Dismissed

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Sri M Y Srikanth

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023WP/13258/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission challenging a State Administrative Tribunal order that equated a B.E. in Transportation Engineering with B.E. degrees in Civil and Mechanical. The Court held the KPSC lacked locus standi since the State, the aggrieved authority, had accepted the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it lacks merit and the petitioner lacks locus standi.

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Sri M Y… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 13258 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 13258 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K M., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. M.Y.SRIKANTH, S/O Y.YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KIADB NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

R/AT NO.9, ‘SHRI RENUKAMBA’, 19^TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560079.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 13258 of 2021

¶20

SMT. ARUNA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.23, ARUNODAYA SHRI KRISHNA LAYOUT, MADHUBAN EXTENSION, NEAR VAISHNAVI TEMPLE, HULIMAVU, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE URBAN-560076.

¶21

SRI. POONGODI.A MAJOR, R/AT NO.47, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA ULSOOR, BANGALORE URBAN-560088.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R, AGA.)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2020 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.9227/2016 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-C ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-KPSC and

¶28

the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶29

The short point involved is equivalence of B.E

¶30

degree in Transportation Engineering with B.E degrees in

¶31

¶32

WP No. 13258 of 2021

¶33

Civil and Mechanical. The Tribunal has accepted the case of the applicant and has held that B.E degree in Transportation Engineering is equivalent to B.E degree in Civil Engineering and B.E degree in Mechanical Engineering. The Tribunal has assigned certain reasons, more particularly, it has held that some of the subjects undergone by students are similar to a large extent and in that view, it has been pleased to set-aside the rejection of the private respondents application and further directed the instant petitioner-KPSC to include the name of the applicant in the final selection list.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the question of equivalence of degrees are subjects which is within the exclusive domain of the first respondent-State and that the Tribunal could not have issued a direction in the nature.

¶35

Though the contention is attractive, yet the facts remain that the first respondent-State was also notified

¶36

¶37

WP No. 13258 of 2021

¶38

and heard by the Tribunal. The order has been accepted by the first respondent-State. If that be so, then the short question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is; whether the KPSC can carry-on a proxy battle on behalf of the State, who it has admitted, is the competent authority to determine the equivalence of subjects and degrees.

¶39

In our opinion, the State prima-facie having accepted the order of the Tribunal. The locus-standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition comes into question, the aggrieved party would be the first respondent-State. The first respondent-State not having chosen to question the same, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition at the instances of the facilitating body cannot be maintained. Even otherwise, the petitioner even according to its own submission, is not in a position to authoritatively contest the correctness or

¶40

¶41

WP No. 13258 of 2021

¶42

otherwise of the contention of the Tribunal. Hence, we do

¶43

not see any merit in the instant writ petition.

¶44

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶45

The dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude

¶46

the first respondent-State to raise a challenge to the impugned order, if it so desires.

¶47

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As if any, do not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Sri M Y Srikanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Sri M Y Srikanth

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

Sunanda Vs Sri B Suresh Gowda

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri H R Devaraju

Dr Guruprasad S D Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Nauman Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. P. N. Gurumurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Nhdpl South Private Ltd. Vs Sri Ravi Kumbhat