Partly allowed

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Sri Riyaz Karnachi

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024WP/13592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPSC challenged a Tribunal order directing inclusion of a candidate holding Diploma in Civil Engineering (PHE) in the final select list for Junior Engineer (Civil) posts, contending the diploma was not equivalent. The High Court held the prescribed qualification specified no branch, applied B. Thippeswamy, dismissed the KPSC petition, and directed consideration of the connected petitioner for a su

What did the court decide?

WP No. 13592/2024 dismissed; WP No. 4636/2024 allowed - Government to consider representation for supernumerary post within 2 months; Tribunal directions to be implemented within 1 month.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 13592 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4636 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13592 OF 2024: BETWEEN:

¶10

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY UDYOGA SOUDHA PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SAPPANNAVAR BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. RIYAZ KARNACHI S/O MEERA SAB AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT. RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR NEAR PAMPA SCHOOL, ANNIGERI DHARWAD-582 201

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

CHIEF ENGINEER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶20

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

SRI. SAMEER SHAIKH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, C/O NAZEERAHAMAD SHAIKH NO.696, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT BAGALKOT-587 102

¶22

SRI. NOORULLA T. FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR RESIDING AT PALAVVANHALLI HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA-577 532

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.01.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.2071/2023 AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶26

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4636 OF 2024: BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI SAMEER SHAIKH S/O NAZEERAHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC: JUNIOR ENGINEER O/O. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD SPL. SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGAR R/O. SECTOR NO.45, PLOT NO.696 NAVANAGAR, BAGALAKOT DISTRICT

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(By SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶31

AND:

¶32

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶33

2 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001

¶34

3 . THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY UDHYOGA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶35

4 . SRI. NOORULLA T. S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O. PALAVVANAHALLI HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA-577 532

¶36

5 . SRI. RIYAZ KARNACHI S/O MEERASAB AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O. RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR NEAR PAMPA SCHOOL ANNIGERI, DHARWAD-582 201

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.01.2024 IN A.No.2071/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION IN A.No.2071/2023 FILED BY THE APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT No.5 AND ETC.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶42

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶44

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both writ petitions, learned AGA appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for the private respondent No.5.

¶48

WP No. 13592/2024 is filed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short, 'KPSC') challenging the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administration Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal') in Application No.2071/2023. The KSAT in the said application had considered the contentions of the parties on the application preferred by the first respondent herein and had ordered as follows:

¶49

1. The impugned endorsement dated 14.03.2023 as at Annexure A14 is quashed.

¶50

2. The third respondent KPSC shall include the applicant in the final select list of 10.02.2023, and publish the revised final select list within one month from the date of

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶52

this order. The respondent State shall appoint the applicant within three months thereafter, if the appointment formalities are satisfactorily completed. On appointment, the applicant shall be entitled to salary and other financial benefits, prospectively only on his joining the post on appointment. However, he is entitled to inter-se seniority on the basis of his position in the revised final select list in terms of the directions contained in this order.

¶53

3. The impugned final select list dated 10.02.2023 is dismissed to the extent it concerns the selection of the fifth respondent. However, this is without prejudice to the change in the inter-se position of the fifth respondent in the revised final select list considering the case of the applicant.

¶54

4. The impugned final select list dated 10.02.2023 as at Annexure A13 is quashed to the extent it concerns the selection of the fourth respondent.

¶55

5. The fourth respondent shall cease to hold office of the post JE(Civil) to which he has been appointed on the basis of the select list of 10.02.2023 if he is not included in the revised final select list, immediately on the publication of the revised final select list by the third respondent in terms of the directions at clause (2) above, which shall be intimated to the appointing authority and the fourth respondent.

