Allowed

Ajatanagaling S/O Veerabadrappa Badiger v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2023WP/104266/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of candidature on technical grounds of non-uploading certificates. Following a coordinate bench, the Court held the defect curable and quashed the endorsement, directing appointment consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 27.8.2020 quashed; petitioners' case to be considered for appointment within four weeks.

Ajatanagaling S/O Veerabadrappa Badiger Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104266 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AJATANAGALING S/O. VEERABADRAPPA BADIGER,

¶8

AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. COMPUTER OPERATOR, R/O. AT POST KOPPA SK, TALUK BILAGI,

¶9

BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587116.

¶10

BASAPPA SADASHIV ATHANI, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. COMPUTER OPERATOR, R/O. AT POST YALPARATTI TALUK RAIBAGH, BELGAUM DISTRICT 591311.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ANAND DESAI AND SRI. A.M. NADAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES)

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶14

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.10.10 12:55:56 +0530

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, DEPT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶21

KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, #8, MSB-1, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADV. FOR R3; SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV. FOR R4; NOTICE TO R5-R10 ARE SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTITIORI BY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BERARING NO. R(2) 35443586/2020-21 /PSC DATED 27.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE M AND N WHERE BY THE RESPONDENT HAS REJECTED THE CANDIDATURE OF APPLICANTS ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

¶28

question the endorsement dated 27.8.2020 issued by 3^rd respondent, rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for

¶29

appointment to the post of First Division Assistant – computer operator in the Murajidesai Residential School.

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶31

Heard Sri.J.S.Shetty, Anand Desai and Sri.A.M.Nadagoudar, learned counsel for petitioners; Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri.M.M.Khannur, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri.Sunil S Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶32

The notification comes to be issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC for short) calling for application from the eligible candidate for filling up of the post of First Division Assistant in Murajidesai Residential School, run by a society, funded by the State Government. The petitioners finding themselves eligible for consideration of their candidature for recruitment, applied for the said post. On scrutiny of the application, provisional selection list is notified by the KPSC on 12.5.2020, in which the name of the petitioners did not figure. This leads the petitioners to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and later to this Court.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶35

would submit that the candidature of the petitioners is turned down on the certain trivial technical lacuna of nonuploading of relevant certificates with relevant requisites. Learned counsel would submit that it is a curable defect that would enure to the benefit of the petitioners for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post that they have applied for.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose the submissions, to contend that petitioners are not diligent and they should not be shown any indulgence at the hands of this Court as they have not uploaded the requisite certificates, in terms of the applications.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would join the issue to contend that the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP.No.101656/2021, in identical circumstances, concerning the very recruitment, has

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶39

allowed the petition holding that such defects are curable ones.

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶41

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶42

The aforenarrated facts are not in dispute. The

¶43

only reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioners is non-uploading of relevant certificates with relevant credentials. This according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is a curable defect, by according to the respondent, is not. The Co-ordinate bench considering the identical circumstances of wrong mentioning the name of the institution in the certificate, has allowed the petition and issues a direction to appoint the petitioner therein.

¶44

The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP.No.101656/2021 has held as follows:

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Respondent No.1 on behalf of respondent No.4 issued notification dated 23.06.2017 inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator in the schools run by respondent No.4. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner submitted an application under III-B category, with respondent No.1 to consider his case for appointment to the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator. The application of the petitioner for appointment was rejected on the ground that the petitioner, in the application filed by him, he had stated that he had obtained certificate from Skynet Solutions certifying he had completed two years course in Networking Engineering and at the time of verification of documents, he had produced the certificate issued by ECIT certifying that the petitioner has completed computer course. Hence, this writ petition.

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had requisite qualification for appointment to the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator. He submits that at the time of verification of documents, the petitioner had produced two certificates i.e., certificate issued by ECIT, which is recognised by Government of Karnataka, and the certificate issued by Skynet Solutions which is recognized by a Society. Hence, he submits that rejection of application of the petitioner is not sustainable in law.

