Dismissed

Karnataka Public Service Commission v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2021WP/3669/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition dismissed by the State of Karnataka, deferring to the Administrative Tribunal's view that a processing fee refund caused by a technical banking error did not justify rejecting candidates' applications for Assistant Engineer posts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without interference with the Tribunal's order allowing the applicants to pay the fee via Demand Draft.

Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^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.3669/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY UDYOGA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI A.RAVISHANKAR , ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶15

PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA

¶16

BENGALURU-560 002

¶17

2 . MOHAMMED SHAHBAZ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O SHAFEEQ AHMED BAGALI RESIDING AT KASAGERI ROAD KKGS

¶18

VIJAYAPUR-562 135

¶19

3 . NOOR OVESSHAHARPYADE AGED 29 YEARS S/O JAHANGIR AHMED

¶20

RESIDING AT KAMANKHAN BAZAAR

¶21

¶22

NEAR IDEAL SCHOOL VIJAYAPUR-562 135

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP FOR R1)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2020 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NOS.4169 AND 4170/2020 AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner-Karnataka Public Service Commission has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in application Nos.4169 and 4170/2020 (Mohammad Shahbaz and Another Vs. the State of Karnataka and Another).

¶29

The facts of the case reveal that a notification was issued by the State of Karnataka inviting applications for the post of Assistant Engineer (Grade-1) (Civil) and at the relevant point of time, the Karnataka Examinations Authority was the body responsible to carry out the process of selection. Later, on account of the policy decision, the entire matter was entrusted to Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'KPSC' for short) a notification was issued by the KPSC on

¶30

¶31

30.07.2020 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer. Undisputedly, as informed by the learned Counsel for the KPSC, the fee which was paid earlier was adjusted in respect of the candidates, who have earlier applied for the post pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government. However, they were required to pay the process fee of Rs.35/- which was in addition to the fee paid earlier. The facts in the present case further reveal that both the respondents have paid an additional processing fee of Rs.35/- on 16.09.2020 through Yono Lite SBI (online payment app) of State Bank of India and it was deducted from S.B. account No.20325775551 in respect of applicant No.1, and in respect of applicant No.2, the amount was deducted from S.B. account No.32484632544. Later on, the amount was credited back into the account of respondents, however, they were not aware of it. On account of the fact that they have not paid the processing fee, their candidature was rejected. In those circumstances, the aforesaid applications were preferred before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.

¶32

The Tribunal, in paragraphs 6 to 8 of its order, has held as under:

¶33

In the light of arguments addressed by learned counsel for Applicants and the learned Panel Advocate for KPSC the only point that arises for our consideration is:

¶34

¶35

(a) Whether merely because the Applicants made online payment of processing fee of Rs.35/- each through Yono LITE SBI (online payment app) on 16.9.2020 and the same came to be refunded 7 days later on technical grounds, the Applicants can be deprived of their right to take part in the competitive examination?

¶36

(b) Whether the defect pointed out by KPSC is curable?

¶37

Our answers to the above points are in the affirmative for the following reasons:

¶38

At the outset, we may mention that Applicants having fulfilled the educational qualifications etc., applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Grade-1) (Civil) in pursuance of earlier Recruitment Notification issued by KEA and paid the requisite fee and also participated in the competitive examination which was conducted by KEA. But due to administrative reasons, the Government did not pursue with the selection process conducted by KEA, but took a decision to entrust the recruitment task to KPSC and accordingly the KPSC issued the Recruitment Notification dated 30.7.2020 at Annexure A1. Since the Applicants had already paid the requisite fee to KEA, they were only required to pay processing fee of Rs.35/-. Accordingly, both the Applicants who have Accounts with State Bank of India, which is a statutory Bank, paid the processing fee of Rs.35.40 (including Banks’ commission charges) to KPSC through Yono LITE SBI (online payment app) on 16.9.2020. As on that date, both the Applicants had sufficient balance in their S.B. Accounts. As on 16.9.2020 Applicant No.1 had credit balance of Rs.12,684.59. So also in the case of Applicant No.2, there was balance of Rs.1,96,967-64 as on the relevant date of deduction of processing fee of Rs.35.40. But the KPSC has refunded the amounts to Applicants 7 days later for which the Applicants cannot be held responsible. No doubt in the Recruitment Notification at Annexure A1 the method of payment is prescribed, but the Notification does not state that payment made through Yono LITE SBI or through some App of SBI cannot be accepted. There is no clarity in the Recruitment Notification as

