Allowed

Shruthi K S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024WP/2335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A candidate rejected from recruitment as Physical Education Lecturer for trivial defects in her application challenged the appointment of the selected candidate. The court held the rejection frivolous, set aside the appointment, and directed a fresh interview of both candidates within three months.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of respondent No.6 set aside; respondents 4 and 5 directed to conduct fresh interview of petitioner and respondent No.6 within three months.

Shruthi K S Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2335 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRUTHI K S D/O SRINIVASA K AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 370, 7^TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE 560 072.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. GIRISHKUMAR R.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 2^ND STAGE, 6^TH FLOOR, MS BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560 012.

¶13

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560 012.

¶14

MANAGING COMMITTEE, JANATHA EDUCATION SOCIETY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 2^ND CROSS, BANGALORE 560 055.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL, VIVEKANANDA PREUNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, BANGALORE 560 055.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶18

MR GOVINDAIAH,

¶19

NO.6, BALAGANGADHAR TILAK NAGAR, HULIKALU POST, KUDURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 561 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.N SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH ORDER THIS HON’ BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/10/2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R-2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND DECLARE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE R-6 TO THE POST OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION LECTURER AT THE R-5 COLLEGE MADE BY THE R-4 AS ILLEGAL AND INVALID.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider her representation dated 18.10.2022. The petitioner has also challenged the appointment of the respondent No.6 to the post of Physical Education Lecturer by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

¶27

The Petitioner contends that the Respondent No.5 invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Physical Education Lecturer which was notified in Kannada Prabha daily newspaper dated 30.03.2022. The petitioner and

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶29

respondent No.6 were amongst the 14 applicants. The respondent No.5 prepared a list of applicants based on the percentage of marks secured in the M.P.Ed. The Managing Committee of respondent No.4 held a meeting on 20.08.2022. One of the items for discussion was to consider the constitution of a committee to select the candidates for the post of Physical education instructor. Following this respondent No.4 prepared a list of eligible and ineligible applicants. The name of the petitioner was included in the ineligible list as she had not furnished a recent passport size photograph and had not signed the resume enclosed with the application. An interview was thereafter scheduled on 16.08.2022. One of the candidates whose name figured in the ineligible list filed W.P.No.16791/2022 and by way of an interim order, he was permitted to attend the interview re-scheduled on 26.08.2022. The respondent No.4 appointed the respondent No.6 as the Physical Education Lecturer. The Petitioner therefore submitted a representation dated 18.10.2022 before the respondent No.2 to take suitable steps to undo the injustice done to her. Since the representation did not evoke any result, the petitioner is before this court seeking the relief mentioned in para (1) above.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the qualification prescribed for the post is a post graduation in Physical Education and that the petitioner had secured higher marks than the respondent No.6 and therefore she was entitled to be considered for selection. He contends that the ground on which respondent No.5 termed the petitioner as ‘Ineligible’ is thoroughly frivolous as they were rectifiable.

¶33

The Petitioner contends that she completed her Masters in Physical Education securing a second rank from Rani Channamma University, Belagavi, between the years 2016-19 and that she was a player in the Indian Throwball Team which represented India at events held at Singapore and Srilanka. She claimed that she secured a gold medal in Asian Throwball Championship held at Singapore in 2007 and South Commonwealth Throwball Championship for Men and Women 2011. She claimed to be a gold medal winner at Triangular Throwball Tournament held at Candy, Srilanka in 2011. She claimed to be the Karnataka State Team captain from 2010 to 2011 and was a player in State team which represented Karnataka in Junior and Senior Category from 2006 to 2013.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶36

