Allowed

The Superintendent of Police v. Mr Devaraj G

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024WP/3864/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State challenged a Tribunal order directing consideration of a candidate with a KSOU Degree Bridge Course for Police Constable (Wireless). The High Court held that without an equivalence notification under Rule 2(h) of the General Recruitment Rules, the Bridge Course cannot be equated to PUC, and set aside the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order dated 10.06.2020 in Application No.6359/2018 set aside; application rejected.

The Superintendent of Police Vs Mr Devaraj G — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3864 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶10

WIRELESS, BENGALURU O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE WIRELESS, No.1, M.G ROAD BENGALURU - 560001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, AAG, A/W. SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR.DEVARAJ.G

¶15

S/O GOVINDA NAIK.B.H AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶16

KADUR TALUK

¶17

CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577548

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶20

(BY SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/06/2020 IN APPLICATION NO.63592018 (ANNXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶29

The petitioner, Superintendent of Police (Wireless),

¶30

Bengaluru is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 10.06.2020 in Application No.6359/2015 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’) allowing respondent’s application directing to consider the candidature of the respondent for the post of Police Constable (wireless) (men and women) if the applicant is otherwise entitled to the said post and to issue appointment order.

¶31

Facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that, respondent who was applicant before the Tribunal possesses the qualification of SSLC and Degree Bridge Course from Karnataka State Open University (for short, ‘KSOU’). Petitioner under Recruitment Notification dated 19.06.2014 called online applications from the

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶33

qualified candidates to fill up the posts of Police Constable (Railways) (men and women) and Police Constable (wireless) (men and women). In pursuance to the said notification the applicant submitted his application claiming reservation under Scheduled Caste Category for the post of Police Constable (wireless) (men and women). It is stated that the respondent was called for endurance

¶34

test and physical standard test, wherein he stood qualified. Thereafter, the applicant was also called for verification of original documents. The provisional select list was published on 19.10.2015 wherein the name of the applicant found at Sl.No.62. As the name of the respondent was not found in the final select list, he made representation to the petitioner and the respondent was issued with endorsement dated 01.12.2015 stating that the qualification of Degree Bridge Course is not equivalent to PUC. Challenging the said endorsement and for a direction to appoint the respondent/applicant to the post of Police Constable (wireless), the respondent approached the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner who was

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶36

respondent contended that the respondent herein did not possess the requisite qualification and qualification possessed i.e., Degree Bridge Course from the Karnataka State Open University is not equivalent to PUC. The Tribunal under impugned order holding that circular issued on 27.01.2015 (Annexure-A13) is subsequent to the notification calling for the application and is having prospective effect, directed to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as Police Constable (Wireless). Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶37

Heard the learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.H.K.Kenchegowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa for respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶38

Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the qualification possessed by the respondent i.e., Degree Bridge Course from the Karnataka State Open

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶40

University is not equivalent to Pre-University Course conducted by the Karnataka Pre-University Board. When the respondent would not possess the requisite qualification, Tribunal committed grave error in directing to consider his case for appointment as Police Constable (Wireless). It is pointed out that the Tribunal misdirected itself in placing reliance on the decision of this Court dated 12.01.2015 in W.P.Nos.17758-17759/2014 and W.P.No.34255/2016 dated 27.06.2016 to come to a conclusion that Bridge Course studied by the applicant i.e.,

¶41

respondent herein from the Karnataka State Open University is to be considered for the purpose of getting employment. He submits that those decisions relate to the Degree Course and the orders were passed by this Court on the concession of the learned counsel appearing for the UGC. It is submitted that in the instant case, there is no clarification from the Pre-University Board or there is no notification under Rule 2(h) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 declaring equivalence of Bridge Course conducted by KSOU to that of PUC.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶43

Further, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the observation of the Tribunal that the Circular dated 27.01.2015 is subsequent to recruitment notification issued in the year 2014, hence, it would have no application is misconceived. It is submitted that earlier to the Circular dated 27.01.2015, there was no equivalent notification and it only clarifies that 10+2 of the Karnataka State Open University cannot be considered for appointment. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa for respondent vehemently submits that the qualification possessed by respondent i.e., Degree Bridge Course from the KSOU is equivalent to PUC and submits that Tribunal rightly directed the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as Police Constable (Wireless). Learned counsel refers to various decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to submit that Bridge Course from KSOU is equivalent qualification to PUC i.e., W.P.Nos.47033-47039/2017 dated 08.12.2017

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶46

(Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs.

¶47

Raghuveersingh Thakur & Others) , W.P.Nos.93359338/2012 dated 05.09.2012 (Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs. Sri.Rajkumar and Others) and W.P.Nos.29048-29055/2002 and Connected

¶48

Matters dated 28.11.2002 (Narasimha Khatarch and

¶49

Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others) . Further, learned counsel would also contend that Circular dated 27.01.2015 which clarified that 10+2 of KSOU could not be considered for employment is a subsequent notification to employment notification issued in the year 2014, as such, it would have no application. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4846/2021 dated 17.08.2021 (Prveen Kumar.C.P.,

¶50

Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others) . Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶52

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶53

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to,

¶54

“Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the petitioner herein to consider the candidature of the respondent for the post of Police Constable (Wireless) by rejecting the contention that the Degree Bridge Course of KSOU cannot be considered to be equivalent to PUC?”

