Dismissed

Sri.Sharanabasappa S/O. Neelappa Madiwalar v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/106156/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the exclusion of the petitioner from the final selection list for a Junior Assistant post under the Ex-Serviceman Quota. The court held that the petitioner failed to produce the mandatory discharge certificate.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

Sri.Sharanabasappa S/O. Neelappa Madiwalar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7843 WP No. 106156 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.106156 OF 2018(S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SHARANABASAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:EX-SERVICEMAN, NOW UNEMPLOYED, R/O: 4^TH CROSS, NISARGA BADAVANE, NEAR SAI TEMPLE, GADAG - 582101, TQ/DIST:GADAG.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER, (ADMINISTRATION AND HRD), HUBBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶15

THE CHAIRMAN, HESCOM COMPANY LEVEL, RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, AND DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL), NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 025.

¶16

IRANAGOUDA C. HIREGOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7843 WP No. 106156 of 2018

¶18

OCC: SERVICE, HESCOM LIMITED, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 025.

¶19

SHIVANANDA PASARI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE, HESCOM LIMITED, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 025.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI B.S.KAMTE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI P.G.CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION OR ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PUBLISHING TEMPORARY SELECTION LIST (ADDITIONAL) FOR THE JUNIOR ASSISTANT POST I.E. VIDE ANNEXURE-K, BEARING NO. HESCOM/GM(A)/AO(A)/AAO(A)SA(A-1/CR-05/2016-17/CYS - 6105 DATED 13.03.2018 AND � � �� –�� �� �� ��  !"#��$� ��

¶23

� � %�&�� '� � �&��'( � ')�� +'�� '��,-.,+/+0�"�� ,1� � � �� 234�.,+5�AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7843 WP No. 106156 of 2018

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the provisional select list issued by respondent No.2 for the post of Junior Assistant under Ex- Service Man Quota as per Annexure-K and also quash of the impugned order dated 13.03.2018 at Annexure-F1 passed by respondent No.2, which is the final select list in the General Category.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 had issued a notification as per Annexure-A calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner had applied for the said post through Online along with requisite fees under the Ex-Serviceman Quota.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that due to inadvertence and oversight instead of marking in his application as under ‘Ex-Serviceman Quota’, he had marked the column as ‘State Government Servant’. That the respondent had conducted the eligibility examination

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7843 WP No. 106156 of 2018

¶31

and which the petitioner had attended successfully. That the respondent had informed the petitioner to attend the physical examination on 27.01.2018 and the petitioner had complied with the same and even the name of the petitioner had appeared in the provisional select list under Ex-Serviceman Quota at Sl. No. 5 and as such he was called for document verification. It is his further case that at the time of document verification the respondent had asked the petitioner to submit discharge certificate issued by the Indian Army authority. However, since the petitioner had submitted photocopy of the same he had sought for some time for production of legible copy of the said document, to which the petitioner was asked to make an application. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application requesting time to produce the legible copy of the discharge certificate. It is his further case that when things stood thus, the final select list was issued in which the petitioner’s name was not included. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7843 WP No. 106156 of 2018

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating

¶34

grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the petitioner was an eligible candidate and had secured 41.25521 percentage of marks, which is far in excess of the marks secured by respondent Nos.3 & 4 and he was a fit candidate to the post. That merely because, the petitioner did not furnish the discharge certificate, the respondent authority could not have rejected his candidature and preferred respondent Nos.3 & 4 who are far less in merit than the petitioner. Thus, he submits that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner warranting interference by this Court.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents drawing the attention of the Court to the document at Annexure-F at page 76 of the writ petition, which is a “Call letter for verification of original documents” dated 02.2.2018, and pointing out to condition No.8 provided thereunder submits that the candidate who had applied under Ex-Serviceman Quota

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7843 WP No. 106156 of 2018

¶37

were required to obtain ‘Ex-Military Personal Discharge Certificate from Army / Navy / Air Force’ [if applicable]; and that since the petitioner had applied both under the State Government Quota as well as under Ex-Serviceman Quota was required to furnish the said document. That non-furnishing of the said document has resulted in candidature of the petitioner being rejected. It is contended that no anomaly or irregularity can be found in the recruitment process and issuance of the final select list by the respondent authority and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶39

There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner had filed an application in response to the notification issued by the respondents for the post of Junior Assistant under ‘Ex-Serviceman Quota’. There is also no dispute of the fact that the petitioner had not submitted Ex-Military Personal Discharge Certificate issued

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7843 WP No. 106156 of 2018

¶41

from the Army, where he was working. Though in the petition, it is contended that he had submitted photocopy of a document, which is produced at page No.48 of the writ petition, the said document does not appear to meet the requirement of the Call Letter produced at Annexure-F. In other words, the petitioner has not produced the discharge certificate issued from the concerned Defence Department, as the petitioner had sought for employment under the Ex-Serviceman Quota. No explanation to this extent is forthcoming even in this writ petition.

¶42

On a query by this Court, learned counsel for

¶43

the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not possess discharge certificate even to this date.

¶44

In that view of the matter, no infirmity or illegality can be found with the process of recruitment in which the name of the petitioner though shown in the provisional select list was left out in the final select list.

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7843 WP No. 106156 of 2018

¶46

Another aspect of the matter to be seen, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner is seeking to quash of final select list as per Annexure-F1, which pertains to all the General Category to which the petitioner had never made an application. As such no relief can be granted in this regard either.

¶47

For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, the petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶48

In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending

¶49

applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed off.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

VNP/CT-ASC

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri.Sharanabasappa S/O. Neelappa Madiwalar v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sharanabasappa S/O. Neelappa Madiwalar v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkataraman S/O. Gutya Harijan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Bhimappa S/O Adiveppa Vs the Union of India

Sri. S.D.H. Patil S/O Devappa Vs the Karnataka Power

Smt.Nirmala W/O Sidrai Chinnannavar Vs the Nwkrtc Belagavi Division

Shantveer S. Parushetti Vs the Deputy Director of Administration

Smt. Shanta Alias Shantavva W/O Lasxman Kamati Vs the State of Karnataka