She claimed that she had secured a gold medal in Senior South zone Nationals held at Ponnur, Andrapradesh in 2006, Gold medal in Federation Cup held at Whitefield, Bengaluru, in 2007, a gold medal in Junior Nationals held at Nagapur, Maharashtra in 2008, a gold medal in Senior South Zone Nationals held at Erode, Tamilnadu in 2011 and a Silver Medal in Federation cup held at Bharathpur, Rajasthan in 2012. She has represented BMS College for Women and Bangalore City in Volley ball, Throw Ball, Net Ball & Ball Badminton tournaments to name a few Dasara Kreedosthava, Inter Collegiate Tournaments etc. In addition to that, she was appointed as a Sports Secretary during 2011-2012 in BMS College for Women. Therefore, she contended that she was better qualified than the respondent No.6 and was therefore entitled to be selected but for some rectifiable mistakes in the application filed pursuant to the recruitment notification. The Petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the appointment of Respondent No.6.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had secured more marks than the respondent No.6 in the M.P.Ed. and she was better qualified to be recruited to the post of Physical Education Lecturer instead of respondent

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶39

No.6. He contended that the reason for treating the petitioner as an ineligible candidate was frivolous as they were rectifiable defects.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 filed a Statement of Objections contending that out of the 14 applications received against the paper publication, 9 were rejected by respondent No.4 and five candidates were short listed and the respondent No.6 was selected based on merit. It is contended that long after the appointment order was issued to respondent No.6, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is contended that the respondent No.6 after receiving an order of appointment on 02.09.2022 reported to duty on 05.09.2022 and the same was pending approval by the Department of PreUniversity Education and was approved on 29.03.2023, subsequent to which another appointment order was issued to respondent No.6 on 29.03.2023.

¶41

The learned counsel for respondent No.6 contends

¶42

that Petitioner cannot challenge the said appointment as she failed to furnish her latest passport size photograph and also she has failed to signed the resume. The Respondent No.4 in

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶45

its discretion was right in rejecting her application and proceeded to select the suitable candidate based on merit.

¶46

I have heard the submissions made by learned

¶47

counsel for the Petitioner and as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. A perusal of the credentials of the petitioner and respondent No.6 goes to show that the petitioner had secured more marks in the M.P.Ed. Examination than respondent No.6. Petitioner was therefore better and more qualified than the respondent No.6 to hold the post of Physical Education Lecturer. The fact that the Petitioner was the captain of the Throwball Team which represented the country at various international events, was just sufficient enough to march over respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 though claimed that he was a National/International Referee for various events and had attended several International Seminars Conferences, etc, that was not sufficient to overtake the Petitioner. Be that as it may. The ground for treating the petitioner as an ineligible candidate on the ground that she did not furnish her recent passport size photograph and that she did not sign her resume, is utterly frivolous. The respondent No.5 must have been mindful of the qualification and track

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶49

record of petitioner before rejecting her candidature. The process of an interview and selection is to get the best of the talent and merit.

¶50

The fact that the respondent Nos.4 & 5 rejected the application of petitioner on frivolous reasons makes it imminent for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of ANUJ PRATAP SINGH VS. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER , (2018 SCC OnLine DEL 10982) , had held that “ the non-compliance of trivial nature errors should not result in declining an opportunity to the eligible candidate to participate in the recruitment process ”. If the Petitioner had failed to furnish a recent passport photograph and had failed to sign the Curriculum vitae, that itself cannot be a ground to disqualify the petitioner as those could have been easily corrected.

¶51

In that view of the matter, the basis on which the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have excluded the petitioner from the recruitment process is thoroughly frivolous and deserves to be interfered with. Consequentially, this petition is allowed. The appointment of the respondent No.6 is set aside.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:30855 WP No. 2335 of 2023

¶54

The respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are directed to conduct a fresh interview of not only the petitioner but also respondent No.6 in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

Any observations made in the course of the disposal of this petition shall not come in the way of respondent Nos.4 & 5 taking an independent decision as to eligibility of petitioner or respondent No.6 to the post in question.

¶56

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶57

Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Shruthi K S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shruthi K S v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri K Kullegowda Vs the Director of Municipal Administration

Sri S Hanumatha Reddy Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Sri Jeevan K Bhovi Vs the Union of India

Smt S H Vanajakshi Vs the Deputy Director

Dr K Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. T. Nalini Vs M/S Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies