Dismissed

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Smt. Sujyoti Bhat

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2023WP/23562/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the KPSC challenging a Tribunal order that reinstated an applicant as Library Assistant. The Court held that the KPSC's action of deleting the reinstated candidate from the select list was arbitrary and whimsical, as the Tribunal did not direct the removal of other candidates.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected and costs of Rs. 25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 23562 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 23562 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB

¶10

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. ROBIN BISHNAL, ADV. FOR SRI. GODACHI BASAVARAJ GODACHAYYA., ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. SUJYOTI BHAT, W/O SHRI VINAYAK SIDDHESHWAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: LIBRARY ASSISTANT, CENTRAL LIBRARY, BENGALURU R/O: VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 23562 of 2022

¶19

KUM. SHRUTHI D/O MR. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGE: 29 YEARS R/O: NO.23, PANCHASHEELA BLOCK, NEAR CRICKET COACHING CENTER, BEML LAYOUT, 5^TH STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-01.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADV.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.07.2022 PASSED IN A.No-6088/2021 BY THE KSAT BENGALURU AS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND THE SAME IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel Sri Robin Bishnal on behalf

¶26

of the counsel Sri Basavaraj Godachayya, for the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner is the State Public Service Commission and is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2022 whereby, the applicant whose

¶28

¶29

WP No. 23562 of 2022

¶30

name was found in the original select list dated 18.01.2012 came to be deleted pursuant to an order of the Tribunal dated 02.04.2019 in Application No.287/2013.

¶31

The order came about on the challenge mounted by one Kumari Shruthi. While allowing the application, the Tribunal was pleased to pass the following order:-

¶32

“ (I) Application is allowed.

¶33

(II) The name of the applicant at Sl.No.126 found in the rejected list dated 29.12.2012 at Annexure-A9 stands quashed.

¶34

(III) Respondents are directed to appoint the applicant to the post of Library Assistant as per recruitment notification dated 18.01.2012 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While doing so, her name shall be kept below the last selected candidate in the recruitment notification dated 18.01.2012.

¶35

(IV) Respondent No.2 shall select the applicant and send the list to Respondent No.1 for issuing appointment order to the applicant within two months from today and Government to issue appointment order within one month thereafter.

¶36

(V) She is entitled for notional fixation of pay, but not entitled for any back-wages.”

¶37

¶38

WP No. 23562 of 2022

¶39

From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the Tribunal has not thought it fit to either interfere with the select list or direct the removal of any selected candidate. On the contrary, it has directed that the applicant therein and the 3^rd respondent in the instant application be placed below the last selected candidate. That being the import of the order, we do not find any justification for the KPSC to have attempted to try and alter the list by deleting the name of the applicant/1^st respondent.

¶40

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that appointments were made to only 20 vacancies and one more candidate having been added by virtue of the order of the Tribunal, the KPSC has rightly altered the select list and dropped the 1^st respondent from the list. The said action, in our considered view is per-se arbitrary and whimsical. The KPSC which was a party in the earlier round of litigation by the 3^rd respondent herein

¶41

¶42

WP No. 23562 of 2022

¶43

was well aware that the first respondent herein was not a party to the litigation initiated by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner was also aware that there was no direction either modifying or altering the list by the order dated 02.04.2019, yet, it deemed it necessary to intervene with the select list and create one more round of litigation for the reasons best known to them.

¶44

On a query, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 02.04.2019 has

¶45

not been challenged or called in question before this Court. If that be the obtaining facts, we do not see any justification for the action of the Commission in seeking to alter the select list that has been published. It is also relevant to note that the select list in which the name of the 1^st respondent was found is not the subject matter of any challenge. In fact, what was sought for by the 3^rd respondent was to quash the reject list dated 29.12.2012 and to include the name of the 3^rd respondent and

¶46

¶47

WP No. 23562 of 2022

¶48

consider her for appointment. Even without there being a challenge to the select list, the Commission has deemed it necessary or permissible to tinker with the select list. No reasons are assigned for the same, which action, in our opinion, is highly whimsical and capricious and reeks of arbitrariness.

¶49

We have perused the order impugned. The Tribunal has found that there is no direction to review the select list. The action of the Commission in adopting a pick and chose method, in challenging the orders of the Tribunal cannot be appreciated.

¶50

In that view of the matter, writ petition being wholly devoid of merits deserves to be rejected and is accordingly, rejected with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the 1^st respondent. Cost shall be paid within a period of four weeks.

¶51

¶52

WP No. 23562 of 2022

¶53

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. 1/2022 for

¶54

dispensation, does not survive for consideration.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

CHS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Smt. Sujyoti Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Smt. Sujyoti Bhat

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 Overseas Pharma Private Limited Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Sri.Mavinaholeappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivasa Setty Vs Inspector General of Police

Prakash Parcel Services Limited Vs Beml Limited