Dismissed

Smt Shifa Mariyam v. M/S Karnataka Power Transmission

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2020WP/13175/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the exclusion of the petitioner from the final select list for the post of Assistant Engineer. The court found she had misrepresented her Kannada language qualification as a second language in her application when it was, in fact, her third language, rendering the petition devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the exclusion from the final select list was dismissed due to material misrepresentation in the application.

Smt Shifa Mariyam Vs M/S Karnataka Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.13175/2018 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT.SHIFA MARIYAM W/O HASEEBUDDIN M.R, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT # 1045-B, 8^TH CROSS, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI UDAYA SHANKAR RAI P., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶10

AND

¶11

M/S.KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT TO APPOINT PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN PURSUANCE OF

¶15

¶16

EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 08.09.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged to notification dated 08.09.2016, by which the respondent – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’), invited applications to fill up various posts of the Corporation amongst which was Assistant Engineer (Electrical), the post that concerns the present lis .

¶20

The facts that are germane in the case on

¶21

hand are that, the Corporation issued a notification in employment notification on 08.09.2016 calling for applications from eligible candidates for various posts of the Corporation, one of which was Assistant Engineer (Electrical).

¶22

¶23

The petitioner claiming to be an eligible in

¶24

terms of the notification (supra), uploaded her application under category II B Women, indicating that she has studied ‘Kannada’ as her second language. Based on the credentials submitted by the petitioner, the Corporation notified a provisional select list – Annexure ‘E’, wherein, the name of the petitioner figured at serial No.378, having secured 35.5%. The cut off marks was also notified by the Corporation on the same day. In terms of which, the cut off percentage for category II B Women was 33.25. The petitioner claims in terms of her merit, she was eligible as her marks was above the cut off percentage fixed for category II B Women.

¶25

The Corporation notified the final select list on 06.03.2018, in which, the name of the petitioner did not figure. This was the cause of action on which the

¶26

¶27

petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging

¶28

the impugned notification dated 08.09.2016.

¶29

Heard Sri Udaya Shankar Rai P., learned

¶30

counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Sriranga, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner’s candidature was turned down only on one ground that she has not studied ‘Kannada’ as her main language or an optional subject. She has studied ‘Kannada’ as her third language, which would meet the requirement of Clause 8 of the notification which mandates that a candidate applying to the post under the impugned notification is required to have studied ‘Kannada’ as a main language or an optional subject. He would further contend that despite her merit, non-

¶32

¶33

consideration of the candidature of the petitioner is illegal.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶35

Corporation would submit that the petitioner while uploading her application had misrepresented that she had studied ‘Kannada’ as her second language. This misrepresentation of the petitioner lead the Corporation to notify her name in the provisional selection list, in category of II B Women, in terms of her merit. It is in the process of further scrutiny of the applications notifying the final select list of the candidates, it was noticed that the petitioner had studied ‘Kannada’ as her third language and not second language as mentioned in the application.

¶36

He would further submit that ‘Kannada’ as

¶37

third language can neither be equated to main language nor to optional subject and hence, the

¶38

¶39

petitioner has no right whatsoever to contend that she should be appointed despite the above stated facts.

¶40

The only issue that falls for consideration by this Court is, whether the petitioner is eligible to be considered to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in terms of the notification dated 08.09.2016 and her application.

¶41

Clause 8 of the notification dated 08.09.2016, is extracted for ready reference, which reads thus:

¶42

“8.**KANNADA LANGUAGE TEST FOR APPLICANTS OF GROUP – A & B POSTS BEFORE THE APTITUDE TEST ONLY:

¶43

Candidates applying for the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.), Assistant Engineer (Elec. / Civil) and Assistant Accounts Officer should have passed the SSLC examination or any other examination declared as equivalent to by the State Government or any examination higher than SSLC examination in which Kannada is the main language or an optional subject (but not one of the subjects in a composite paper) or if they have studied and

¶44

¶45

passed in Kannada Medium are exempted from passing the compulsory Kannada Language Test.

¶46

Candidates who have not studied and passed Kannada language, such candidates are required to pass a Kannada Language Test which will be conducted before the Aptitude Test. The said test shall comprise of a maximum of 150 marks and the candidate must score a minimum of 50 marks. Candidate who pass the Kannada Language Test only are eligible to be considered for appearing for the APTITUDE TEST.

¶47

The syllabus for Kannada Language Test, date and venue of Kannada Language Test will be intimated at a later date through KPTCL & ESCOMs Websites.

¶48

The Kannada Language Test will be conducted only at BENGALURU.”

¶49

A cursory perusal at Clause 8 (supra) indicates

¶50

that the candidates must have studied Kannada language as main language or an optional subject, failing which, they will have to undergo a test for Kannada language conducted by the Corporation.

¶51

In the application uploaded pursuant to the

¶52

employment notification, insofar as it pertains to

¶53

¶54

studying Kannada language, the petitioner states as follows:

¶55

“Have you studied Kannada in SSLC as? 2nd Language”

¶56

(emphasis supplied)

¶57

In terms of her answer in the application, at the

¶58

first blush, it shows that the petitioner has studied ‘Kannada’ as her second language. In terms of her application and her merit, the provisional select list was notified in which the name of the petitioner did figure.

¶59

A perusal of the SSLC marks card – Annexure ‘C’ indicates the petitioner has studied ‘Kannada’ as a third language. Thus, knowing fully well, the petitioner misrepresented that she has studied ‘Kannada’ as a second language, which lead her name be shown in the list of provisional select list, which was a product of misrepresentation on the part

¶60

¶61

of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner who

¶62

misrepresented before the respondent is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶63

I deem it appropriate in view of the aforestated reasoning with regard to the

¶64

misrepresentation of the petitioner, not to delve upon any other issue that arises for consideration in the writ petition.

¶65

The writ petition is being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

nvj CT:MJ

Smt Shifa Mariyam v. M/S Karnataka Power Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shifa Mariyam v. M/S Karnataka Power Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Puttamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Venkataramanappa Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Sri. Halabasappa. G. M. Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Smt Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Tahir Vs the State of Karnataka