Dismissed

Sri Vinay Kumar R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024WP/23580/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates challenging direct recruitment for Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers based solely on qualifying examination marks without competitive exams. Upholding the validity of the Recruitment Rules and citing principles of waiver and acquiescence, the Court held that candidates who participated without protest cann

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Sri Vinay Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.23580 OF 2016 (S-PRO) C/W WP NO.3040/2016, WP NO.8739/2016, WP NO.23575/2016, WP NO.24498/2016, WP NO.37201/2016 (S-RES)

¶7

IN WP NO.23580/2016 BETWEEN

¶8

1 . SRI VINAY KUMAR R S/O RAMAPPA YELAVATTI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A TOTADMANE, KOTEGANGUR VILLAGE AND POST, SHIVAMOGGA PIN-577201.

¶9

2 . SRI SAMARTH C M

¶10

S/O MASTI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS MIG 78/A, KUVEMPUNAGAR, 2ND STATGE, HASSAN-573201.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(By Sri H. S. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶15

¶16

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

2 . THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT., 3RD FLOOR, 3RD GATE, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

3 . CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF ENGINEER SPECIAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ (RDPR) DEPARTMENT ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

4 . KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO.5 AND 6, JALABHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560029 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By Sri RUBIN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (RECRUITMENT TO THE CADRES OF ASSTISTANT ENGINEER AND JUNIOR ENGINEERS) (SPECIAL) RULE 2015 DATED 25.02.2015 BEARING NO.MU:EN:PAN RA EN:BEN:C-8:SA EN-NE:NEMA:201415/11156, VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES

¶23

¶24

TO SELECTION OF CANDIDATES BY WAY OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MARKS OBTAINED BY THE RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES IN THEIR QUALIFYING EXAMINATIONS AND WITHOUT ANY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS, AS THE SAME IS ULTRA VIRUS OF THE CONSTITUION ETC.,

¶25

IN WP NO.3040/2016 BETWEEN

¶26

SRI PRATAP H E S/O ERAPPA H. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT SANKLAPURA VILLAGE, BAGANAKATTE POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA -577427.

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

(By Sri PRASHANTH H. S., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND

¶30

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

¶31

2 . KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO.5 & 6, JALABHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560029. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

¶34

(By Sri Sri RUBIN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1; SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶35

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION DTD:7.12.2015, BEARINGNO.KJM/HRD/ CR-600/ SAPrDLS/NeNemakati/2410/2015-16, ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO SELECTION OF CANDIDATES BY WAY OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MARKS OBTAINED BY THE RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES IN THEIR QUALIFYING EXAMINATIONS AND WITHOUT ANY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS AS THE SAME IS ULTRA VIRUS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.,

¶36

IN WP NO.8739/2016 BETWEEN

¶37

1 . SRI YOGEESHA. S S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS SIDDAPURA, V PURA HOBLI, Y T HALLI , CHENNAPATTANA TALUK RAMANAGARA – 571501.

¶38

2 . SRI RANJITH R S/O RANGARAJU M AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, SOLURU (KOTE), MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562127.

¶39

3 . SRI SUNIL VASANT CHINI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NARAYANPUR 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS,

¶40

¶41

NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, DHARWAD – 580008.

¶42

4 . MISS. ROOPA G D/O GUJJACHARI, AGED ABHOUT 24 YEARS, SOLUR VILLAGE, KOLATHUR POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL – 562114.

¶43

5 . SRI RAHUL RATHOR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, H NO 105, MUNISHWAR NAGAR, SINDHAGI ROAD, VIJAPURA TALUK, VIJAPUR DISTRICT – 586101.

¶44

6 . SRI PARASHURAM HADIMANI S/O YALLAPPA HADIMANI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, KOKATNANUR, SINDHAGI TLAUK, VIJAYPURA – 586115.

¶45

7 . SRI PAVAN H M NO 10, LINGAYATH STREET, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, HANUMANTHAPURA, ARATHOLALU POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGGA – 577243.

¶46

8 . SRI MAHANTAYYA H NO 9650, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NEAR JAI HANUMAN TEMPLE, SHAHABAZAR SHAIK ROZA ROAD, KALBURGI – 585101.

¶47

¶48

9 . SRI BHIMANAGOUD S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA BAGALI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RAMAHALLI, TEGGLIHALLI POST, SINDHAGI TALUK, VIJAPURA – 586217. 10 . SRI AMAR BALE AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, NEAR GLBC COLONY, KUDACHI, TALUK RAIBAGH, DIST BELAGAVI, RAIBAGH TALUK BELAGAVI – 593111. 11 . SRI SIDDAROODHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, H NO 417, NEAR VIRKATHA MATHA, LAXMI ROAD, MAHAGAON, KALBURGI – 585316.

¶49

12 . SRI SANDEEP C V AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, KUVEMPUR NAGAR, MOORMANEHALLI ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 575110.

¶50

...PETITIONERS

¶51

(By Sri PRASHANTH H. S., ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND

¶53

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶54

¶55

2 . KARNTAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, NO 5 & 6, JALABHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560029. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶56

3 SRIDEVI HOLAPPA CHIKKUR, D/O HOLAPPA CHIKKUR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 4^TH PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH-560004.

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(By Sri Sri RUBIN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1;SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI K. GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶59

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION DTD 07/12/2015, BEARING NO.KJM/HRD/CR-600/SAPrDLS/NeNemakati/2410/2015-16 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO SELECTION OF CANDIDATES BY WAY OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MARKS OBTAINED BY THE RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES IN THEIR QUALIFYING EXAMINATIONS AND WITHOUT ANY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS AS THE SAME IS ULTRA VIRUS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

¶60

¶61

IN WP NO.23575/2016 BETWEEN

¶62

SRI VIJAYKUMAR B S/O N.M.BOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR BEKKINAKALMATHA KOTE ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA PIN-577201.

¶63

...PETITIONER

¶64

(By Sri. PRASHANTH H S., ADVOCATE)

¶65

AND

¶66

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU-01.

¶67

2 . KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO.5 AND 6 "JALABHAVAND", BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 029 BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶68

…RESPONDENTS

¶69

(By Sri Sri RUBIN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI VEERESH BUDHIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶70

¶71

¶72

DIRECT RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MARKS OBTAINED BY THE RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES IN THEIR QUALIFYING EXAMINATIONS AND WITHOUT ANY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS AS THE SAME IS ULTRA VIRUS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

¶73

IN WP NO.24498/2016 BETWEEN

¶74

1 . SRI ABHILASH N R S/O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A NO 331, 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, SECTOR - 6, H S R LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560102.

¶75

2 . MS VINDHYASHREE H S D/O SRINIVASARAJU H C AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO 50, 1ST CROSS SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560094.

¶76

3 . SRI MANOJ NAYAKA S/O NARSIMHA NAYAKA R/A NO 1144, 6TH MAIN 7TH SECTOR, H S R LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560102.

¶77

...PETITIONERS

¶78

(By Sri. PRASHANTH H S., ADVOCATE)

¶79

AND

¶80

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-01.

¶81

¶82

2 . KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO 5 AND 6 JALABHAVAN BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560029. BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶83

3 SRI BORESHA B S/O BANGARI BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT PELORAHATTY VILLAGE HAILAL POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577517.

¶84

….RESPONDENTS

¶85

(BY SRI. Sri RUBIN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI.V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1; SMT. SUMANGALA GOCHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI K GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶86

¶87

¶88

IN WP NO.37201/2016 BETWEEN

¶89

1 . SRI AVINASH N RAO AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.180, 4TH MAIN, M.S.RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, 8TH MILE STONE, BENGALURU-560073.

¶90

2 . MISS. SUMAN M AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NO.1084, C/O SHASHI, 12TH CROSS, MAHALAZMIPURAM, NEAR SHANKARAMUTT STOP, BENGALURU

¶91

...PETITIONERS

¶92

(By Sri H. S. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE )

¶93

AND

¶94

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶95

2 . KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO.5 AND 6, JALABHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, IST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560029. BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶96

SHIVANANDA RATHOD S/O TOPANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEELANAGAR,

¶97

¶98

SHIRUR POST, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT-585156.

¶99

….RESPONDENTS

¶100

(BY SRI Sri RUBIN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHIMATH, ADV. FOR R2; SRI K. GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶101

¶102

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25/03/2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶103

ORDER

¶104

These batch of petitions are filed by unsuccessful candidates who participated in recruitment process for appointing Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers in Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department.

¶105

¶106

Petitioners have challenged selection of candidates by way of direct recruitment based solely on the marks obtained by the respective candidates in their qualifying examinations, without any competitive examinations.

¶107

Petitioners are aggrieved by the method of recruitment adopted by respondent No.3-Committee. Petitioners have secured a degree in Bachelor of Engineering from Vishveshwaraiah Technological University (VTU).

¶108

In W.P.23580/2016, petitioners have

¶109

questioned the vires of The Karnataka Panchayat Raj Engineering Department (Recruitment to the Cadres of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineers) (Special) Rules 2014, (for short Rules, 2014”) insofar as it relates to selection of candidates by way of direct recruitment on the basis of the marks obtained. In the connected writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the recruitment notification.

¶110

¶111

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions, learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for selected candidates.

¶112

Before I advert to the challenge to the Rule, it would be useful for this Court to cull out Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2014, which reads as under:

¶113

“Preparation of select list of candidates: (1) the special Recruitment Committee, shall from among the candidates who have applied in pursuance of the advertisements under Rule 5, prepare a provisional list of candidates eligible for appointment under these rules equal to the number of vacancies notified in the order of merit determined on the basis of aggregate percentage of marks obtained in the qualifying examination in respect of each category of post and subject to the reservation of posts provided by or under any law or any rules for the time being in force.”

¶114

The Rules framed by the State empowers respondent No.3 to select candidates to the post of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers by way of direct recruitment by assessing the marks. Though it is vehemently argued by the petitioners assailing the validity of Rule 6(1), this Court finds that the petitioners have

¶115

¶116

failed to provide any substantial material to substantiate their claim that Rule 6 of Rules, 2014 is arbitrary and unreasonable. The autonomy granted to panchayaths in the recruitment process is in line with decentralized governance structure and principle of local self governments. In response to the petitioners challenge to the validity of Rule 6 of Rules, 2014, respondents have vehemently maintained that the petitioners lack necessary locus standi to challenge the said Rule, emphasizing that the draft Rules were duly published and objections were solicited prior to enactment of Rules, 2014.

¶117

Upon thorough consideration of arguments and counter arguments proffered by both parties, this Court is inclined to uphold validity of Rule 6(1) of Rules, 2014. This Court finds no substantive merit in petitioners’ contention regarding purported discrepancies in Rule 6(1) of Rules, 2014 which enables respondent No.3 to select candidates on the basis of marks secured in the degree.

¶118

¶119

Petitioners cannot dictate the manner in which recruitment has to be made.

¶120

In the ongoing legal proceedings, the petitioners in the connected writ petitions have advanced an additional argument contending that VTU employs stringent approach in evaluating examination papers which has led to selection of higher proportion of candidates from autonomous Universities. This assertion by the petitioners implies that the petitioners from VTU face a disadvantage in selection process compared to their counterparts from autonomous Universities. If petitioners have chosen to pursue their degrees from well established institutions cannot subsequently protest the rigorous evaluation standards adopted by VTU.

¶121

This Court is not inclined to accede to the said arguments. It is also possible that candidates graduating from reputed Universities may possess an inherit advantage due to presumed prestige associated with their alma mater. It is also conceivable that candidates hailing

¶122

¶123

from renowned Institutions/Universities often benefit from perception of academic excellence potentially influencing recruitment decisions. Merely because petitioners have secured less marks in the academic papers on the ground that evaluation is stringent at VTU cannot in itself be a ground for petitioners to assail the recruitment notification.

¶124

There is no indication that recruitment process deviated from the established procedures outlined in the recruitment rules. Respondent No.3 has acted within its authority in accordance with the provisions laid down in the said Rules. This Court has noted that under the said Recruitment Rules panchayaths as local bodies are granted complete autonomy to make recruitment decisions based on the marks secured in the candidate’s degree.

¶125

The petitioners have also questioned the conversion of grade marks into percentage. This is effectively countered by respondent No.3. The material on record gives an indication that respondent No.3 has purportedly adhered to the established guidelines provided

¶126

¶127

by All India Council for Technical Education in conversion

¶128

of grades into percentage marks thereby ensuring compliance with recognized norms and standards. The Court finds no substantive merit in the petitioners’ contention regarding the purported discrepancies in the evaluation methodologies, especially in the light of adherence of respondent No.3 to the guidelines stipulated by AICTE.

¶129

The petitioners are also precluded from adopting inconsistent positions in the matter at hand. By participating in the selection process with full knowledge of the procedures involved, they cannot subsequently challenge the same. The Apex Court, in the case of TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & OTHERS. vs. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. , reported in [ 2023 SCC

¶130

OnLine SC 344] has observed as under:

¶131

“13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the

¶132

¶133

result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.

¶134

13.2. This Court in Sadananda Halo has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is the existence of mala fides on the part of the Selection Board. In the present case, we are unable to find any mala fide or arbitrariness in the selection process and therefore the said exception cannot be invoked.”

¶135

13. In Union of India .vs. S. Vinodh Kumar

¶136

reported in [ 2007 (8) SCC 100] at para 18 it was held that:

¶137

"18.... It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same."

¶138

¶139

In G. Sarana (Dr.) .vs. University of

¶140

Lucknow reported in [(1976) 3 SCC 585] wherein also a similar stand was taken by a candidate and in that context the Supreme Court had declared that the candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para 15 inter alia reads thus:

¶141

"15.... He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee."

¶142

In light of the principles established by the Apex Court, the petitioners, having willingly participated in the selection process and subsequently being declared unsuccessful, are precluded from challenging the same. The doctrine of waiver and acquiescence bars them from questioning the process, as they had ample opportunity to

¶143

¶144

raise objections during their participation. Furthermore, in the absence of any evidence of malice or arbitrariness in the selection process, the exception to the rule of waiver cannot be invoked. Thus, based on legal precedents, the petitioners challenge to the validity of the selection process is untenable.

¶145