A Second Division Assistant who was dropped from the eligible list for the post of Office Superintendent at Rani Chennamma University challenged the recruitment in a writ appeal. The bench held he lacked the prescribed qualification and had no locus to challenge the selection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 100622 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MARUTI S/O. MAYAPPA KARIYAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, RANI CHENNAMMA UNIVERSITY, BELAGAVI, R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ. DT. GADAG.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2024.01.22 17:22:00 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.102037/2023 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB WA No. 100622 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a candidate to the post of Office Superintendent in pursuance to the recruitment
Notification dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 31.10.2023 passed in W.P. No.102037/2023 by the learned Single Judge, whereby petitioner’s prayer to quash selection process to the post of Office Superintendent is rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri. Shivaraj C. Bellakki
for appellant and learned counsel Shri. Sangram S. Kulkarni for caveator/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the writ appeal papers.
3. Brief facts are that, the appellant/petitioner is working as Second Division Assistant in the third respondent-Rani Chennamma University. RespondentUniversity by recruitment notification dated 09.02.2023
(Annexure-A) invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts including the post of Office Superintendent. It is stated that the petitioner-appellant having qualifications, applied for the post of Office Superintendent. It is further stated that the respondentUniversity published eligible list of candidates for the post of Office Superintendent and list of candidates, who are not eligible for the post of Office Superintendent. The petitioner’s name was found place in the eligible list dated 16.03.2023 for the post of Office Superintendent and immediately on the very next day, his name was deleted from the eligible list. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.102037/2023 with a prayer to quash the entire recruitment proceedings under Notification dated 09.02.2023(Annexure-A) and with a consequential prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents/University to conduct recruitment process afresh.
4. On appearance, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their statement of objections contending that appellantpetitioner would not possess qualification as prescribed in Annexure-A recruitment notification and further they contended that the petitioner-appellant would not possess the requisite experience among other contentions.
5. Learned Single Judge on consideration of rival contentions under impugned order rejected the writ petition holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that he has possessed necessary qualifications prescribed namely three years of prior experience in supervisory capacity .
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would submit that the petitioner is discriminated while permitting other similarly situated candidates to participate in the selection process. Learned counsel would further submit that the candidates, who have no prior experience in supervisory capacity, are permitted to participate in the recruitment proceedings, while denying
the opportunity to the petitioner to participate. Further, it is also submitted that the candidates, who have no prior experience in supervisory capacity are selected for the post of Office Superintendent. Thus, learned counsel would pray for an opportunity to participate in the selection process.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Shri. Sangram S. Kulkarni for caveator/respondent Nos.2 and 3 supporting the order passed by learned Single Judge would submit that the appellant-petitioner had not possessed the requisite prior experience in supervisory capacity as required under recruitment notification. Learned counsel referring to recruitment notification would submit that one of the qualifications prescribed to the post of Office Superintendent is, 3 years experience as Office Superintendent in any of the Government or Educational Institution. He submits that the appellant-petitioner is working as Second Division Assistant in the University and he has no work experience as Office Superintendent or in
a Supervisory post. Thus, learned counsel would justify the action of the respondent- University. Further, learned counsel would submit that the contention of the appellantpetitioner that candidates who have no prior experience in Supervisory capacity are permitted to participate in the proceedings is false and he submits that none of them have been selected. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the appellant’s writ petition.
9. The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons:
10. It is not in dispute that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 University under recruitment notification dated 09.02.2023 invited applications from eligible candidates to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB WA No. 100622 of 2023
fill-up various posts including the post of Office Superintendent. The qualification prescribed for the post of Office Superintendent under recruitment notification reads as follows:
3. ಕ��ಅ�ೕಕಕ� :
1. ಅಂ�ೕ�ತ �ರ�ೕಯ ��� �ಶ����ಲಯ�ಂದ ��ತಕ ಪದ�ಯ�� ಕ�ಷ� ���ೕಯ ದ ! "#ೕ$ಯ�� ಪ#�ಶತ % . 55% ( ಎ' . ( / ಎ' . ) . ಅಭ�+!ಗ-. 5% /�ಯ� ) ಅಂಕಗ0ಂ�.1ಗ!23ಂ�ರ45 .
2. ಸ7!/ ಅಥ9 :;$ಕ <=>ಯ�� ಕ�ಷ� 03 ವಷ! ಕ@A ಇಲ�CD ಕE/ F��GರH I9 ಅJಭವವJ� 3ಂ�ರ45 .
3. �ಶ����ಲಯದ ಪ/�ಯಮಗL ಮMN ಕO!ಟಕ ಸ7!ರ 7ಲ7ಲQR 3ರ@Sವ ಇತT �ಯಮಗL ಅನ�ಯ9VತNW .
11. A candidate who intends to participate in the selection process to the post of Office Superintendent shall possess “Degree with minimum of 55% marks and for SC/ST 50%”. The other qualification is that “one should have 3 years experience as Office Superintendent in any of
the Government or Educational Institution”.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Second Division Assistant in the respondent-University. Petitioner
is not working or he has not worked as Office Superintendent or he has not discharged the functions of Office Superintendent as required. When a candidate would not possess qualification as prescribed, such candidate would have no locus to challenge the selection process.
13. Learned Single Judge is right in holding that, writ petitioner would not possess or has failed to establish that he possessed necessary qualifications prescribed namely ‘three years prior experience in Supervisory capacity’.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that candidates, who have no experience and qualification have been permitted to participate and such candidates are selected. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-University submitted that no such candidates are selected. Still, if the appellant-petitioner is of the opinion that such candidates are selected. It is open for the petitioner to challenge those selections. In the
present petition, they are not parties and this Court would not go into such allegation in the present writ petition.
Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.
15. Accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected .
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition of a candidate lacking the prescribed three years' supervisory experience challenging the selection process for Office Superintend
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maruti S/o Mayappa Kariyavar
The State of Karnataka, rept. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Education (Higher Education)
The Vice-Chancellor, Rani Chennamma University
The Registrar, Rani Chennamma University
S G Pandit
K V Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
