Dr. Manasa R .Kottadamane vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2960 Kant

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2021

                         PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                           AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

         WRIT PETITION NO.8130 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

DR. MANASA R. KOTTADAMANE
W/O SRI. ANUP Y.R.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.239, ISIRI, 6TH CROSS,
M.S. RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, NAGASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560073.
                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAVEENNATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    RESHMA K.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
        DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
        AND VETERINARY,
        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
        BANGALORE-560001.

2.      COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN,
        DEPARTMENT OF SELECTION COMMITTEE,
        OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
        ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
        VETERINARY SERVICES,
        2ND FLOOR, SIR. M. VISHVESHWARAIAH MINI TOWER,
        DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
                                  2




3.    JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) AND
      MEMBER SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF SELECTION COMMITTEE,
      OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
      ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES,
      2ND FLOOR, SIR. M.VISHVESHWARAIAH MINI TOWER,
      DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

4.    NARESH V.K.
      S/O KANTHARAJU M.V.
      AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
      RESIDING NEAR DEEPA HOTEL,
      B.D. ROAD, GANDHI CIRCLE,
      CHITRADURGA-577501.
                                                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY  SRI.  M.S.NAGARAJA,   ADVOCATE  FOR  CAVEATOR
RESPONDENT NO.4;
SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL DATED 01.10.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.6426/2017
VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 07.07.2021, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the correctness

of the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Karnataka

State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

'Tribunal' for short) at Bangalore in Application

No.6426/2017. The Tribunal directed the respondent No.2

herein to redo the selection for the post of Veterinary

Officer in so far as it related to the selection of the

petitioner and Sri. Mahantswamy under the category of

physically handicapped (Low Vision) in general merit and

to consider the candidature of respondent No.4 herein

under the physically handicapped (Hearing Impaired)

category under general merit.

2. The application filed before the Tribunal

discloses that the respondent No.2 issued a recruitment

notification dated 06.03.2017 inviting applications for 450

posts of veterinary officers and 100 backlog posts under

the special recruitment rules namely Karnataka Animal

Husbandry and Veterinary Services (Recruitment of

Veterinary officers) (Special) Rules, 2016. In so far as the

physically disabled category, 18 posts were reserved for

persons with physical disabilities in accordance with

Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)

Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1995', for

short). The respondent No.4 and the petitioner and others

also applied in the General merit pool as physically

disabled candidates. The petitioner and Sri. Mahantswamy

were selected under the physically handicapped (Low

Vision) category in General merit but the respondent No.4

was not selected. The respondent No.4 contended that

respondent No.2 had reserved more than the statutory 1%

post to persons suffering from low vision resulting in

deprival of opportunity to persons suffering from hearing

impairment. The respondent No.4 claimed that he was a

veterinary doctor and suffered from physical disability of

hearing impairment. He claimed that since out of the 6

posts set apart for General Merit, 4 posts were reserved

for candidates suffering from low vision and 2 posts for

Locomotor Disability. He, therefore, contended that in

terms of the Act of 1995, the reservation provided was not

in line with section 33 of the Act of 1995 and was thus

deprived of a chance to seek selection.

3. The Tribunal after considering the notification

and the interlocking reservation provided held that the

petitioner herein and Sri.Mahantswamy were selected in

excess of the quota reserved for the Physically

Handicapped (Low Vision) candidates, and therefore,

directed to redo the selection insofar as the petitioner and

Mahantswamy is concerned.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the

present writ petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that in terms of the recruitment notification, 6

posts were set apart for Handicapped candidates in the

general merit, out of 18 posts reserved for the physical

handicapped quota. He submitted that the Tribunal without

going into the reservation matrix in respect of the other

groups, held that the requirement of Section 33 of the Act

of 1995 was not complied. He further submitted that the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India vs. National Federation of the Blind

