Dismissed

The Secretary, v. R.P. Sushma

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2021WP/15293/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission challenging an Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had directed the petitioner to consider a specific candidate for appointment in category 2A (Women) as she secured higher examination marks than originally selected candidates, addressing concerns about her educational qualification timing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the Public Service Commission challenging the Tribunal's order was dismissed.

The Secretary, Vs R.P. Sushma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.15293 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPT. BY SMT. G. SATHYAVATHI, IAS

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJA GODACHI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

R.P. SUSHMA D/O PARAMESH R.P. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT RAJAGERE VILLAGE, POST: GONISOMANAHALLI, HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573121.

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (SERVICES) VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶16

¶17

BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶18

KOMALA T.N. W/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.57, 1^ST CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA, OPP. ANDHRA BANK, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.02.2020 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.11010/2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND AS THE SAME IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ petition is filed assailing the Order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Application No.11010/2016. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal allowed the Application filed by the respondent No.1 herein and directed the petitioner herein

¶25

¶26

to consider her for the post of First Division Assistant as against category-2A (Women).

¶27

The application filed before the Tribunal discloses that the petitioner herein issued a recruitment notification dated 30.06.2015 inviting online applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of First Division Assistants and Second Division Assistants in various departments of the State in Karnataka. The academic qualification prescribed for the post of First Division Assistant is a Degree from any recognised University or any equivalent Certificate. The respondent No.1 herein submitted her application for the post of First Division Assistant and Second Division Assistant and claimed reservation under category-2A (Women) as also as a rural candidate. The respondent No.1 herein appeared for the written examination and secured 146 marks. The petitioner herein issued an intimation letter dated 16.05.2016 directing the respondent No.1 herein to appear on 01.06.2016 at 10:00 a.m. for verification of documents.

¶28

¶29

The respondent No.1 herein submitted all her documents. However, the candidature of the respondent No.1 was rejected on the ground that the respondent No.1 had completed her Degree from the Karnataka State Open University. This is evident from an endorsement issued by the petitioner herein on 10.06.2016. This was challenged by the respondent No.1 herein before this Court in W.P.No.34051/2016. The learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of an Order dated 01.08.2016, set aside the endorsement dated 10.06.2016 and directed the petitioner herein to consider the case of the respondent No.1 herein as per the directions issued by this Court.

¶30

Following the above, the petitioner issued a provisional select list on 07.10.2016. In the said list, the cut-off marks prescribed for the reserved category of 2A (Women) was 141. Though the respondent No.1 had secured 146 marks in the examination, the petitioner had provisionally selected the respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 submitted her objections following which

¶31

¶32

a final select list was published on 24.10.2016. In the final select list, the respondent No.3 who had secured 141 marks was selected under category 2A (Women). She therefore, sought for quashing the final select list in so far as the appointment of the respondent No.3 is concerned and to appoint her to the post of First Division Assistant.

¶33

The petitioner had not considered the candidature of the respondent No.1 as her consolidated marks card was secured in the year 2016 while the recruitment notification was issued on 30.06.2015 and therefore construed that she did not possess the prescribed educational qualification as on 30.6.2015 when the recruitment notification was issued. It was the claim of the respondent No.1 that she had appeared in the final year BA Degree examination during April-May 2014 and that the marks card was issued in the year 2014. However, a consolidated marks card was issued on 07.01.2016.

¶34

The Tribunal considered the submissions and in view of the fact that the respondent No.1 herein had

¶35

¶36

secured 148 marks while the respondent No.3 herein had secured 141 marks, held that the respondent No.1 was entitled to be selected under category 2A(Women). The Tribunal therefore, allowed the Application and directed the petitioner herein to consider the respondent No.3 herein for the post of First Division Assistant in category 2A (Women).

¶37

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Public Service Commission has filed this writ petition.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Degree conferred upon the respondent No.1 by the Karnataka State Open University is invalidated by the University Grants Commission as it had derecognized the Open University. He contended that the qualification possessed by the respondent No.1 did not satisfy the requirement of the recruitment notification. He further contended that all certificates and documents must

¶39

have been obtained prior to the last date for filing the online application i.e., 01.08.2015 and therefore, the

¶40

¶41

petitioner was justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent No.1.

¶42

It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 had filed an online application furnishing all particulars of her academic qualification. It was based upon this that the petitioner had permitted the respondent No.1 to face the written examination. Thereafter, the petitioner had verified the documents of the respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that the candidature of the respondent No.1 was rejected earlier on the ground that the Degree Certificate obtained by her from the Karnataka State Open University was invalid as the University Grants Commission had derecognized it. This order was successfully challenged by the respondent No.1 before this Court in W.P.No.34051/2016 which was allowed. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is not eligible to be selected on the ground that the Degree obtained by her is derecognized by the University Grants Commission.

¶43

¶44

The other contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had obtained her consolidated marks card on 07.01.2016 which was subsequent to the recruitment notification is liable to be rejected. It is found that the respondent No.1 had passed: first year BA Degree examination during April-May 2013; second year BA Degree examination during October-November 2013 and third year BA Degree examination during April-May 2014 and the final year marks card was issued in the year 2014. She therefore, possessed the requisite qualification as on 30.06.2015 when the recruitment notification was issued. The consolidated marks card was a mere record of the consolidated marks obtained by the respondent No.1 and that itself cannot deprive the respondent No.1 of being selected under category 2A (Women). If the respondent No.1 had secured more marks than the respondent No.3, it was improper for the petitioner to select the respondent No.3.

¶45

¶46

The Tribunal had considered the case of the respondent No.1 herein altruistically and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶47

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

The pending application stands disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

sma

The Secretary, v. R.P. Sushma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, v. R.P. Sushma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Sri a K Ramesh

State of Karnataka Vs Prof K Lakshmanappa

Mani Rama Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M R Thilak Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka