Dismissed

Anilkumar S B v. Karnataka Power Transmission

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2024WP/5666/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders excluding his name from selected list under physically handicapped quota for Accounts Officer post. Court held he estopped from challenging process after participating and his disability did not meet specific post criteria.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed holding petitioner estopped and ineligible due to mismatched disability criteria.

Anilkumar S B Vs Karnataka Power Transmission — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5666 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANILKUMAR .S.B S/O SIDDAPPA BHAVIKATTI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT BENGALURU ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, S-6 SUB-DIVISION J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KARTIK PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

¶13

CORPORATION LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE

¶14

CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶17

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-1.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. ARIHANT R. SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PURSUANT TO THE EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 08.09.2016 AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS / TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER UNDER GENERAL MERIT PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED QUOTA AND INCLUDE HIS NAME IN THE FINAL SELECT LIST TO BE NOTIFIED IN THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.09.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

C.A.V. ORDER

¶25

In the captioned petition, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner under general merit physically handicapped quota and include his name in the final select list to be notified in the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer.

¶26

Petitioner is working as an assistant in respondent No.2/company for which he was recruited pursuant to the notification dated 7.3.2015 under the category of physically handicapped.

¶27

¶28

Respondents herein issued an employment notification dated 8.9.2016 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates for various posts including for Assistant Accounts Officer prescribing reservation and eligibility criteria. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the category of physically handicapped. Petitioner contends that though his name was notified and enlisted for having succeeded in the examination, however, his name was not found in the provisional selection list. Petitioner contends that he is an in-service physically handicapped candidate and in terms of medical parameters, petitioner has a disability beyond 75% and therefore, is eligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Petitioner contends that though he is physically handicapped and was considered for the post of Assistant, the respondent/Corporation was not justified in issuing

¶29

¶30

provisional selection list indicating that no eligible candidate is available.

¶31

Per contra, respondent/Corporation has filed statement of objections and has clearly refuted petitioner's claim. Respondent/Corporation on the contrary has placed reliance on the disability certificate dated 1.4.2013 issued in favour of the petitioner. Referring to the said documents, respondent/Corporation contends that petitioner's both legs and both arms are affected and therefore, this disability does not satisfy the prescribed criteria for the post of Accounts Officer. Respondent/Corporation contends that the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Corporation for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer depends upon the scope of work and duties to be discharged with respect to the corresponding post. The principal contention of the petitioner being eligible to the post of Assistant would also make him eligible for the post of Assistant Accounts officer

¶32

¶33

is seriously disputed. The respondent/Corporation claims

¶34

that this contention is wholly misconceived.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

parties. This Court has examined the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶37

It would be relevant for this Court to extract the

¶38

relevant portion of the recruitment notification, which reads as under:

¶39

SL. NO.	Name of the Post	Nature of Disability
7.	Assistant	a)Locomotor disability:
		One Leg (OL), One Arm (OA) BL (Both Legs) b) Hearing handicapped (HH) c) Blind (B), Low Vision (LV)

¶40

Upon examining the table referenced in

¶41

paragraph 8 of the recruitment notification, it becomes evident that only individuals with the specific types of

¶42

disabilities mentioned therein will be considered for selection under the Physically Handicapped (PH) quota. The detailed table, further clarified by a note, clearly indicates

¶43

¶44

that applicants with disabilities not listed in the notification will not be eligible for consideration. This specificity in the recruitment notification is crucial to ensure that the criteria for the PH quota are strictly adhered to, thereby avoiding ambiguity in the selection process.

¶45

As rightly contended by the

¶46

respondent/Corporation, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the PH quota. The disability certificate, evidenced in Annexure-A, explicitly states that the petitioner suffers from disabilities affecting both legs and both arms. However, this nature of disability does not align with the disabilities prescribed for the said post under the notification. This non-compliance with the eligibility criteria disqualifies the petitioner for selection under the PH category.

¶47

¶48

It is important to note that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer is not a promotional post but rather a direct recruitment position. Therefore, the petitioner, having applied for this position and participated in the selection process, cannot, at this stage, challenge the selection process itself. In Madras Institute of Development Studies v. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan¹ , the Supreme Court ruled that once a candidate participates in a selection process without any objection, they are estopped from challenging that process at a later stage unless there is a blatant violation of statutory provisions.

¶49

Moreover, the recruitment notification itself has not been contested in the present petition. The petitioner’s claims must, therefore, be considered within the bounds of the existing notification.

¶50

The mere fact that the petitioner was previously considered for the post of Assistant under the PH quota

¶51

1 AIR 2015 SC 3643

¶52

¶53

does not imply automatic eligibility for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Each post under the recruitment notification has its own specific eligibility criteria. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi² , the Supreme Court emphasized that eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be compromised or altered to favor an individual, and any appointment contrary to the prescribed criteria would be unsustainable in law. This ruling affirms that adherence to the criteria set forth in recruitment notifications is a fundamental principle of the selection process.

¶54

Thus, the petitioner’s prior appointment under a different post does not create an entitlement for subsequent recruitment to a position that has its own distinct eligibility requirements, as prescribed under the notification.

¶55

2 AIR 2006 SC 1806

¶56

¶57

The Supreme Court and several High Courts

¶58

have consistently held that a candidate who willingly participates in a selection process cannot later claim the right to employment contrary to the eligibility criteria set forth in the recruitment notification. In Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow³ , the Supreme Court observed that a candidate who takes a chance in the selection process, knowing the terms of the notification, cannot later turn around and challenge the validity of those terms.

¶59

In another landmark case, Union of India .vs. N. Chandrasekharan ,⁴ the Court held that an applicant who participates in the selection process without demur cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process once they fail to secure the position. This principle of estoppel has been reiterated in several judgments, ensuring that the integrity of the selection process is maintained.

¶60

3 AIR 1976 SC 2428

¶61

4 AIR 1998 SC 795

¶62

¶63

In light of the legal principles established by these judicial precedents, it is clear that the petitioner cannot claim eligibility for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer contrary to the prescribed criteria after having participated in the selection process. Consequently, the petitioner’s claim does not hold merit and must be rejected.

¶64

For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.

¶67

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶68

ALB

Anilkumar S B v. Karnataka Power Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar S B v. Karnataka Power Transmission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M S Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Farooq Aboushair Vs Smt. Shamsia Sultana

Dr Himamani S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt M P Kamala Poovanna W/O Late M B Poovanna Vs M B Nanjamma W/O Late Belliappa

Captain B v Subbanna Vs the State of Karnataka