¶55

The answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:

¶56

The petitioner under Notification dated 19.06.2014 called applications from the qualified candidates to fill up the post of Police Constable (Railways) (men and women) and Police Constable (Wireless) (men and women). In the instant case, we are concerned with the post of Police Constable (Wireless). The qualification prescribed for the post of Police Constable (Wireless) reads as follows:

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶59

“ ©) ¥Æ°Ã¸É ï PÁ£ïìmÃ§¯É ï (ªÊgÉ ï¯¸É ï) (¥ÄgÀ ÄµÀ À

¶60

ªÄvÀ ÄÛ ªÀ Ä»¼Á) ºÀ ÄzÀ ÝUÉ ½UÀ ¸É A§A¢ü¹zÀ AvÀ :É

¶61

¦AiÀÄÄ¹ AiÀÄ°è «eÁÚ£À CxÀªÁ «eÁß£À «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sËvÀ±Á¸ÀÛç ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀtÂvÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀ¤µÀ× 50 CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CxÀªÁ vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀ J¯ÉPÁÖç¤Pïì/J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì/mÉ° PÀªÀÄÄå¤PÉÃµÀ£ïì/PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ¸ÉÊ£ïì «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèÃªÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CxÀªÁ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ «eÁÚ£À «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀgÁ¸Àj ±ÉÃ. 50 CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ (J¸ï¹/J¸ïn ªÀÄvÀÄÛ N©¹ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶62

±ÉÃ. 45 CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.) ”

¶63

9. A candidate must have studied Science subject

¶64

in PUC or equivalent qualification in Science with Physics and Mathematics subjects, with minimum 50% marks or three years Diploma from Technical Education Board in Electronics / Electricals / Telecommunications / Computer Science or equivalent qualification with 50% marks in Science subject.

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶66

The qualification possessed by respondent is SSLC and Degree Bridge Course (equivalent to 10+2 / PUC-2) Science examination (as described in the statement of marks – Annexure-A3) from Karnataka State Open University. The said Degree Bridge Course from KSOU is not declared as equivalent qualification to PUC conducted by Pre-University Board at any point of time, as required under Rule 2(h) of the General Recruitment Rules. The respondent has not placed on record any material either before the Tribunal or before this Court to establish that the Degree Bridge Course from KSOU is equivalent to PUC. Admittedly, no notification under Rule 2(h) of General Recruitment Rules is issued declaring equivalence of Degree Bridge Course as equivalent to PUC. In the absence of such notification, Degree Bridge Course of KSOU cannot be equated to PUC qualification.

¶67

Learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa contended

¶68

that Circular dated 27.01.2015 which clarified that 10+2 examination of KSOU cannot be considered for

¶69

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶70

employment, is subsequent to recruitment notification issued in the year 2014, hence, the said circular would have no application. It is true that the above circular is subsequent to the recruitment notification, but, prior to issuance of that circular dated 27.01.2015, there was no notification declaring equivalence of Degree Bridge Course of KSOU with PUC qualification. Circular dated 27.01.2015 further clarified that 10+2 of KSOU cannot be considered for employment. In the said circumstances, the said circular would have no consequence in the present case.

¶71

The decision relied upon by the learned counsel in Praveen Kumar.C.P. (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. Therein, the State of Kerala had issued Government Order clarifying the already existing equivalence. Noticing all the Government Orders, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that equivalency orders were merely clarificatory in nature and the GO’s only confirm the equalency of their B.Ed Degrees.

¶72

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶73

Learned counsel for respondent also placed reliance on the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench stated supra to contend that, the 10+2 Degree Bridge Course is equivalent to PUC. We have gone through those decisions and on going through, it is seen that those decisions relate to Vocational Courses and PUC (Job Oriented Course) conducted by Pre-University Board. Considering the fact that Vocation Course as well as PUC (Job Oriented Course) are conducted by the Pre-University Board, this Court held that those courses are equivalent to PUC. In the instant

¶74

case, the Degree Bridge Course 10+2 is conducted by the KSOU which specifically needs equivalence notification and this Court is not an expert body to go through the syllabus of both the courses and to declare equivalence. Declaring equivalence is to be left to the experts and it is for the employer to prescribe qualification required for the post. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.U.Joshi and Others Vs. the Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others¹ , has

¶75

1 (2003) 2 SCC 632

¶76

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB WP No. 3864 of 2022

¶77

made it clear that it is open and within the competency of the State to prescribe, vary qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service.

¶78

The Tribunal is not right in placing reliance on

¶79

the decisions of Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.Nos.1775817759/2014 dated 12.01.2015 and

¶80

W.P.No.34255/2016 dated 27.06.2016. Those decisions

¶81

related to the Degrees awarded by KSOU and those decisions were rendered on the submissions made by UGC with regard to recognition or otherwise of KSOU. Moreover, it is not with regard to 10+2 or Degree Bridge Course of KSOU.

¶82