondents have followed the roster point of 24 which is reserved for physically impaired candidates. As such, he submits that no infirmity can be found with the endorsement issued by the respondent-authority.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The petitioner in the online application produced at Annexure-B has specifically referred to nature of his disability as "Locomotor Disability - One Leg (OL)". The same is confirmed at para 4 of the statement of objections. Therefore, primarily the reasons assigned in
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 the impugned endorsement dated 04.10.2018 that the name of the petitioner was not considered, as he had not specified the nature of disability in his application cannot be countenanced. The same would therefore amount to non-application of mind/ non-appreciation of the contentions urged by the petitioner. On this sole ground, the endorsement dated 04.10.2018 requires to be set aside.
8. Yet another aspect which requires to be looked at is, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner in the Aptitude Test has secured revised equi-percentile of 70.5461254612546, his name has not been shown in the list of candidates called for document verification and physical examination, while the name of Rajasimha S/o Krishnamurthy R. - respondent No.5 and Vasanthakumar K.G. - respondent No.6 who have secured lesser percentile than the petitioner have been reflected and the said candidates
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 have been selected as per the provisional list produced at page No.43 of the writ petition.
9. The other aspect needs to be looked at is, the name of Mohankumar B.S. and Vasanthakumar K.G. (respondent No.6) which are shown in provisional list do not find place in the list of candidates called for document verification and physical examination produced at page No.41 of the writ petition. These aspects, which have been pointed out in the writ petition also point out the irregularities in the process of selection.
10. Be that as it is. In view of the aforesaid prima facie and admitted irregularities in the process of selection to the post of Assistant (Physically Disabled Category) and issuance of the endorsement impugned without adverting to the points raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned endorsement be set aside.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018
11. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Corporation submits that due to passage of time, the private respondents and the persons found in the provisional selection list have already been appointed and their position may get affected. He also fairly submits that given an opportunity, the case of the petitioner would be re-considered subjecting him to the physical examination and verification of his records and if found eligible, necessary orders appointing him will be passed.
12. Submission is taken on record as an undertaking to the Court.
13. In that view of the matter, though the impugned endorsement is set aside, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to give a detail representation within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, respondent No.4 shall fix a convenient date for physical examination of the petitioner and thereafter pass necessary orders on the said
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9081 WP No. 204154 of 2018 representation and also with regard to eligibility of the petitioner within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
With the above, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21