(Civil Appeal No.9096/2013) decided on 08.10.2013 is

not an authority regarding the interlocking reservation and

therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in blindly

applying the law. He submitted that out of 18 posts that

were reserved for Physically handicapped, 1/3rd had to be

reserved for candidates with Low Vision and the remaining

2/3 were to be reserved to the candidates who had

Locomotor Disability and Hearing Impairment. Therefore,

he submitted that since the number of candidates selected

in the Low Vision category did not exceed 6, the selection

of the petitioner should not be disturbed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.4 submitted that out of 6 posts for General

Merit, the percentage of reservation to each of the

disability had to be followed. It is pointed out from the

recruitment notification that the number of posts were

evenly distributed across all categories and while in the GM

category, the same was not followed. He, therefore,

submitted that the petitioner has to make way for the

respondent No.4.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that following the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar

Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and

Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785 the selection of the

petitioner should not be disturbed.

8. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties.

9. The Recruitment Notification indicates the

following reservation matrix:

«ÄøÀ¯ÁwUÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ PÁuÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¨ÁåPï MlÄÖ ªÀÄ.C. UÁæ.C ªÀiÁ.¸ÉÊ «±ÉõÀ PÀ.ªÀiÁ EvÀgÉ MlÄÖ ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt gÉÆøÀÖgï ¯ÁUï ZÉÃvÀ£ÀgÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝ ¥ÀæªÀUÀð- 17 - - 17 6 5 1 1 1 3 17 I ¥ÀæªÀUÀð- 62 - - 62 21 15 6 2 3 15 62 IIA ¥ÀæªÀUÀð- 17 5 - 22 8 5 2 1 1 5 22 IIB ¥ÀæªÀUÀð- 16 - - 16 6 5 1 1 1 2 16 IIIA ¥ÀæªÀUÀð- 20 - - 20 7 5 2 1 1 4 20 IIIB ¥À.eÁ. 63 - 67 130 41 34 12 5 4 34 130 ¥À.¥ÀA 13 - 8 21 9 6 1 1 0 4 21 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå 202 - - 202 67 50 20 6 10 49 202 CºÀðvÉ MlÄÖ 410 5 75 490 165 125 45 18 21 116 490

10. Section 33 of the Act of 1995 provides for

reservation of posts in every Establishment which shall not

be less than 3% for persons or class of persons with

disability of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons

suffering from (i) blindness or low vision (ii) hearing

impairment (iii) locomotor disiability or cerebral palsy.

However, Section 33 of the Act of 1995 does not define the

internal reservation in respect of persons with disabilities.

In the case on hand, out of 18 posts reserved for

physically disabled persons, 12 are reserved in category-I,

category-IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, Scheduled caste, Scheduled

Tribe, while 6 is set apart for General Merit. There is no

material placed by any of the parties as to the type of

disability provisioned in respect of those categories other

than General Merit.

11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, neither Section 33 of the Act of 1995 nor

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India vs. National Federation of the Blind

(supra) deal with inter locking reservation. Therefore, it

was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have first ascertained

the operation of the reservation for physically disabled

persons across all reserved categories and thereafter apply

the rule as provided under Section 33 of the Act of 1995.

The Tribunal on the contrary has merely applied the

provision of Section 33 of the Act of 1995 and held that

the reservation worked out is bad. Since the reservation

of 1% to each of the disabled category has to be computed

on the basis of total strength of cadre and not based on

the internal reservation, the judgment of the Tribunal

deserves to be interfered with. Even otherwise, the

petitioner was selected on the basis of a wrong application

of the reservation. Consequently, the fact situation which

prevailed in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) is

also prevalent in the present case.

12. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is

allowed in part. The case is remitted back to the Tribunal

to first ascertain the internal reservation provided in the

recruitment notification insofar as physically disabled

persons are concerned and to ascertain whether the

reservation provided to the three categories of physically

disabled persons, as provided under Section 33 of the Act

of 1995 is adhered to. If the reservation to each of the

categories of disabled persons is complied with, then the

selection of the petitioner would be saved. However, if the

reservation granted to persons with low vision is in excess

than the percentage prescribed, then the petitioner would

have to make way for the respondent No.4. The Tribunal

is directed to dispose of the application within an outer

limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified

copy of the order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/-