Allowed

Smt. Mohini Kumari. a., v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2024WA/2443/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Court set aside the Single Judge's order directing issuance of an appointment order. It held that educational qualification equivalence must be declared by Government notification under Rule 2(1)(h) of KCSR Rules, 1977, and not by administrative correspondence. The selected candidate was held ineligible.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.04.2018 set aside; appeals allowed.

Smt. Mohini Kumari. a., Vs the Commissioner — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 2443 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1859 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶11

IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 2443 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. MOHINI KUMARI. A., W/O MAHALINGA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SUNGILADKA HOUSE, BETTAMPADY VILLAGE & POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶15

(BY SRI. K B MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, COLLEGIATE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – 01.

¶19

OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DHARAWADA – 580 001.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶22

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DHARAWADA - 580 001.

¶23

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, PU BOARD, 3^RD FLOOR, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 055.

¶24

THE PRESIDENT, MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY (R), VIDYANAGAR COLLEGE ROAD, SIRISI, UTTARA KANNADA – 581 402.

¶25

SMT. CHETANA ROGANNAVAR RAJARAM, W/O H.D.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO.13, NEAR OLD SHAKTI GAS OFFICE, VINAYAKA COMPLEX, NITAVALLI, DAVANAGERE - 4.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVT. ADV FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI., ADV FOR R6

¶28

R5-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 03/04/2018 IN WP NO.8080/2017 [S-RES] AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE 6^TH RESPONDENT HEREIN.

¶30

IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1859 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

THE COMMISSIONER, COLLEGIATE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – 01.

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶34

OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DHARAWADA – 580 001.

¶35

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, DHARAWADA -580 001.

¶36

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, PU BOARD, 3^RD FLOOR, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 055.

¶37

…APPELLANTS

¶38

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GOVT ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

SMT. CHETANA ROGANNAVAR RAJARAM, W/O. H.D. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. NO.13, NEAR OLD SHAKTI GAS OFFICE, VINAYAKA COMPLEX, NITAVALLI, DAVANAGERE – 04.

¶41

THE PRESIDENT, MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY (R), VIDYANAGAR COLLEGE ROAD, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581402.

¶42

…RESPONDENT

¶43

(BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI., ADV FOR R1

¶44

R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶45

¶46

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶47

WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ANOTHER.

¶48

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

These two appeals arise from an order dated 03.04.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.8080/2017 (SRES), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.6 in WA No.2443/2019 and respondent No.1 in WA No.1859/2019, namely Smt. Chetana Rogannavar Rajaram (‘Smt. Rajaram’ in short), by stating in Paragraph No.3 of the impugned order as under:-

¶51

“Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner has got selected as Typist after having satisfied with the requirement of the Notification and that too the selection is for the backlog post, then it shall be the duty of the respondent to issue appointment order forthwith. Under the circumstance, I hold that the non-issuance of

¶52

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶53

the appointment order is arbitrary on the part of the respondent. Hence, the respondent is directed to issue appointment order as per selection made to the post of Typist. Time for compliance, is four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Petition accordingly allowed.”

¶54

At the outset we may state here, one of the appeal being WA No.2443/2019 (S-RES) has been filed by one Smt. Mohini Kumari A., challenging the impugned order on the ground that, she was not made a party in the aforesaid proceedings, though she had applied for the post of Typist with all necessary documents. Suffice to state, the application IA No.3/2019 filed by her seeking leave to prosecute the appeal, has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2022.

¶55

The writ petition No.8080/2017 (S-RES) was filed by Smt. Rajaram inter alia seeking an appointment order in her favour. It is for this reason a direction has been given by the learned Single Judge, which we have

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶57

reproduced above. Her case before the learned Single Judge was, Respondent No.5-Institution (in

¶58

WA No.2443/2019) had issued a Notification dated 28.07.2015 for selection and appointment to the post of Typist which is classified as backlog post. Her application was considered by the respondent and she got selected. In that regard, Respondent No.5 (in WA No.2443/2019) has sent a letter to her, dated 16.11.2015. It was her case that, she fulfills the eligibility as per the Notification i.e., Pre-University Course or equivalent qualification as she holds certificate of Job Oriented Course (‘JOC’ in short), which is equal to 02 years Pre-University Course (‘PUC’ in short). A reliance was placed on the communication dated 01.03.2016 sent by the Directorate of Karnataka State Vocational Education, Bengaluru, to the extent that qualification of JOC is equivalent to two years PUC. It is in this background, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and directed in the manner we have reflected above.

