Dismissed

Harsha N v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/9202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's rejection of an application seeking to quash a final selection list for Veterinary Inspector and direct the petitioner's selection. The Court held that the Tribunal's order, excluding the petitioner who did not meet the merit cutoff, did not warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to select the petitioner; pending police complaints left open.

Harsha N Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 9202 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

HARSHA N. S/O SHIVAKUMAR N. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. NEELAGUNDA VILLAGE HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583 213

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES 1^ST FLOOR, PASHUPALANA BHAVAN CBI OFFICE OPPOSITE BELLARY ROAD, HEBBALA BENGALURU-560 024

¶16

THE JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES 1^ST FLOOR, PASHUPALANA BHAVAN CBI OFFICE OPPOSITE BELLARY ROAD, HEBBALA BENGALURU-560 024

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶18

SHASHIKANTH S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. NO.9-587/104/25 BASAVAKRUPA, NEW J.R. NAGAR BHADRI CHOWK, ALANDA ROAD KALABURAGI-585 101

¶19

SATIDEVI D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. SUTAARA, PLOT NO.09 SRINAGARA COLONY, JEWARGI ROAD KALABURAGI-585 102

¶20

SANDEEPA CHANNURA S/O SHARANAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. NO.225, BASAVESHWARA ROAD HATHNOOR, KALABURAGI-585 301

¶21

LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. NO.71/1/1/A TAKALI POST, SAARANGANOORA TALUK AFZALPURA, KALABURAGI-585 265

¶22

RAVICHANDRA G. S/O GURUSIDAPPA G. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT. HAGARI SEERANAHALLI HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK HAGARIGUDI HALLI POST BELLARY DISTRICT-583 127

¶23

BANAKAARA VIKASA S/O NAGENDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT. RAAMAGHATTA POST HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 125

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶25

HANUMANTHA NAIKA S/O HEMKA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT. H.NO.157 BAPUJI NAGAR THOGARIKATTE POST HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 125

¶26

SHANTHAKUMARI M.S. W/O PRAKASH H.N. KANAMDUGU POST KUDLIGI TALUK VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583 218

¶27

NAGARANI D/O SHARANU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. HONNA KIRANAGI POST KALABURAGI TALUK KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585 308

¶28

THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1, 2 & 12)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.4790/2022 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶33

No. AAPASAM/SIBBANDI-3(2)/VIVA-69/2020-21 DATED 16.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST AND 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A11 IN SO FAR AS RELATES TO THE RESPONDENTS No.8 TO 9 AND APPLICANT ARE CONCERNED AND ALSO ISSUE DIRECTION DIRECTING THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO SELECT THE APPLICANT FOR THE POST OF VETERINARY INSPECTOR AND INCLUDE HIS NAME IN APPROPRIATE PLACE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

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

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 12.

¶39

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by which his application has been rejected. The application was preferred by the applicant before the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶41

i. "ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the impugned order bearing No.AAPASAM/SIBBANDI3(2)/VIVA-69/2020-21 dated 16.05.2022 issued by the 1^st and 2^nd respondent Vide ANNEXURE-A11 in so far as relates to 'the respondents No.3 to 11 and applicant are concerned.

¶42

ii. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to select the applicant for the post of Veterinary Inspector and include his name in appropriate place with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and equity."

¶43

The Tribunal after considering the contentions advanced found that the contentions raised by the petitioner were devoid of merits and rejected the application.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner's name was included in the provisional list, prepared pursuant to a selection conducted for the post of Veterinary Assistant. It is submitted that the list had been prepared in accordance with the notification, the petitioner's name would have found a place in the final list. However, in the final list, the names

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶46

of respondent Nos.3 to 11 were included but the petitioner's name was excluded.

¶47

It is contended that the Government had placed a detailed objections on record before the Tribunal. It was specifically stated therein that the provisional list had been published calling for objections and it was after considering the objections that the list was revised and the final list had been issued. It is contended that petitioner's claim was under category 3B and that no person, who had less marks than the petitioner had been included in the final select list. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, after considering the objections raised by the candidates, who had participated in the selection, persons who had more marks than the petitioner had been included in the final list which lead to exclusion of the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the score obtained by the petitioner was admittedly 88.26% and that the persons included in the additional list under 3B reservation category had 92.96% marks. The cut off in the final of select list in 3B-Other

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶49

was 93.16% and 3B-Rural was 92.97%. It is submitted that even in the General Merit Category, no person who had lower marks than the petitioner has been included except where reservation for women is provided.

¶50

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the contentions of the petitioner before the Tribunal were to the effect that respondent Nos.3 to 6 were over aged since there was a notification dated 14.06.2021 extending the last date for submission of application from 14.08.2020 to 16.08.2021. It appears to have been contended that the said respondents were over aged as on 16.08.2021. However, the Tribunal noticed that the initial notification was issued on 26.06.2020 and

¶51

the last date prescribed was 14.08.2020. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 were within the age limit as on 14.08.2020. It further appears that the contention was given up by the petitioner at the time of hearing before the Tribunal. In

¶52

the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 to 6

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶54

were over aged cannot be accepted, since they were admittedly within the age limit as on 14.08.2020 which was the last date prescribed for submission of applications in accordance with the initial notification. The extension of time due to Covid-19 pandemic for submitting application cannot act to the detriment of persons, who were within the age limit as per the original notification.

¶55

Further at paragraph No.3 of the order, the Tribunal considers the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to respondent Nos.7 to 10. The contentions of the Government in the objections placed before the Tribunal have been considered and it is found that petitioner can have no claim as against the selections made since no person, who was lower in merit than the petitioner was included in the final select list in the relevant category.

¶56

Having considered the contentions advanced and the findings of the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the same, except to state that in case, the

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:35746-DB WP No. 9202 of 2024

¶59

petitioner had any contentions in the complaint preferred before the police by him, the same are left open. The writ

¶60

petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶61

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶62

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶63

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Harsha N v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsha N v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Loyalka Vs Zenith Credit Ltd.

Sri. Tuljansa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunatha T.R. Vs State of Karnataka

Dr B v Vasanth Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Janardhana Vs the Management of Elastrex Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Ramakka Vs Sri Seetharama Bhat