The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection of candidates for the post of Technical Assistant Grade-III, holding that the employer did not change the eligibility criteria mid-stream and the petitioner failed to meet the cut-off marks for the interview stage.
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 SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.44466 OF 2013 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
YASHWANTH KUMAR @YASHWANTH DEEKSHITH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SUBBANNACHAR, R/O 5TH CROSS, VALLABABHAI ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION, CHKKAMAGALUR – 577 101.
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R-5; SRI V.R. DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-2 AND R-3 NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SELECTION LIST ISSUED BY THE R-1 CORPORATION PURPORTEDLY DATED 08.04.2011 AS PER ANNX-A BEARING ADVERTISEMENT NO.2/2010 DATED 27.12.2010 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE APPOINTMENT OF R-2 SRI.V.BHIMARAJU, APPLICATION NO.M615660, AT SL.NO.47, R-3 SRI.PUNITH.V., APPLICATION NO.M605863 AT SL.NO.131 AND R-4 SRI.BHASKAR, D. APPLICATION NO.M605178 AT SL.NO.150 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner seeks to challenge the selection of candidates to the post of Technical Assistant under CMG Group (Category) in the list dated 27.12.2010 under advertisement No.2/2010 appointing respondent Nos.2 to 4 and further direction to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the selection for the post of Technical Assistant Grade-III, in furtherance of the application dated 26.01.2011.
that:
of candidates in W.P.No.43727/2003, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that, the procedure adopted for selection of candidates by respondent No.1–Corporation was erroneous and arbitrary and on the ground that the preferential treatment was not given to the petitioner, who had obtained three years vocational certificate course i.e., National Apprentice Certificate (herein after referred to as “NAC” for short), that too in the K.S.R.T.C. The said order was challenged by the Corporation in Writ Appeal No.3226/2005, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the recruitment rules of the respondent No.1– Corporation.
ii. The petitioner challenged the recruitment rules in WP.No.2957/2010 and the same has been dismissed by this Court.
iii. Respondent No.1–Corporation published an
advertisement under Notification No.2/2010 dated 27.12.2010, inviting applications from the eligible candidates to the technical post, the criteria for selection of the post and the prescribed educational qualification was compulsory two years of ITI/ITC/NAC after passing SSLC or equivalent qualification.
Grade-III, and that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have undergone training of only one year and they could not have been shortlisted much less appointed for the post of Technical Assistant Grade-III.
by the petitioner in the three years NAC certificate course that too, in K.S.R.T.C is equated as against the percentage of marks secured by respondent Nos.2 to 4, who have undergone the training for a period of one year only and
the comparison of marks is highly illogical and could not have been adopted by the selection authority. That the Competent Authority changed the applicable rule of minimum qualification of two years of training in ITI / NAC as advertised in Annexure-C during the course of recruitment / appointment of respondent Nos.2 to 4 to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-III and the action of changing the rule of game during the selection process is impermissible, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kishore Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar And Others1 (Anil Kishore Pandit) dated 02.02.2024.
1 CA.No.1566/2024.
obtained three years course in NAC from 01.11.1995 to 31.10.1998 and during the year 1995, three years course for NAC was given without ITI after SSLC and one year examination was conducted and the petitioner has scored 466 out of 700 with percentage of 66.57% and he was not qualified for the interview. Respondent No.2 has completed NAC course from 15.10.2009 to 14.10.2010 with ITI and scored 451 out of 520 with percentage of 86.73%, respondent No.3 completed NAC from 11.10.2008 to 10.10.2009 with ITI and scored 452 out of 520 with percentage of 86.92% and respondent No.4 obtained NAC with ITI from 12.11.2008 to 11.11.2009 and scored 452 out of 520 with percentage of 86.92%.
educational qualification, merits and marks secured in the interview, the eligible candidates with the cut off percentages were called for verification of
documents/interview and the same was web hosted on
NC: 2024:KHC:39514 WP No. 44466 of 2013
27.12.2010 in as many as 3,232 eligible candidates were selected, which is produced by the respondent No.1Corporation along with the memo.
2018, the prescribed course duration for apprenticeship training scheme for Mechanical (Diesel) is three years, which is Annexure-R3. Perusal of Annexure-R3 indicates that there is rebate allowed in the apprentices training to the extent stated in Annexure-R3 as two years for fitter, one year for Mechanic, one year for welder, which are relevant for the present facts.
NC: 2024:KHC:39514 WP No. 44466 of 2013
with ITI and the rebate available is to respondent Nos.2 to
4 is in light of the ITI, which they had obtained.
Court has observed at paragraph No.8 as under:
"8. It is settled law that it is not open for an employer to change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during the course of the ongoing selection process. Any such action would be hit by the vice of arbitrariness as it would tantamount to denial of an opportunity to those candidates who are eligible in terms of the advertisement but would stand disqualified on the basis of a change in the eligibility criteria after the same is announced by the employer. Having applied for appointment in accordance with the terms prescribed in the advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested right to be considered in accordance with the said advertisement. This consideration may not necessarily fructify into an appointment but certainly entitles the candidate to be considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of the advertisement. To put it differently, the right of a candidate for being considered in terms of the advertisement stands crystallized on the date of the publication of the advertisement. Any subsequent
NC: 2024:KHC:39514 WP No. 44466 of 2013
amendment to the advertisement during the course of the selection process unless retrospective, cannot be a ground to disqualify a candidate from the zone of consideration." (emphasis supplied)
employer to change the qualification prescribed in the advertisement in midstream as the candidate applied for appointment in accordance with the terms prescribed in the advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested rights to be considered in accordance with the said advertisement. In the instant case, the right of the candidate was not considered as the petitioner did not have the requisite marks and he had secured 66.57% as against cut off percentage of 96.43% and he was not qualified for verification of documents in the ratio of 1:5.
the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that there is no change in the rule of game as contended by the petitioner, and the petitioner has not
NC: 2024:KHC:39514 WP No. 44466 of 2013
made out any ground for quashing the selection list and
this court pass the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit .
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
AT
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the selection authority changed the eligibility criteria mid-stream to the detriment of the petitioner?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kishore Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar And OthersRelied on¶65
Anil Kishore Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar And Others (Anil Kishore Pandit) dated 02.02.2024. CA.No.1566/2024.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
YASHWANTH KUMAR @ YASHWANTH DEEKSHITH
THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
BHIMARAJU V.
PUNITH V.
BHASKAR D.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
K.S. HEMALEKHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
