Dismissed

The Karnataka Examination Authority v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024WP/8125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recruitment to Assistant Professor (Physics) reserved for multiple disabilities. Tribunal directed selection of the higher-ranked multiple-disability applicant since the application form lacked a multiple-disability option. High Court upheld, holding the more meritorious candidate could not suffer for the selecting authority's omission, and dismissed both writ petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Karnataka Examination Authority Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.8125 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) C/W. WRIT PETITION NO.28967 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶8

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8125 OF 2024:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MALLESHWARAM, 18^TH CROSS BENGALURU-560 012

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SHRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

2 . COLLEGIATE EDUCATION FOR GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGES REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

3 . LOKESH A.J. AGE: 40 YEARS S/O JAVAREGOWDA

¶18

¶19

¶20

R/AT D KALENAHALLI ROAD CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN-573 116

¶21

4 . RAVITHEJA G. S/O GURUMURTHY S.K. AGE: 30 YEARS R/AT.156/5, ITI ROAD OLD GRAM PANCHAYAT ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR THAVARAGHATTA VILLAGE SHANKARAGHATTA, SHIMOGGA-577 451

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. BOLA VEDAVYAS SHENOY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO PASSING OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.1316/2023 AS PER (ANNEXURE-A) ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶25

IN WRIT PETITION NO.28967 OF 2023:

¶26

BEWEEN:

¶27

LOKESH A.J. REGISTRATION NO.U 4860 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O JAVAREGOWDA R/AT D KALENAHALLI ROAD CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN-573 116

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING, 6^TH FLOOR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001

¶34

2 . KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY (KEA) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003

¶35

3 . COLLEGIATE EDUCATION FOR GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGES REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶36

4 . RAVITHEJA G. S/O GURUMURTHY S.K. APPLICATION NO.AP506145A1 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 156/5, ITI ROAD OLD GRAM PANCHAYAT ROAD KUVEMPUNAGARA THAVARAGHATTA VILLAGE SHANKARAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 451

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. BOLA VEDAVYAS SHENOY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.11.2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.1316/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶40

¶41

¶42

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 02.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

CAV JUDGMENT

¶44

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶45

These writ petitions arise from an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in Application No.1316/2023 rendered on 23.11.2023.

¶46

The application was filed by the fourth respondent in these writ petitions. He had challenged Annexure-A10, final selection list of Assistant Professor in Physics, dated 03.03.2023, insofar as (GM-PH-M)/GMM seat was concerned. A further prayer was made for a direction to consider the applicant against (GM-PH-M)/GMM category and to appoint him on the basis of his marks.

¶47

It was resisted by the State as well as the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) and the petitioner in W.P.No.28967/2023, who was the fourth respondent in the application.

¶48

¶49

¶50

The Tribunal considered the contentions advanced and found that the post in question was reserved for a person with multiple disabilities and that since the applicant was a person with multiple disabilities who had a much higher score than the selected candidate, he was required to be appointed. The final selection list insofar as it selected the fourth respondent in the application was set aside and the applicant was directed to be selected.

¶51

The writ petitions are filed alleging that the findings

¶52

of the Tribunal were prima facie incorrect. It is contended that the final merit list was published on 10.09.2022 and that the document verification was conducted from 09.11.2022 till 20.12.2022 and the verified list of the candidates was published on 25.01.2023. It is contended that the applicant had admittedly produced a Certificate showing multiple disabilities as well as low vision but had not ticked the appropriate box in the online application form for multiple disabilities. The petitioner in W.P.No.28967/2023 contended that the post was specifically reserved for multiple disabilities going by the roster provided and that the mere fact that the applicant had a better ranking would make no difference in

¶53

¶54

¶55

view of the fact that he had incorrectly ticked the boxes in the application.

¶56

Heard learned counsel appearing on all the sides. We have also directed the selection agency to get specific instructions as to the nature of disabilities in the application form, which could be ticked by the applicants. The KEA has provided specific instructions that only four options were available in the application form and there was no option given for multiple disabilities.

¶57

Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, provides that the appropriate Government shall identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 34. Section 34 provides five kinds of benchmark disabilities and provides for reservation of four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts for persons with benchmark disabilities. One percent of such vacancies is to be filled up from persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e). Clause (e) reads as follows:-

¶58

¶59

¶60

"(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:

¶61

Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time:

¶62

Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section."

¶63

We notice that the applicant/fourth respondent

¶64

herein is a person who had scored 180.5 and was included at Serial No.26 is the merit list. It is an admitted fact that the vacancy available for persons with disabilities in the subject concerned was reserved for persons with multiple disabilities.

¶65

The fourth respondent herein as well as the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.28967/2023 are persons with multiple disabilities. The fourth respondent was ranked much higher in the list. It has

¶66

¶67

¶68

come to our notice that in the absence of an appropriate column provided for multiple disabilities; both the candidates had ticked locomotor as well as intellectual disability. In the above circumstances, it is not known on what basis the person who had a lower rank could have been selected.

¶69

In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the applicant before the Tribunal, who suffers from 63% disability and is certified to be suffering from multiple disabilities to an extent of 60% and who had secured much higher marks than the selected candidate was prevented from ticking the right box of multiple disability in the application form only due to the fact that such box was not provided in the application form. The more meritorious candidate therefore, obviously cannot be made to suffer on account of the failure on the part of selecting authority to provide the proper option in the application form. In the absence of a proper option provided, the applicant as well as the petitioner in W.P.No.28967/2023 had ticked two disabilities which they thought would answer the multiple disabilities as suffered by them. While rejecting the candidature of the applicant, who was a much more meritorious candidate, the selecting

¶70

¶71

¶72

authority has accepted the candidature of the petitioner in W.P.No.28967/2023, who had also admittedly ticked the very same disabilities as has been done by the applicant. These aspects are clear from the Performa of the application and the completed applications of the candidates which are produced by the examining authority before us.

¶73

In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal and the directions contained therein do not require any interference since the more meritorious candidate, who suffers from multiple disabilities is indeed entitled to selection in preference to a less meritorious candidate.

¶74

The writ petitions therefore fail and the same are accordingly dismissed .

¶75

Pending I.A.No.3/2024 for vacating stay in

¶76

W.P.No.8125/2024 is hereby dismissed.

¶77

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶78

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶79

cp*

The Karnataka Examination Authority v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Karnataka Examination Authority v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri K G Hanumanthaiah, Vs Sri Yogesh

Smt. C. a. Damanyanthi Vs the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka

Ramachandran v Vs Union of India

S M Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Shivaprasad B S

The Government Tool Room and Training Centre Vs M/S Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Ltd.