Dismissed

Sandip S/O. Pundalik Yalgukar v. Staff Selection Commission

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/76690/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Staff Selection Commission's rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of constable. The Court held there was no illegality in not selecting the petitioner, as he verified ineligible for the OBC category and failed to secure qualifying marks in the general category.

What did the court decide?

Petition against the rejection of candidature for post of constable dismissed.

Sandip S/O. Pundalik Yalgukar Vs Staff Selection… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 76690 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

¶4

BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT

¶8

CHANDANGOUDAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 76690 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SANDIP S/O. PUNDALIK YALGUKAR AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE R/O. H.NO. 565, GANPAT GALLI, AT AND POST: AMBEWADI, TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B HIREMATH AND SRI. M.V.CHAVAN, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, R/BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, (KARNATAKA KERALA REGION)

¶16

John Doe

¶17

Digitally signed by John Doe

¶18

FIRST FLOOR, 3 WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, BLOCK NO. 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034.

¶19

THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI AND SRI.M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATES FOR R1 AND R2)

¶22

¶23

WP No. 76690 of 2013

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: 1. QUASH THE RESULT DECLARED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ON 02/02/2011 AT SL.NO.228168 AT ROLL NO.9004501467 (ANNEXURE-F) OF THE PETITIONER BY WRONGLY SHOWING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS SECURED MARKS LESS THAN 35% AS CUTT OFF PERCENTAGE FOR PASSING THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION HELD ON 05/06/2011 AND HAS WRONGLY REJECTED THE CANDIDATURE FOR THE POST OF CONSTABLE IN THE RECRUITMENT DONE AS SAME IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTL14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The result declared by respondent No.1 on 02.12.2011 declaring that the petitioner has secured less than the cut off percentage is challenged in this writ petition.

¶28

Petitioner had submitted an application to consider his case for appointment to the post of constable in BSF, CISF. CRPF and SSB. The petitioner was not selected same he did not secure the qualifying marks so

¶29

¶30

WP No. 76690 of 2013

¶31

as to be eligible for appointment to the post of constable.

¶32

Taking exception of the same this petition is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the petitioner having been permitted to undergo medical test cannot be deprived of selection for the post of constable on the ground that he has not secured qualifying marks, since only those candidates who have secured the qualifying marks were eligible to undergo medical examination.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was permitted to take medical examination for having secured the qualifying marks for appointment to the post of constable under backward class category. But however, on verification it was found that he was not entitled for selection under the OBC category and since he did not secure the qualifying marks for selection under the general merit category, the petitioner has not been selected for the post of constable.

¶35

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶36

learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 76690 of 2013

¶39

The petitioner had submitted an application to

¶40

consider his case for appointment as constable under the other backward class category. Petitioner had secured the qualifying marks for appointment under the backward class category and accordingly he was permitted to undergo medical examination. Thereafter, on verification it was found that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment under backward class category and since he did not secure the qualifying marks prescribed, was not selected for appointment under general merit category. I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondent in not selecting the petitioner as constable. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sandip S/O. Pundalik Yalgukar v. Staff Selection Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip S/O. Pundalik Yalgukar v. Staff Selection Commission

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

Yallareddeppa S/O Eshwarappa Madnoor Vs the Acb Police by Ballari Police Station Ballari

Shri. Fakkiresh S/O Veerappa Baligar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Chandrashekar S/O. Sharanapap Neeralagi Vs Vadeyar Sreedhar S/O Rohith Swamy

Railway Muslim Employees Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravinder Singh Atter Vs the State of Karnataka

Pralhad B Kulkarni Vs M/S.Godrej Agrovet Ltd.