Dismissed

Sri K R Hemanthkumar v. the Karnataka Examinations Authority

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024WP/36594/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged rejection of the petitioner's candidature for Panchayat Development Officer post, where he claimed ten years' age relaxation under Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules on the ground that his employer co-operative bank was a local authority. The court held a private co-operative bank registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is neither Government

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri K R Hemanthkumar Vs the Karnataka Examinations… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 36594 OF 2018 (S-KAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. K.R. HEMANTHKUMAR, S/O SRI. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMESHWARA LAYOUT, B.M ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. TEJAS N, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V 1. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY, Location: HIGH 18^TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, COURT OF MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 004. KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

¶16

THE SECRETARY, COMMON CADRE AUTHORITY, ALUR VENKAT RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶19

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN, DISTRICT HASSAN-573 116.

¶20

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R3 & R5; SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 08.06.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.6968/2017 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, AS PRAYED FOR.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP HEARING, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.06.2018 passed in Application No.6968/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

¶27

The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are that:

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶29

The petitioner was working as a temporary employee in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Rural Development Bank, Channarayapatna (for short "PACARD Bank") and in response to the Recruitment Notification dated 07.09.2016 issued by respondent No.1 i.e., Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) inviting online applications for recruitment, inter alia, to the posts of Panchayat Development Officer, the petitioner made online application claiming reservation under the category 3A/Rural/Project Displaced Person/Government Employee. That as on the date of making application, the petitioner was aged 38 years and he claimed relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of 10 years as per Rule 6(2)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules as he was working in a "local authority". That based on the marks secured by him in the competitive examination, he was called for verification of documents on 22.11.2017, but at that stage his candidature has been rejected on the ground that the post held by him in PACARD Bank does not come within the scope of Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules. Aggrieved by the same, he submitted a representation dated 24.11.2017 to the KEA to reconsider his case. However, his request has been rejected by

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶32

the KEA as per endorsement dated 04.01.2017. As such, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Application No.6968/2017 to set aside the endorsement dated 04.01.2017 and to consider his representation for relaxation his age.

¶33

After assessment of the oral arguments of the parties so also the documents placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner as stated supra . Challenge for the same is lis before this Court.

¶34

We have heard Sri. Tejas.N, learned counsel for the petitioner so also Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. Pramodini Kishan, learned AGA for respondent Nos.3 & 5 and Sri A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner without considering the fact that the petitioner was working in PACARD Bank since more than 17 years. The said Bank is controlled and managed by the Common Cadre Authority i.e., respondent No.2 and the Recruitment Rules. The Notification dated 07.09.2016 stipulates the benefit of age

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶37

relaxation upto a period of 10 years in the event of a candidate working as an employee of a local authority established under a State enactment or a Central enactment. According to learned counsel, since the Common Cadre Authority and Co-operative Bank like Apex Bank are considered as local authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner ought to have been considered as an employee of an local authority and is entitled for the benefit of age relaxation. Additionally, he would contend that, the employer of the petitioner i.e., the PACARD Bank is a "local authority" as contemplated under Rule 6(3)(b) of Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported Union of India v. R.C. Jain reported in AIR 1981 SC 951 . He would further submit that the Common Cadre Authority i.e., respondent No.2 and the Co-operative Bank like Apex Bank are considered as "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India, which makes the petitioner entitled for relaxation of age as per Rule 6. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the contention putforth by the respondents

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶39

that the PACARD Bank is not a local authority as envisaged under Rule 6 of KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.

¶40

In order to buttress his arguments, he relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.V.Panduranga Rao v. Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation, Bangalore and Others reported in 1993 SCC OnLine Kar 243 .

¶41

Per contra, by supporting the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 would vehemently contend that, PACARD Bank is not a local authority as per the provision of Section 6 (1)(b) and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for relaxation of age. He would further contend that Rule 6 of General Recruitment Rules clearly reveals that, in case of a Candidate who is or was holding a post under the Government or a local authority or a Corporation established by a State Act or a Central Act or established by the Government under a State Act or Central Act and owned or controlled by the Government by the number of years during which he is or was holding such post or ten years whichever is less. Hence, for age relaxation, the petitioner has

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶43

to come within the ambit of Section 6(1)(b) of General Recruitment Rules. However, the petitioner is working in the Private Co-operative Bank, which cannot be termed as a Local Authority. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for relaxation of age. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the said aspect in a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶44

Learned AGA so also learned counsel for respondent

¶45

No.4 argue on a similar footing as that of learned counsel for respondent No.1 and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having given our anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties so also the documents made available before us, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:

¶47

"1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal

¶48

in Application No.6968/2017 requires any interference by this Court?"

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶50

Before adverting the merits of the case, it is appropriate to reiterate Section 6(1)(b) of General Recruitment Rules, 1977, which reads as under:

¶51

"6. Age limit for appointment: (1) Save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specially made and applicable to any service or post prescribing higher age limit, every candidate for appointment by direct recruitment must have attained the age of eighteen years and not attained the age of -

¶52

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (1) the maximum age limit for appointment shall be deemed to be enhanced in the following cases to the extent mentioned, namely:

¶53

(b) In the case of a candidate who is or was holding a post under the Government or a local authority or a corporation established by a State Act or a Central Act or Central Act and owned or controlled by the Government by the number of years during which he is or was holding such post or ten years whichever is less."

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶55

On careful perusal of the above Rules, it is clear that, the age relaxation is only in respect of Government or a local authority or a corporation established by a State Act or a Central Act or established by the Government under a State Act or Central Act and owned or controlled by the Government. Admittedly, the petitioner was working in a Private Co-operative Bank i.e., PACARD Bank, which does not come under the Government or local authority. Though the petitioner claimed relaxation of age to an extent of 16 years on ground that he is working under the Government/local authority, the Bank in which he was employed is a private bank registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. As such, Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules does not applicable to the case on hand. Further, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, we found no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶56

Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 5

¶57

submits that the process of recruitment Notification dated 07.09.2016 to the posts of Panchayath Development Officer has already been completed. As such, on that count also, the

¶58

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:13019-DB WP No. 36594 of 2018

¶59

petition does not survive for consideration. Nevertheless, there is no such provision is forthcoming under the KCSR Rules to relax the age of the candidates to apply for a Government

¶60

service.

¶61

In such circumstance, in our considered view, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, we answer the point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed .

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23