Dismissed

Sri Prabhuswamy Rajashekar Mandlimath v. the Director

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/44652/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A candidate challenged his non-selection as Library Assistant and Tribunal rejection, claiming Rural Reservation. The court found he produced certificates only for 1st Standard and not for Standards 2 to 7, so authorities could not consider him under General Merit (Rural). Given appointments were made about 20 years earlier, interference was unwarranted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Prabhuswamy Rajashekar Mandlimath Vs the Director — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.44652 OF 2018 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. PRABHUSWAMY RAJASHEKAR MANDLIMATH, AGE 37 YEARS, S/O M.P.RAJASHEKHARAIAH, TRIVENI NILAYA, BEHIND DURGAMMA TEMPLE, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. N.M.HANDRAL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VISWESWARAIAH CHIEF TOWER, 4^TH FLOOR, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶17

SRI. NIRUPADAYYA, S/O BASAVARAJ HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BASAVA NILAYA,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶19

MAHANTESH NAGAR, RAMDURGA GOWN,

¶20

BELGAUM DISTRICT – 591 123.

¶21

SRI. VISWANATHA K.M., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O CHIDANNDASWAMY K M, R/O SINTRAHALLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 583 131.

¶22

SRI. SIDRAMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O EKANATHA PUJARI, R/O ALAGONDA VILLAGE, BASAVAKALYANA TALUK, BIDAR DISTRICT – 585 327.

¶23

SRI. K. SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, C/O SRI. K.P. NAGARAJASHETTY, NO.11, USHA NIVASA, BEHIND ESWARA TEMPLE, MARATHHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 037.

¶24

SRI. LOKANNA SIDDAPPA HUREKADLI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA HUREKADLI, R/O DADANATTI, MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587 313.

¶25

SRI. B.C.MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O CHANDRANATHA, C/O SATHEESHA,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶27

NO.559, 9^TH MAIN, M.C.EXTENSION, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 040.

¶28

SRI. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAPPA, R/O BETHAMANGALA, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESWARAN, AGA FOR R1; SRI.KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8)

¶31

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/7/2018 PASSED IN A.NO.5937/2008 [ANNEXURE-E] PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

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

¶38

The petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 18.7.2018 in Application No.5937/2008 (Annexure-E) passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘KSAT’) rejecting petitioner’s application, wherein he had prayed for his selection and appointment as Library Assistant.

¶39

Heard Sri. N.M.Handral, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C.N.Mahadeswaran, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 as well as Sri. Kalyan.R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in pursuance to the Notification inviting application to fill up the post of Library Assistant/Attender published in Udayavani Newspaper dated 30.6.2007, the petitioner is said to have submitted his application to the post of Library Assistant. It is submitted that the petitioner was fully qualified having passed 7^th Standard and the petitioner is said to have claimed

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶42

Rural Reservation for his appointment. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner along with his application enclosed two certificates issued by the respective School Head Masters in support of his claim for Rural Reservation. It is submitted that when respondent No.1 published Provisional Select List, as the name of the petitioner was not found, he filed objection to the Provisional Select List on 26.11.2008 enclosing the certificates including the Rural Certificate requesting the Authorities to consider his case for appointment as Library Assistant as General Merit-Rural. Thereafter, Final Select List was published on 19.11.2008. The petitioner was not selected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in application No.5937/2008. The Tribunal under impugned order rejected petitioner’s application. Against the said order of the Tribunal as well as non-selection of the petitioner as Library Assistant, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

¶44

that the petitioner had produced all the relevant documents including the Rural Reservation certificate which is produced before this Court at Annexures-A3, A4 and A5. Further, learned counsel submits that since qualification prescribed was 7^th

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶46

Standard, if the petitioner produces certificate for having studied at Rural Area up to 7^th Standard,

¶47

it would be sufficient for his selection. It is further submitted that under General Merit (Rural) category, candidates of lesser merit i.e., who have scored below 94% are selected, whereas the petitioner has scored 94% in 7^th Standard. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a direction to respondent No.1 to include his name in Select List and appoint him as Library Assistant. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶48

On the other hand, learned AGA invites attention of this Court to reply statement filed by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal and submits that the petitioner had failed to produce certificate to claim Rural Reservation. He submits that Annexures-A3 to A4 and A5 were not produced before the Authorities. Therefore, the respondent-Authority considered the case of the petitioner under General Merit without Rural Reservation and under General Merit, the petitioner was not eligible for selection in view of his marks. Thus, learned AGA would submit that as the petitioner has not produced Rural Certificate, his case is not considered under General Merit

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶50

(Rural) category but his case is considered under General Merit. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

Learned counsel Sri. Kalyan.R., for respondent Nos.2 to 8 would support the submission of the learned AGA and would submit that the petitioner has not placed Rural Certificate to claim Rural Reservation. As such, he would not be entitled for appointment. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶53

There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner submitting his application for selection and appointment to the post of Library Assistant/Attender in pursuance to Annexure-B, Notification published in Udayavani Newspaper dated 30.6.2007. The statement of objection filed by respondent No.1-State indicates that the petitioner had not produced Rural Certificate to claim Rural Reservation for having studied from 1^st to 7^th Standard in Rural Area. It is submitted that the

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶55

petitioner had submitted only two Rural Certificates which are at Annexures-A3 and A4, both certificates relates to 1^st Standard and it indicates that the petitioner studied 1^st Standard during Academic Year 1986-87 at Government Lower Primary School, Bochenahalli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District and Annexure-A4 certificate also relates to that the petitioner studied at Government Pradhana Primary School, Hosadurga Taluk during Academic Year 1986-87. The petitioner has not produced certificate for having studied 2^nd to 7^th Standard at Rural Area. The petitioner has also not filed any rejoinder refuting the allegation of the respondent-State that the petitioner has not produced Rural Certificate along with his application. When the petitioner had not produced the relevant certificate to claim Rural Reservation, respondent No.1 had no occasion to consider the case of the petitioner under General Merit (Rural) category.

¶56

It is also forthcoming from the statement of

¶57

objection filed by respondent No.1 that the case of the petitioner was considered under General Merit, for which the petitioner was not eligible for selection. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:36667-DB WP No. 44652 of 2018

¶59

studied in Rural Area and has produced Certificate before this Court, at this length of time and as appointments have taken more than nearly 20 years back, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the selection process.

¶60

No ground is made out. Accordingly, writ petition stands

¶61

dismissed.

¶62

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶64

SMJ

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri Prabhuswamy Rajashekar Mandlimath v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Prabhuswamy Rajashekar Mandlimath v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs Mrs C Tulasija

V.Subba Rao Vs Dr.Narasimha Holla v

Sri S K Revanasiddappa Vs Dr Prema Prabhudev

Smt. Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh J Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Upalokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka