Partly allowed

Fakrusab S/O Chandasab Tahashildar, v. the State of Karnataka

Recruitment – Deputy Registrar post

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024WP/101927/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his exclusion from the Deputy Registrar recruitment list of Rani Chennamma University on age grounds despite an age-relaxation corrigendum. Finding the objection window inadequate and exclusion doubtful, the court directed the university to consider the petitioner's objections and eligibility afresh.

What did the court decide?

University directed to accept petitioner's objections with documents within 10 days and decide his eligibility by appropriate orders within 15 days thereafter.

Fakrusab S/O Chandasab Tahashildar, Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.101927 OF 2023(S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FAKRUSAB S/O. CHANDASAB TAHASHILDAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O NO.72, BUS STAND ROAD, GOVANAKOPPA – 591 104. TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURI – 560 001, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY.

¶13

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE RANI CHENNAMMA UNIVERSITY, VIDYASANGAMA, NH-04, BHUTARAMANAHATTI, BELAGAVI – 591 156, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE FINAL SELECTION LIST (UNDATED) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-K INSOFAR IT RELATES TO PETITIONER, CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY ISSUING FRESH FINAL SELECTION LIST AND ETC.,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this petition the petitioner is seeking issuance of

¶22

writ of certiorari quashing the Final Selection List issued by respondent No.2-university as per Annexure-K insofar as, it relates to the petitioner. Consequently to direct the respondent to include his name in the Fresh Final Selection List and for a direction to respondent No.2-university to conduct written test and computer test after issuing Fresh Final Eligible Candidates List including the name of the petitioner.

¶23

Case of the petitioner is that; on 09.02.2023 the respondent No.2-university issued a Recruitment Notification inviting applications for the post of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Office Superintendent in the respondent No.2-university. The last date for submission of application was fixed on 02.03.2023. In response thereof, the petitioner applied for the post of Deputy Registrar claiming benefit under IIB category.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶25

Respondent No.2-university published list of all candidates who had applied for the said post on its official website in which the name of the petitioner was reflected at Sl.No.193. Respondent No.2-university by its order dated 09.03.2023 re-scheduled the exam on 08.03.2023 instead of 12.03.2023 as against earlier. As per the notification, the maximum age of the candidate fixed was not exceeding 38 years. Thereafter, by order dated 09.03.2023 respondent No.2-university had issued a Corrigendum providing age relaxation in respect of certain

¶26

categories of candidates. Consequent to which the respondent No.2-university issued another Corrigendum extending the last date for submission of the application on 15.03.2023.

¶27

That on 16.03.2023 respondent No.2-university

¶28

published lists of Eligible and Not Eligible candidates for the post of Deputy Registrar on its official website, in which the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.7 of Not Eligible candidates list.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶30

It is further case of the petitioner that; he was working as a “Social Worker” in the District Child Protection Unit, Department of Women and Child Welfare, Government of Karnataka, since from 01.12.2012 on contractual basis. As per the Corrigendum dated 09.03.2023 issued by respondent No.2-university providing age relaxation, petitioner became eligible for consideration of post of Deputy Registrar. Without considering the same, the respondent has declined to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶31

It is further case that; in the list of Non Eligible candidates for the post of Deputy Registrar the remarks column suggests that the petitioner’s eligibility was declined on the premise of he having exceeded the age of 38 years. However, on 17.03.2023 the respondent No.2university published another Final List of Eligible candidates in which names of two candidates who were shown as ineligible in the Non Eligible Candidates list published on 16.03.2023 along with the petitioner were

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶33

included in the said Final List. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner preferred this petition on 23.03.2023 i.e., within five days from the publication of the Final List.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records furnished along with the writ petition submits that reason assigned in the list of Not Eligible Candidates namely petitioner exceeding the age limit is erroneous and one without application of mind. Learned counsel refers to the notification produced at Annexure-A wherein the column providing for age limit refers to the maximum age limit to be 38 years in respect of the candidates seeking benefit under IIA, IIB, IIIA and IIIB categories. He also refers to Corrigendum dated 09.03.2023 produced at Annexure-E issued by the respondent No.2-university wherein while providing the age relaxation it is stated as under;

¶35

“7. Age limit of appointment:

¶36

3. The maximum age limit for appointment shall be deemed to be enhanced

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶38

a. In the case of a candidate who is or was holding of a post under any of the Universities/Colleges in the State or a State Government Department by the number of years during which he is or was holding such post or ten years whichever is less.

