Dismissed

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Smt Pooja P Nayak

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/11233/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPSC challenged a Tribunal order directing it to consider candidates for Inspector Motor Vehicles in view of a revised medical board report on Knock Knees Test. The court held KPSC could not refuse to act upon the second medical report since it had itself referred the candidates for re-test; no protocol breach was demonstrated.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 11233 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K M.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. POOJA P NAYAK, D/O LATE PRABHAKAR B. NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.234/A, 40^TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶14

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

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S R KHAMROZ KHAN., AGA FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.09.2022 PASSED IN APPLICATION No. 1797/2022 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE C AND ETC.,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The Karnataka Public Service Commission is grieving

¶25

before the Writ Court against the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 29.09.2022 in Application No.1797/2022 coupled with another candidate’s Application No.2410/2022 having been favoured, relief has been accorded by directing the petitioner to consider their candidature for selection to the post of Inspector Motor Vehicles in accordance with law, keeping ‘in view the revised medical report of the medical board’ within three months.

¶26

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Commissioner vehemently argues that there is a conflict between the earlier medical report and the subsequent medical report; while preparing the subsequent medical

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023

¶28

report, the medical test of the candidates concerned was not done in the procedure that was followed by the earlier Board; that being the position, the Tribunal could not have directed the Commission to act upon the subsequent medical report. So arguing, he seeks invalidation of the impugned order. Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent and the learned AGA appearing for the official respondent resist the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. Learned counsel Mr.Satish K appearing for the 1^st respondent points out that it was the Commission which had referred the matter for second medical test and therefore, it cannot refuse to act upon the report of the second test. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023

¶31

Ordinarily, soliciting report after report at the hands of multiple experts would create confusion and chaos in recruitment process and therefore, such an exercise is not desirable, subject to all just exceptions vide Ms. DISHA vs. STATE AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401. However, if circumstances do warrant, it is not that in no case, such a course will be open.

¶32

The above being said, the Commission is not justified in refusing to act upon the second medical report on Knock Knees Test favourable to the candidates itself having resorted to such an exercise. The petitioner-KPSC itself had sent the candidates for second test by writing as under:

¶33

“¢£ÁAPÀ 04-02-2016 gÀAzÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÁjUÉ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è£À ªÉÆÃmÁgÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è 1:2 C£ÀÄ¥ÁvÀzÀ°è 279 C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07-10-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®zÁR¯É ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ DºÁé¤¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ zÉÊ»PÀ CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ ªÀ¼À¥Àr¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ, CzÀgÀ°è M§â C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ®ªÀÅ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ C£ÀºÀðgÁzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ CªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è wÃªÀiÁð¤¹zÀÄÝ, D C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÉÊ»PÀ CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ ªÀ¼À¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023

¶36

PÀæ. ¸ÀA.	1£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®zÁR¯É ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉUÉ DºÁé¤¸À¯ÁzÀ PÀæ.¸ÀA.	C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÆAzÀtÂ ¸ÀASÉå	zÉÊ»PÀ CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÃ¼É
1	04	Mandhar M Muranal-100008
2	05	Siddappa Malad–100022
3	08	Shreedhar Nagarabetta–100068	¢:05-04-2018 ªÀÄzÁºÀ
4	09	Pradeepkumar Y.M-100072	, såÚ 1:30 UÀAmÉUÉ
5	40	Jaheer Abbas Momin-100395
6	52	Ravindra–100446	«PÉÆÃjAiÀiÁ D¸ÀvÉæ, ¹n
7	64	Soundharya K S-100511	Ö àæ ªÀiÁPÉðmï ºÀwgÀ,¥sÉÆmïð
8	79	Pooja. P Nayak-100660	Û gÉÆÃqï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
9	138	Jayashree H M-101166
10	212	Sikandrababu M M-101802
11	240	Harisha N.V–102058

¶37

Name of the private respondent Smt.Pooja P Nayak who was the applicant before the Tribunal figures at Sl.No.8 which is highlighted. That being the position, the Commission cannot now turn around and question the said report too. A contention to the contra would make the exercise ad nauseam .

¶38

The vehement submission of the Panel Counsel

¶39

appearing for the petitioner that the second medical board did not conduct the exercise in the procedure which the first one had adopted, does not merit acceptance, in the absence of the breach of any protocol having been

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45106-DB WP No. 11233 of 2023

¶41

demonstrated. The insistence of the Panel Counsel for the

¶42

summoning of two of the doctors who had given adverse report earlier, is un-understandable and therefore, cannot be acceded to.

¶43

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been reluctantly made easy.

¶44

The petitioner-KPSC shall process the matter and forward the File to the 2^nd respondent within three weeks, and the 2^nd respondent shall give effect to the order of the Tribunal, within an outer limit of eight weeks in accordance with law.

¶45

Costs made easy.

¶46

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶48

cbc

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Smt Pooja P Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Smt Pooja P Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kumara Naika Vs Sri Rajakumar D

Channaiah Vs State of Karnataka by

The Commissioner Vs Sri C Narayanaswamy

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

Manjunath I Pujar S/O Shri Ishwarappa Pujar Vs Union of India

Sri P Kamesh Murthy Vs Smt P Savithri