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶60

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶61

appellant in WA No.1859/2019 i.e., the Commissioner of Collegiate Education Department, Bengaluru and others is that, the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the notification issued by Respondent No.5 in WA No.2443/2019, which was published in the newspaper on 28.07.2015, wherein a specific condition was stipulated that qualification for the post of Typist was II PUC or equivalent qualification along with Senior Kannada and English Typewriting Examination. The JOC passed by Smt. Rajaram was not declared as equivalent to PUC. Hence, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the proposal of the appellant/Department that Smt. Rajaram’s selection by Respondent No.5, has been rightly rejected as she did not possess the prescribed qualification on account that JOC is not equivalent to II PUC. He states that the learned Single Judge erred in issuing direction to issue appointment order to Smt. Rajaram based on the communication dated 01.03.2016 of the Directorate of Vocational

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶63

Education, addressed to the Regional Joint Director, Dharwad, wherein the proceedings of meeting held on 14.09.2015 under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayatraj to state that the JOC is equivalent to II PUC. However, the equivalency of one Course with that of another has to be declared by issuance of Notification under Section 2(1)(h) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment Rules), 1977 (for short, ‘KCSR Rules, 1977) According to him, it is only on issuance of notification under the said Section that a qualification can be considered equivalent to another qualification. In the instant case, no Government Notification has been issued declaring the JOC as equivalent to PUC. On the date, the Management had issued Notification on 28.07.2015 inviting applications for backlog post of Typist, no notification issued by the Government was existing. Hence, the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance upon opinion of Assistant Director in the

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶65

Directorate of Vocational Education that the JOC is equivalent to PUC. The impugned order is unsustainable.

¶66

The learned counsel for Smt. Mohini Kumari (appellant in WA No.2443/2019) would make submissions on similar lines in as much as the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that, as on the date of Notification Dated 28.07.2015 issued by the respondent No.5/Management inviting applications from Scheduled Tribe Community for appointment to the post of Typist, the educational qualification prescribed was II PUC or equivalent examination with Senior Grade Kannada and English Typewriting and should possess the Certificate of Computer knowledge of MS Office and Accounts(Tally). As on the date of the said notification, the JOC possessed by Smt. Rajaram was not declared as equivalent to that of PUC, by the 1^st respondentGovernment of Karnataka, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge suffers from legal infirmity. He also states that the learned Single Judge has passed

¶67

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶68

impugned order by relying upon the letter dated 01.03.2016 of the Assistant Director, the Directorate of Vocational Education, wherein it is stated that, two years JOC is equivalent to II PUC, which is erroneous, as the said decision is not in terms of Rule 2(1)(h) of the KCSR Rules, 1977. He vehemently states, it is clear that no authority other than the Government of Karnataka, has power to declare the JOC as equivalent to PUC. He also relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jyoti B.

¶69

Vs. State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.9549/2009 (S-KAT) dated 17.03.2011 to

¶70

contend that the said Bench had an occasion to consider a similar issue of equivalence of educational qualification. After hearing and by referring to the aforesaid Rule, the Division Bench has clearly held that the equivalent qualification is required to be recognized pursuant to notification issued by the Government under the said Rules and in the absence of any specific notification declaring equivalence, no qualification can

¶71

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶72

be considered as equivalent qualification for the purpose of appointment.

¶73

Learned counsel for Smt. Rajaram would

¶74

make similar submissions as were advanced before the

¶75

learned Single Judge. He heavily relied upon the communication dated 01.03.2016 to state that the said communication unequivocally state that the JOC in Computer Technical course is a course of 02 years, which is equal to PUC. He states that the order of the learned Single Judge is a reasoned order and would not like to be interfered with by this Court under the appellate jurisdiction.

¶76

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion in the manner he has done in Paragraph No.3 of the impugned order. There is no dispute nor it is contested by the learned counsel for Smt. Rajaram that the KCSR Rules, 1977 have applicability in so far as appointment to the post of

¶77

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶78

Typist is concerned. If that be so, the Rule 2(1)(h) of KCSR Rules, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellants in both the appeals state that ‘Equal Qualification’ mean a qualification notified by the Government to be Equal to the Qualification prescribed in respect of any post in the Rules regulating recruitment to any State Civil Services. So from the aforesaid it is clear that, the Rule contemplate issuance of a notification by the Government, treating a particular qualification as equal to the qualification in respect of any post. Concedingly there is no notification issued by Government as on 28.07.2015 equating the JOC with PUC. The only reliance placed by Smt. Rajaram was on the communication dated 01.03.2016, which is admittedly not a notification as is contemplated under Section 2(1)(h) of KCSR Rules, 1977. The counsel for the appellants are right in stating that, in the absence of notification issued by the Government, the qualification of JOC in Computer Technique Course, which is though of two year’s duration, could not have been treated as

¶79

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:23998-DB WA No. 2443 of 2019 C/W WA No. 1859 of 2019

¶80

equivalent to PUC. It follows that the JOC is not equal qualification to PUC in the absence of notification issued by the Government. It also follows, Smt. Rajaram could not have been considered for appointment to the post of Typist, being ineligible. Hence, we are of the view that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge holding that respondent-Smt. Rajaram does possess the specified qualification/eligibility is clearly erroneous. The impugned order dated 03.04.2018 in Writ Petition No.8080/2017 (S-RES) is set aside. The appeals are disposed of as allowed.

¶81

In view of the order in the Writ Appeals, the pending IAs are disposed of as infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

KGR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt. Mohini Kumari. a., v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mohini Kumari. a., v. the Commissioner

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

Spoorthi School of Dance Vs v Ramalinga Reddy

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri.D.S.Revana Siddappa

The Divisional Controller Vs C J Rajkumar

High Court of Karnataka Vs Sri Lingaraje Urs (Hmt)

National Institute of Rock Mechanics Vs Assistant Commissioner and Executive Magistrate

Smt Munivenkatamma @ Venkatamma Vs the State of Karnataka