¶39

Thus, referring to the above Corrigendum and

¶40

the reason assigned in the list declining the eligibility of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that in view of the Corrigendum the name of the petitioner ought to have been included as the age limit was enhanced and except the said reason no other reason is forthcoming in respondent No.2-university not including the name of the petitioner.

¶41

Referring to two names at Sl.Nos.6 and 11 in the Not Eligible Candidates list dated 16.03.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said two names were found eligible just within a day in the final list published on 17.03.2023. Thus, he submits that there is arbitrary and illegal process in the selection thereby,

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶43

affecting the statutory and constitutional rights of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

¶44

In response, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-university submitted that as per the notification the candidates were informed to keep checking the website for the notifications and information to be uploaded by the university. He submits that on 16.03.2023 when the Provisional List was announced giving the lists of Eligible and Not Eligible Candidates there was also a circular uploaded calling upon the applicants to file their objections, if any. He submits that candidates whose name is found at Sl.Nos.6 and 11 in the list of Not Eligible Candidates had filed their objections along with required documents and only on consideration of the same their names were subsequently included in the list announced on 17.03.2023. He submits that the petitioner though had the knowledge of such objections being called for on 16.03.2023 instant, he has not opted to file any objections. Since the petitioner has lost this opportunity of

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶46

filing of objections, he cannot be heard to say that there is any mal-practice in the process of selection of candidates. He also submits one other criteria that required for the consideration of candidature is experience on the administrative side. The records submitted by the petitioner did not indicate he having any administrative experience which has gone against the petitioner. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶47

Heard. Perused the records.

¶48

Without adverting to the admitted position of the facts as noted above, necessary to note that as per the Corrigendum dated 09.03.2023 produced at AnnexureE the respondent No.2-university relaxed the age limit which was earlier fixed as 38 years in the notification. However, in the list produced at Annexure-G1 which is the list of Not Eligible Candidates for the post of Deputy Registrar in which the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.7 and in the remark column it is shown that ‘his age above 38 years (age factor)’. Thus, as on the date when

¶49

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶50

the said list was announced the only reason seem to have been given is his age factor. No other documents seem to have been considered.

¶51

Adverting to the grounds urged in the statement of objections with regard to the petitioner not having administrative experience, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the certificates that were produced by the petitioner as well as candidate whose name was reflected at Sl.No.11 of the list of Not Eligible Candidates, wherein it is seen both of them have rendered their previous services in the Family and Child Welfare Department under the Government of Karnataka. The only difference is petitioner has rendered his service at Belagavi while the said candidate at Sl.No.11 has rendered service at Ballari. Thus, even the said ground urged in the objection does not appeal.

¶52

The other contentions urged by the parties with regard to availability of opportunity to the petitioner to file statement of objections, no doubt the web page which is

¶53

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶54

produced before this Court dated 16.03.2023 suggests that objections were called for on 16.03.2023. However, the timing reflected thereon reveal that it was open only at 4.00 p.m., onwards and apparently closed on 5.00 p.m., on the following day. But the list of the Eligible candidates has been announced on 17.03.2023, which means on the very same day when the option was open for filing objection, it was filed, considered and the final list was announced. It is this hurried manner in which the objections purportedly have been called for assessed, finalized and the List of Final candidates announced that creates a doubt in the process of selection. In other words the same cannot be held and accepted, to be the opportunity sufficient enough for candidates like petitioner to have filed objections along with the documents.

¶55

Without expressing any further opinion, under

¶56

the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the matter and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2-university be directed to

¶57

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9273 WP No. 101927 of 2023

¶58

provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections along with the documents if any within ten (10)

¶59

days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶60

The respondent No.2-university shall consider

¶61

the same and if the petitioner is found eligible, pass appropriate orders within fifteen (15) days thereafter.

¶62

With the above observations, petition is partly

¶63

allowed.

¶64

SD/JUDGE

¶65

SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Fakrusab S/O Chandasab Tahashildar, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakrusab S/O Chandasab Tahashildar, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chougale Education Society Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt. Susilabi W/O. Veerabadrayya Bannimath Deceased Lrs as Below Vs Nagabhushan S/O. Shekharappa Meti

Srikanth S/O. Parameshwarappa Honnali Vs the State of Karnataka

Babu Nagappa Sulebhavi Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Kavya W/O B Gopinaik Vs Shri. B Gopinaik S/O Late Beemanaik

Smt.B.Geetha W/O. B Gopala Choudary Vs B.Gopala Choudhary @ B Rajagopal