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner had not mentioned in the application that he had been issued certificate by the ECIT, which is recognised by the Government of Karnataka, whereas the petitioner had mentioned that he had obtained certificate from Skynet Solutions which is not recognized by the Government of Karnataka. Hence, he submits that the petitioner having not furnished the details for having obtained the certificate from ECIT and not

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶52

having uploaded the same, is not eligible for appointment to the post of First Division Assistantcum-Computer Operator.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner not having uploaded the document pertaining to the qualification is not entitled for appointment to the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator.

¶54

5. I have considered the submissions made

¶55

by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶56

Perusal of the notification issued by respondent No. at Annexure-A indicates that a candidate should have obtained documents prior to the last date for uploading the documents and at the time of interview or at the time of verification, the said document pertaining to the qualification should be furnished. In the present case, the petiotner has produced two certificates i.e. one issued by ECIT, which is recognised by the Government of

¶57

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶58

Karnataka and another certificate issued by Skynet Solutions, which respondent Nos.1 and 4 submit that is not recognised by the Government of Karnataka, but by a society.

¶59

Be that as it may, the petitioner has produced the certificate issued by ECIT, which is recognised by the Government of Karnataka, which is evident from the impugned endorsement issued rejecting the application of the petitioner. However, the application of the petitioner is rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner had uploaded the certificate issued by Skynet Solution and at the time of verification of the documents, he had produced the certificate issued by ECIT. The petitioner having the requisite qualification to be appointed to the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator has been wrongly deprived of his selection to the said post. Hence, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-F is liable to be quashed.

¶60

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶61

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the post of First Division Assistant-cumComputer Operator has been filled up and there is no vacancy of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator. However, this Court on 23.04.2021 permitted to fill up the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator subject to the outcome of this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured 55.94 marks in the examination, whereas respondent No.2 has secured 55.46 and respondent No.3, who is the last person selected to the post of First Division Assistant-cumComputer Operator, has secured 51.66 marks. Petitioner being more meritorious than respondent No.3 is entitled for appointment to the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator. Accordingly, I pass the following

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 27.08.2020 issued by

¶64

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶65

respondent No.1 at Annexure-F is hereby quashed.

¶66

ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 4 are hereby directed to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator in pursuance of the notification dated 26.03.2017 in place of respondent No.3, subject to the petitioner satisfying other requirement of the notification. The said exercise shall be completed within four weeks.

¶67

iii) Liberty is reserved with respondent No.4 to accommodate respondent No.3 to the post of First Division Assistant-cum-Computer Operator if there is any vacant post available.

¶68

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 248 posts in terms of the notification issued are laying even as on date, no one come forward to accept the appointment offered by the respondent in the school.

¶69

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶70

If that be the case of existence of lage number of vacancies and the rejection by the respondents being curable, as is held by co-ordinate bench (supra), I deem it appropriate to follow the co-ordinate bench and allow the petition.

¶71

For the aforesaid reason, the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶74

ii) Impugned endorsement dated 27.8.2020, issued by the respondent No.3 vide AnnexuresM and N stands quashed.

¶75

iii) The case of the petitioners shall be considered in terms of the representations that they have submitted on 14.5.2020 and 12.5.2020 and those representations be taken up to its logical conclusion by the respondents by considering their case for appointment.

¶76

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10897 WP No. 104266 of 2022

¶77

In view of disposal of the writ petitions pending

¶78

IAs if any do not survive for consideration.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

vb ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Ajatanagaling S/O Veerabadrappa Badiger v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajatanagaling S/O Veerabadrappa Badiger v. the 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

M/S. United Global Corporation Limited Vs the State by Indiranagara Police

John Thariam Thaliath Vs Vamshidhar Myneni

Shashikumar @ Sashi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Rudragouda Patil Vs the Managing Director

Smt. Arati Suresh Hulikoppe Vs Shri. Vasantrao Ganapatro Deshmukh

Smt. Seeta D/O Kushappa Bajaguli Vs the Deputy Commissioner