Allowed

Sathwick. S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/23379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the State of Karnataka and the Karnataka Public Services Commission to reserve 1% of posts for persons with specific learning disability. The court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to issue orders assigning appropriate reservation in line with government orders within one month. Dismissed the plea for immediate reservation in the ongoing not

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was directed not to force reservation in the ongoing notification immediately but was ordered to direct Respondent No. 1 to issue necessary directions to Respondent No. 2 to inform the abse

Sathwick. S Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38668 WP No. 23379 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23379 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SATHWICK. S., S/O. SATHYANARAYANA C., AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.85, 8^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570009.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. JYOTHI S.K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38668 WP No. 23379 of 2024

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.05.2024 AT ANNEXURE-E SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for a writ in

¶23

the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 07.05.2024.

¶24

(i) The respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 15.07.2017 inviting applications from eligible candidates for Gazetted Probationer Group A & B posts. The petitioner was an aspirant for a Group A post.

¶25

(ii) She contends that Rule 9(1) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 provided for reservation of 5% to persons suffering from various disabilities. Later, the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1995') came into force.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:38668 WP No. 23379 of 2024

¶28

Therefore, the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 was amended vide Circular bearing No.DPAR50SRR2000 providing 5% reservation to individuals suffering from various types of disabilities. The respondent No.1 then issued an order bearing No.C.Asu.E.53Se.Ne.Ne.NI, 2007 dated 01.01.2008 introducing reservation to individuals suffering from mental illness. A similar order was re-issued on 01.08.2009 and re-confirmed on 10.06.2013. The petitioner contends that Act, 1995 was replaced by "Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016" (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2016'). Section 34 of Act, 2016 mandated provision for reservation to persons with specific learning disability.

¶29

(iii) The petitioner contends that he suffers from 40% intellectual disability. He contends that respondent No.2 failed to earmark 1% posts to individuals suffering from specific learning disability, which is in violation of the Government orders dated 01.08.2009 and 10.06.2013.

¶30

(iv) The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 issued an order dated 25.09.2020 in continuation of its earlier order dated 01.08.2009 and 10.06.2013, the reservation roster

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:38668 WP No. 23379 of 2024

¶33

points for different categories of persons with disabilities. The order dated 25.09.2020 re-stated that 5% posts in the Karnataka Civil Services shall be reserved in direct recruitment for persons with disabilities.

¶34

(v) Following this, the respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 26.02.2024 inviting applications for direct recruitment through competitive examination for 384 Gazetted Probationers post, which included 81 posts in Group-A. This time too, the respondent No.2 did not earmark 1% of the post to persons suffering from specific learning disability. The petitioner submitted his application.

¶35

(vi) As the respondent No.2 had not reserved 1% of the posts to persons suffering from specific learning disability, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.05.2024 to respondent No.2. In turn respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 20.05.2024 to respondent No.1 to act on the representation. The respondent No.2 communicated the same to the petitioner on 21.05.2024. The petitioner contends that till date no steps are taken to provide reservation. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for suitable directions to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to consider his

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:38668 WP No. 23379 of 2024

¶38

representation dated 07.05.2024 and reserve 1% posts to persons suffering from specific learning disability in the direct recruitment by competitive examination vide notification dated 26.02.2024.

¶39

The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submitted that it is incumbent upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to ensure that 1% posts are reserved for persons suffering from specific learning disability as per the Government orders dated 01.08.2009 and 10.06.2013. He contends that the request of the petitioner was therefore just and the respondents are bound to consider the same in accordance with law. He submits that without effecting reservation, the respondents are proceeding with the recruitment thereby affecting the prospects of the petitioner.

¶40

The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that if the petitioner is entitled to reservation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. He submits that the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to reserve 1% to the persons suffering from specific intellectual disability in Group - A posts

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38668 WP No. 23379 of 2024

¶42

as per notification dated 26.02.2024. He contends that the question whether such reservation could be granted or not, would be considered in the light of the Government orders referred above and appropriate orders would be passed.

¶43

In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is allowed . The respondent No.1 is directed to consider issuing appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 to reserve posts to the persons suffering from specific learning disability/intellectual disability in line with the Government orders dated 01.08.2009 and 10.06.2013 and issue appropriate directions to the respondent No.2 to assign appropriate reservation roster to said category. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sathwick. S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathwick. S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Y. B. Raghavendra Vs the General Manager (a and Hr)

Shri Suraj Jayadeep Sunita Vs Vijaya Bank

Sri Santosh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwathanarayana T v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.G.R.Narayanaswamy Vs the Deputy General Manager

Dr Sreedhara C G Vs State of Karnataka