¶39

¶40

to through which modes amount will not be accepted. In fact, in the case of both the Applicants, the amounts were debited to their Bank accounts, but subsequently on account of technical error at the end of HDFC Bank with whom KPSC has some arrangement, the amounts have been refunded to the Bank Accounts of Applicants 7 days later. When once the Applicants fulfill the conditions relating to educational qualifications, they had paid prescribed fee in response to earlier Recruitment Notifications and after their applications were found to be valid they were also called for competitive examination and they participated in the competitive examinations, if the applications of Applicants were to be rejected on the technical ground that they did not pay the processing fee through the stipulated mode, there will be grave miscarriage of justice. On account of COVID-19 pandemic the Applicants have made payment of processing fee online through SBI Yono pay. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the note on the Applications of Applicants stating that they are invalid and depriving the Applicants the opportunity of participating in selection process is untenable. It is a curable defect. Accordingly, we answer the points for consideration in the affirmative and in favour of the Applicants. Therefore, we hold that the Applicants are entitled to succeed in the Applications.

¶41

In the result, we pass the following Order:

¶42

Applications are allowed and the Notes made by KPSC in the online applications of Applicants with regard to “Payment Status” vide Annexure A6 and A7 are set aside. Applicants are directed to deposit process fee of Rs.35/- each by way of Demand Draft in favour of Secretary, KPSC and present the Demand Draft to the Secretary, KPSC on or before 26.11.2020 and on presentation of Demand Draft the KPSC is directed to validate the Applications of Applicants at Annexure A6 and A7 and permit the Applicants to participate in the competitive examination stated to have been fixed on 29.11.2020."

¶43

¶44

The Tribunal has permitted the respondents-applicants to pay the processing fee of Rs.35/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Secretary, KPSC.

¶45

The learned Counsel for the petitioner-KPSC has drawn the attention of this Court towards the notification issued on 30.07.2020 which is in Kannada language and has been explained by my Brother Judge in the open Court. The notification provides that Rs.35/- has to be paid towards the processing fee. The learned Counsel has argued that the payment of processing fee is a mandatory condition. He has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS VS. G. HEMALATHA AND ANOTHER in Civil Appeal No.6669/2019 decided on 28.08.2019. It was a case where a candidate has underlined the answer sheet with pencil at several places in Law Paper-I, in spite of clear instructions issued by the Commission not to use pens, pencils, crayons or any other writing materials for any purpose. The Apex Court has held that there was a clear violation of the instructions and prohibited her candidature. The facts of the aforesaid case are distinguishable. In the present case, no such contingency is involved and the entire process of selection was handed over to the KPSC and the candidates were required to remit only

¶46

¶47

Rs.35/- as the processing fee and that was also paid. However, on account of technical glitches in the matter of payment of fee, the respondents-applicants cannot be denied from participation in the process of selection of the posts in question. Reliance has also been placed in case of SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC

¶48

SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER Vs. S. KRISHNA

¶49

CHAITANYA reported in (2011) 14 SCC 427 which was a case regarding the receipt of application form by Recruitment Authority. The facts of the aforesaid case are also distinguishable because in the present case, the banking details establish that the amount was deducted from the account of respondents-applicants. The aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner. Lastly, a reliance has been placed upon in the case of BEDANGA TALUKDAR Vs. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 . The learned Counsel has referred to paragraphs 29 to 32 of the aforesaid judgment. In the preset case, the condition of paying Rs.35/- as the processing fee was a mandatory condition. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said condition is certainly required to be complied with. However, this Court is dealing with a different situation altogether. The amount was paid by both the respondents-applicants. On account of technical error at the end of HDFC Bank (which is the

¶50

¶51

Bank of KPSC), the amount was refunded back to the bank account of the respondents seven days thereafter and the respondents were not aware of it. Therefore on account of the mistake committed by the HDFC Bank, who is the Banker for the KPSC, the career of two bright youths cannot be crushed. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶52

It is needless to mention that in case the respondentsapplicants have not been allowed to appear in the examination, the KPSC shall conduct special examination for the respondents-applicants for the post in question within sixty days from today.

¶53

The writ appeal stands dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within thirty days from today.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

SD/-

¶56

Karnataka Public Service Commission v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Public Service Commission v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eranna H Vs Uco Bank

India Awake for Transparency Vs Mr Azim Hasham Premji

V Nandan Kamath Vs Muralinath Gupta

Dr H.R.Nanjundappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Smart Infosoft and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Shri. Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka