Karnataka High Court
Sri Balakrishna S M vs The Government Of India on 27 January, 2022
Bench: P S Dinesh Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
W.P No.3399/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
WRIT PETITION No.3399 OF 2021 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN :
SRI. BALAKRISHNA S.M
S/O. SRI. MANJAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A NO.1, ASHRAYA NILAYA
SRIGANDA NAGAR
HEGGANAHALLI EAST
K.T.G. SCHOOL MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 091 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. G.K. BASAVARAJA PATEL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF TEXTILE
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI-110 001
2. THE CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
CSB COMPLEX, BTM LAYOUT
MADIWALA
BENGALURU-560 068
W.P No.3399/2021
2
3. RITA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS TRAINEE SCIENTIST-B
INSECT BREEDING AND GENETICS
CENTRAL SILK BOARD
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE
SIJUBARI MAZAR DARGAH ROAD
HATIGON, GUWAHATI
ASSAM-781 038 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. D. BASAVARAJA, CGSC FOR R1;
SHRI. VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI. Y. HARI PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE ORDER
DTD. 11.12.2019 MADE IN O.A. 170/00303/2019 PASSED BY
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
BENCH, VIDE ANNX-A, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ERRONEOUS AND
UNTENABLE IN LAW AND DIRECTION, INCLUDING THE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER IN SERVICE
WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFIT AFTER QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AS SOUGHT FOR IN O.A.170/00303/2019
GRANTING THE BENEFITS FLOWING THERE FROM
INCLUDING THE MONETARY BENEFITS
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON
11.01.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:-
W.P No.3399/2021
3
ORDER
Petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Scientist in Central Silk Board has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated December 11, 2019 passed by the CAT1 in O.A. No.170/00303/2019, dismissing petitioners O.A.
2. Heard Shri. G.K. Basavaraja Patel, learned Advocate for petitioenr, Shri. D. Basavaraja, learned CGSC for first respondent, Shri. Vishnu Bhat, learned Advocate for second respondent and Shri. Y. Hari Prasad, learned Advocate for third respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case are, in response to an advertisement, petitioner applied for the post of Scientist-B in the Central Silk Board. He was not selected. He challenged his non-selection and the selection of third respondent before the CAT. 1 Central Administrative Tribunal W.P No.3399/2021 4 Petitioner's case is, as per the advertisement, the essential qualification is Masters Degree in Science or Masters Degree in Agricultural Sciences. He holds a Masters Degree from Bengaluru University and thus fulfills the essential qualification. Therefore, while awarding marks for the 'academic qualifications', five marks ought to have been given to him, but it was not given, where as the third respondent has been given five marks. Therefore, the selection process has been vitiated.
4. Shri. Basavaraj Patel, learned Advocate for petitioner, in substance, contended that both petitioner and third respondent belong to OBC Category. Petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria. Therefore, five marks ought to have been given to him for the academic qualifications.
5. Shri. Basavaraja, learned CGSC for Union of India, contended that the eligibility to W.P No.3399/2021 5 apply for the post is Masters Degree. The third respondent holds a Doctorate Degree and more meritorious. Official respondents have followed an uniform procedure in awarding marks. Adverting to the Statement of objections, he submitted that no marks have been awarded to any candidate who held only basic qualification. If any candidate possessed PG Diploma in addition to the basic qualification, one mark has been awarded. Similarly, for those holding M.Phil. qualification, two marks have been awarded and for those holding Ph.D or post Doctoral degrees, five marks have been awarded. Hence, there is no error in selection process.
6. Shri. Vishnu Bhat for second respondent and Shri. Y. Hariprasad for third respondent also argued opposing the writ petition.
7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. W.P No.3399/2021 6
8. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner holds a Masters Degree and third respondent holds a Doctorate Degree. Petitioner was interviewed on January 12, 2018. He has produced the proceedings of selection Committee and the marks awarded, obtained by him under the RTI2 (Annexure-A15 to the O.A.).
9. Para 3 of the proceedings is relevant and it reads as follows:
"3. Out of 14 candidates called for interview, 13 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee. Before commencing the interview, the Selection Committee discussed informally the criteria to be followed for awarding marks to the candidates. It was unanimously decided to follow the criteria indicated below for awarding marks:-
1) Academic qualifications -05 marks
2) Research Publications -10 marks
3) Experience -20 marks
4) Interview -25 marks
-----------
Total 60 marks
-----------
2
Right to Information
W.P No.3399/2021
7
10. Petitioner's principal grievance is, he has not been given any marks for academic qualification, whereas, third respondent has been given five marks. The procedure adopted by the Selection Committee while awarding marks for academic qualification is described in the Statement of objections as follows:
"I. Academic Qualifications - 5 Marks Academic qualification over and above the prescribed including:
(i) Basic qualification -NIL
(ii) P G Diploma - 1 mark
(iii) M. Phil - 2 marks
(iv) Ph.D. / Post-Doctoral - 5 marks"
11. It is recorded by the CAT in para 5 of its order that the records were produced in sealed cover. It has further recorded that the third respondent and one Dr. K.R. Manjula who held Doctorate Degrees have been given marks for academic qualifications. Similarly, petitioner and one Shri. S.S. Mohanraj, who have only M.Sc. W.P No.3399/2021 8 Degree were not given any marks and respondents have uniformly applied the norm and respondents cannot be faulted for treating the respondent No.3 and another person on the higher pedestrial than the applicant as they had higher qualifications. We have also perused the marks sheet, which has been obtained under RTI and produced by the petitioner.
12. In the advertisement, the essential qualification is mentioned as 'Masters Degree'. Third respondent and one Dr. K.R. Manjula were admittedly holding Ph.D. Degrees. Official Respondents have evolved a method of selection where under, they have chosen to award five marks for the academic qualification. They have applied this norm uniformly. In substance, official respondents have selected third respondent, who holds higher qualifications than the petitioner. W.P No.3399/2021 9
13. The post called for is, Scientist-B (Insect Breeding and Genetics) in the Central Silk Board. Admittedly, a candidate holding a better qualification was available though both petitioner and third respondent were eligible to apply based on their Masters Degree.
14. Selection of candidates in an Institution owned by Government of India is a Policy matter. It is for the employer to decide the best suitable candidate. On perusal of records, CAT has recorded that Official respondents have applied uniform norms while selecting the candidates. We have also perused the records noted above and satisfied that there is no discrimination. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the CAT does not call for any interference. W.P No.3399/2021 10
15. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS