Dismissed

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Sri. Sikandra Babu Martujasab Mulimani

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/11158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission challenging a Tribunal order allowing a candidate below the 168 cms height limit to be promoted. The Court upheld the relief based on a coordinate bench decision regarding interim Supreme Court concessions.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected; the Court directed the KPSC to process the file within four weeks and implement the Tribunal's order within eight weeks.

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Sri… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45112-DB WP No. 11158 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 11158 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI PRAKASH K M, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI SIKANDRA BABU MARTUJASAB MULIMANI, S/O SRI MARTUJASAB MULIMANI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR KUSTAGI ROAD, (BHARATH FOUNDATION), GAJENDRA GAD, GADAG-582 114.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, 1^ST FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, SHANTHINGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI SATISH K, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI S R KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR THE R-2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:45112-DB WP No. 11158 of 2023

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/09/2022 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2410/2022 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-C

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶26

Karnataka Public the Service Commission has presented this petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to the State Administrative

¶27

Tribunal's order dated 29.09.2022, whereby, first respondent’s Application No.2410/2022 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded to him. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶28

"Applications are allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the applicants' representations and in view of the revised medical report of the medical board, they have become eligible and if they are entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.".

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:45112-DB WP No. 11158 of 2023

¶31

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the

¶32

Commission vehemently argues that there is a legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order inasmuch as admittedly the height of contesting respondent herein falls short of 168 cms prescribed by rules and therefore, the relief could not have been granted to the said respondent. He also points out that the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.469/2024 between SRI.P.MANJUNATH VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER disposed of on 12.07.2024 had failed to see that the concession in height arguably granted by the Apex Court in

¶33

SLP.Nos.32186-32199 of 2014 was only by way of an interim order and therefore, that would not lay down the law u/a 141 of the constitution and therefore, the Coordinate Bench decision may not be taken as having presidential value. He also points out that what happened to the earlier batch of candidates way back in 2006 cannot govern a new situation where the candidates now involved are of 2016 recruitment process.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45112-DB WP No. 11158 of 2023

¶35

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶36

appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the caveator/Respondent No.1 vehemently resist the petition contending that in the event of conflict between the Central Rules and the State Rules, the former will prevail over the later because of constitutional peculiarity enacted in Article 254(2) in the light of ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS v. STATE OF BOMBAY, (1954) 2 SCC 345 ; arguably the Apex Court in the subject SLPs has proceeded on this basis permitting the candidates whose height falls short of prescribed 168 cms, to be in the recruitment fray. This aspect, according to these advocates, having been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, there is no justification for granting indulgence in the matter.

¶37

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶38

and having perused the petition papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission of learned caveator's counsel as also learned AGA appearing for the State. The

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:45112-DB WP No. 11158 of 2023

¶41

identical question has been treated by a Co-ordinate

¶42

Bench of this Court in P.MANJUNATH supra , wherein paragraph Nos.7 & 8 reads as under:

¶43

"7. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to Annexure-A1, the Recruitment Rules, which specifically states that the qualifications for promotion in the 5% category will be as provided for direct recruitment. It is further contended that it was the specific case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that there were several vacancies available and that the petitioner is not claiming any benefit as against any other selected person and it is only claiming an appointment de-hors the height requirement in light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, as also the fact that the interim order of the Apex Court has been given effect to and 33 persons have been appointed by the direct recruitment without reference to the height qualification .

¶44

8. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the arguments advanced on both sides, we are of the opinion that, in view of the fact that the recruitment rules as well as the notification specifically provided that the physical requirements will be as per the requirements for direct recruitment, the petitioner's case cannot be differently dealt with by the State. In view of the fact that the State has already afforded appointment to 33 persons by direct recruitment without taking note of the requirement with regard to height, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner herein is also entitled to the same relief. This is

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45112-DB WP No. 11158 of 2023

¶46

more so in view of the fact that the appointment is by promotion."

¶47

The last contention of learned Senior Panel

¶48

Counsel appearing for the Commission that what the Apex

¶49

Court said is only by way of interim arrangement and the main matter is still pending consideration and therefore, that would not become law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India need not detain us any longer inasmuch as that aspect is taken care of by the observation made at paragraph No.9 in P.MANJUNATH supra . Which reads as under:

¶50

"9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall also be granted the promotion de-hors the requirement with regard to height within one month from today. It is made clear that the promotion so granted shall be provisional and subject to the final order in the SLP No.3218632199/2014."

¶51

The contentions that the KPSC is only a

¶52

Selection Body and therefore, it has no discretion to relax

¶53

the conditions prescribed by the Recruitment Rules, does not require deeper consideration at our hands, the same having been subsumed the discussion supra.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:45112-DB WP No. 11158 of 2023

¶56

No other contentions having been raised and petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and accordingly, rejected, costs having been made easy.

¶57

(i) The Petitioner KPSC shall process the matter and submit the file to the Government within four weeks.

¶58