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶57

Learned counsel for the KPSC submits that the first

¶58

respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, did not have the prescribed qualification and therefore, the Tribunal was in error in having allowed the application filed by him. It is submitted that the decision relied on by the Tribunal that is

¶59

Sri.B.Thippeswamy and another vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.Nos.27958-27959/2018 D.D. 17.07.2019 has no application to the facts of the instant case where the qualification prescribed was clear. It is submitted that the qualification prescribed was Diploma in Civil Engineering. It is submitted that the KPSC had specifically enquired with the Appointing Authority whether 'Diploma in Civil Engineering (PHE)', which is the qualification possessed by the first respondent/applicant is equivalent to 'Diploma in Civil Engineering (General)', which is the prescribed qualification. It is submitted that by Annexure-L communication dated 29.03.2016, the Department of Technical Education Board had specifically informed that 'Diploma in Civil Engineering (PHE)' is not an equivalent qualification to Diploma in Civil Engineering or Construction Technology and Material Management granted by the Board of Technical Education, Government of Karnataka.

¶60

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶61

It is therefore contended that since the first respondent/applicant did not had been prescribed

¶62

qualifications, he is not entitled to the reliefs, as granted by the Tribunal.

¶63

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.4636/2024 would contend that he is a person having the qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering and that he had been appointed and is working in the post since 2023. It is submitted that it is due to no fault of his own that the KPSC had found that the applicant was disentitled and had appointed him instead. It is submitted that even in case, the first respondent/applicant is found to be entitled for the reliefs as granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner would be entitled to continue in service by creating of a supernumerary post since he could not be penalized for the mistake committed by the KPSC or the Appointing Authority.

¶64

Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent /applicant submits that the qualification prescribed specifically in notification is Diploma in Civil Engineering or Construction Technology and Material Management granted by the Board of

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶66

Technical Education, Government of Karnataka. It is submitted that the first respondent has qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering (PHE) and in view of the fact that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules as well as the notification as corrected, specified only a Diploma in Civil Engineering, the further condition that the Diploma in Civil Engineering should not be in PHE was illegal and against the provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules as well as the notification.

¶67

It is submitted that in a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. B. THIPPESWAMY 's case supra , had specifically held that since the Cadre and Recruitment Rules as well as the notification did not provide any specialization for the Diploma in Engineering as provided therein, the subsequent distinction sought to be drawn by the Appointing Authority would amount to changing the criteria mid stream. It was held that if the appointing authority was aware that there were several streams in the Diploma prescribed, the notification should have been specific as to the requirement.

¶68

Learned counsel contends that in view of the fact that the prescribed qualification was only Diploma in Civil

¶69

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶70

Engineering and since the applicant possessed the said qualification, there was no question of equivalence of qualification. The petitioner was clearly entitled to the appointment and there is absolutely no error in the order issued by the Tribunal.

¶71

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that though the qualification prescribed was Diploma in Civil Engineering, the Board of Technical Education specifically clarified that the Diploma in Civil Engineering (PHE) would not be equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering and that therefore, the applicant is not qualified as per the notification. It is further contended that any direction issued by this Court to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the petitioner in the connected writ petition would work against rosters prepared for operating communal and other reservation in the post concerned.

¶72

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the prescribed qualification is clear. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules as well as the notification, as amended, provides the qualification in no uncertain terms. The applicant

¶73

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶74

was a person, who had Diploma in Civil Engineering, in the branch of Public Health Engineering, in the absence of any specification in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules or the notification that the candidate should be a person having a Diploma in Civil Engineering in any specified branch, we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in B. THIPPESWAMY applies squarely to the facts of this case as well. Since the applicant had the prescribed qualification and any further prescription or clarification as to the required qualification could not effect a selection conducted on the basis of the qualifications as provided in the notification, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the directions issued by the Tribunal. WP No. 13592/2024 therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed. The appointing authority shall give effect to the direction issued by the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WP No. 4636/2024 is ordered directing that in case, the petitioner approaches the Government with an appropriate representation seeking his accommodation as against the supernumerary post, in view of the fact that he had been appointed and has been working since 2023, the same shall be considered in

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:34444-DB WP No. 13592 of 2024 C/W WP No. 4636 of 2024

¶77

accordance with law within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶78

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶79

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶80

RAK

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Sri Riyaz Karnachi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Sri Riyaz Karnachi

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

M/S New Prince Button Center Vs M/S Jasky Exports Private Limited

S.P.Velayutham Vs the Special Land Acquisition OFFICER-2

I B M India Private Limited (Substituted) Vs Mr Shreans Daga

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Govindappa M.K

Sri Pushyanth H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka