A selected candidate challenged the Tribunal's direction to reconsider a rival candidate who had produced duplicate educational certificates after losing originals. The High Court declined interference, holding rejection of authentic duplicate certificates unjustified and merit must prevail among reserved-category candidates.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 27982 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
DR. SHEWTA D/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCU: SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER/ SPECIALIST IN PEDIATRICIAN R/O H NO. 2-909/62/339/A, KUSNOOR ROAD, GDA LAYOUT, KALABURAGI TALUK AND DISTRICT, KALABURAGI - 585 105.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P VILAS KUMAR., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY K B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S R KHAMROZ KHAN.,AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 31/07/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.187/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND B) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for
assailing the State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 31.07.2023 whereby Application NO.187/2022 filed by
fourth Respondent – Dr. Saroja having been favoured, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider her candidature for
selection to the post of Sr.Medical Officer/Specialist
Pediatrician by revising the Final Select List within three months.
2.1 The 4th respondent was appointed as
Pediatrician on contract basis w.e.f. 27.07.2017. The 3rd respondent issued Recruitment Notification dated 10.09.2020 inviting applications for the post of Sr.Medical Officer/Specialist Pediatrician. Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent were in the fray claiming reservation under SC/W category. In the Provisional Select List, the name of the 4th respondent did not figure, although that of the petitioner did. Therefore she filed objections stating that she was meritorious than the petitioner.
2.2 The Final List was published on 08.05.2021 operating the Provisional List. The complaint of 4th respondent was rejected vide Endorsement dated 18.08.2021 stating that she had not produced the originals of the documents. Aggrieved thereby, she had moved Application No.187/2022 which came to be allowed by the
impugned order. The same is put in challenge at our hands.
3.1 The only ground on which the Endorsement dated 18.08.2021 was issued by the 3rd respondent was that the 4th respondent herein had not produced original documents for verification of the copies thereof and therefore she was not selected. Petitioner and the 4th respondent admittedly were in the fray claiming reservation under SC/W category. The cut-off percentage of marks as published by the 3rd respondent was 55.71. The 4th respondent had produced the documents relating to educational qualification that were obtained by way of duplicates, originals having been lost way back in the year 2016 and in that regard she had filed F.I.R. No.193/2006 before the jurisdictional police. Duplicates of the original
were duly obtained by her at the hands of competent authorities as per the extant rules.
3.2 The Tribunal is right in observing “… As the candidate has lost the original documents, upon satisfying, the competent authority can verify and issue duplicate certificate which are the replica of original certificates. It is well settled principle of law that if at all, a candidate is selected to the post in question and included in the select list, upon receipt of the select list, before considering the issuance of appointment order, the appointing authority will have to verify the authenticity of the certificates produced by the candidates including the reservation certificate and qualification. That being the position, the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the duplicate certificate produced by the applicant, informing that she has lost the certificate earlier to notifying the vacancies ie., in the year 2016 itself, the said action on the part of the authorities would deprive the right of the candidates for selection, that too, when the candidate
being eligible and merited. Based on the merit, the
applicant is required to be selected to the post of Senior Medical Officer/Specialist in Pediatrician .”
3.3 The 4th respondent having produced the authentic duplicate documents has obtained an
endorsement at the hands of Verification Officer of the 3rd respondent which reads as under:
“1) obtained duplicate copy of SSLC and MBBS certificate due to loss, complaint copy of FIR is placed”.
It is not the case of official respondents that petitioner is
meritorious qua the 4th respondent herein. The Tribunal after verifying the records and also the cerfiicates of educational qualification produced by her in the reply statement has rightly recorded a finding that 4th respondent is meritorious. That being the position, the vehement submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in variance of the same, does not merit acceptance. After all, the Tribunal has only directed to consider the case of 4th respondent for selection to the
post after revising the Final Select List. It is open to the
3rd respondent to assess the comparative merits of these candidates and arrive at a conclusion, independent of our observation. Such orders do not call for deeper examination. It hardly needs to be stated that as between the candidates belonging to reserved categories inter se , merit is the mantra.
In the above circumstances, the petition is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.
Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE
Snb/
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal rightly directed consideration of a candidate whose duplicate certificates were rejected for non-production of originals in public recruitment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DR. SHEWTA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE COMMISSIONER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
THE MEMBER SECRETARY SPL. RECRUITMENT CELL CUM CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
DR. SAROJA S HADIMANI
KRISHNA S DIXIT
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
