Dismissed

Smt Chaitanya R M v. Karnataka Legislatie Aseembly Secreariat

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024WP/6136/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A candidate with MLISc qualification, not called for interview to librarian posts notified by the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, challenged the recruitment for lacking Article 371(J) reservation. The court dismissed the petition: having applied under General Merit without protest, she lacked locus to question the notification, and selected candidates were not impleaded.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Chaitanya R M Vs Karnataka Legislatie Aseembly… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:397 WP No. 6136 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6136 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.CHAITANYA R M W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDENT OF JALADARSHINI NILAYA HUDCO MAIN ROAD JALANAGAR BIJAPUR - 586 109

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.RANJAN RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.B.NO.5074 VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.A.S.HARISHA, AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:397 WP No. 6136 of 2018

¶19

RELEVANT RECORDS, DECLARE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTIFICATION AS PER ANNEXURE-B BY THE RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN, LIBRARY ASSISTANT JUNIOR LIBRARY ASSITANT, AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ALSO IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 371J OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This captioned writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs;

¶23

“(i) Declare the entire proceedings in pursuance to the notification bearing No.KaViSaSa/Ah-1/67/Vi.Hu.Ne.Ne.Bh/2017 as per Annexure-B by the respondent in so far as it relates to the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant, Junior Library Assistant, as arbitrary, illegal and void and also in violation of Article 371J of the

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:397 WP No. 6136 of 2018

¶26

Constitution of India, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for selection and appointment to any one of the post of Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant and Junior Library Assistant in pursuance to the notification bearing No.KaViSaSa/Ah-1/67/Vi.Hu.Ne.Ne.Bh/2017 as per Annexure-B dated 24.11.2017 and to pass appropriate suitable orders in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

(iii) Issue directions to the respondents to interview the petitioner to the post of Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant and Junior Library Assistant on the basis of her application so filed above and to consider her case among others for selection and appointment and on the basis of her percentage of 63.86% and in any one of the posts, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

(iv) Issue any other incidental and consequential relief’s as deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in aid of the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:397 WP No. 6136 of 2018

¶32

main relief sought for, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶33

The petitioner has secured qualification of

¶34

Master of Library and Information Science. The said qualification is secured after completing course of BA and two years of Bachelor of Library Science, which was in the nature of integrated course and called as Master of Library and Information Science. The respondent has invited applications to the several vacant posts of Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant and Junior Library Assistant vide Notification dated 24.11.2017 with similar qualification.

¶35

In response to the above said Notification

¶36

dated 24.11.2017, the petitioner has applied for all the three posts independently. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is eligible for the above said posts, however, respondent has not called for interview to the posts of Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant and Junior

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:397 WP No. 6136 of 2018

¶38

Library Assistant conducted on 31.01.2018 and

¶39

01.02.2018.

¶40

The captioned writ petition is filed by

¶41

contending that even though petitioner has secured 63.86% and is entitled for appointment under Article 371(J), the respondent has not called petitioner for interview and the impugned Notification is challenged on the ground that Notification does not contemplate benefit of reservation under Article 371(J). The impugned Notification is also questioned on the ground that though petitioner has secured 63.86% and was a meritorious candidate, the respondent has not called petitioner for interview on the basis of the percentage secured in the qualification examination. The candidates, who have secured much less percentage than the petitioner, have attended the interview and are recruited for the said posts. On these set of grounds, the captioned writ petition is filed.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:397 WP No. 6136 of 2018

¶44

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶45

petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the materials on record.

¶46

The captioned writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two counts. Firstly, petitioner having participated by applying for all the three posts cannot question the impugned Notification on the ground that Notification did not provide for reservation under Article 371(J). The petitioner having applied under General Merit Category cannot now turn back and claim reservation and contend that the Notification did not provide reservation under Article 371(J). As rightly pointed out by the learned HCGP, petitioner has not questioned the Notification and therefore, having participated by applying for all the three posts in the recruitment process, the petitioner has no locus to question the Notification on the ground that it does not provide reservation under Article 371(J).

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:397 WP No. 6136 of 2018

¶49

The issue raised in the instant petition is

¶50

covered and dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the latest judgment rendered in the case of TAJVIR SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS¹ . The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with an identical case, has held that the candidates, having taken part in selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that simply because result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process is unfair or that there are some lacuna in the process. Having participated in the General Category, the petitioner cannot question the notification on the ground that the Notification did not held reservation under Article 371(J).

¶51

1 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 253

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:397 WP No. 6136 of 2018

¶54

The second ground on which the captioned writ petition is liable to be dismissed is on account of nonarraying the selected candidates to the writ petition. The captioned writ petition is filed in the year 2018. The petitioner has not taken any steps to implead selected candidates and therefore, captioned writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count also.

¶55

For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of

¶56

the view that no indulgence is warranted to interfere with the proceedings in pursuance to the Notification vide Annexure-B at the hands of this Court. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following;

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Writ petition is dismissed.

¶59

(ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24