Mr.Mahesh vs The Karnataka Power Transmission ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8280 Kant

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

             W.A. NO.920 OF 2021 (S-RES)
                          IN
             W.P.No.54484 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:

MR. MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O MR. KUMAR
MYDANAHALLY VILLAGE
HUSENPURA POST, BILIKERE HOBLI
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571103.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADV.,)

AND:

1.      THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
        CORPORATION LIMITED
        REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
        (ADMINISTRATION)
        ID NO.(CIN) U40109KA1999GC025521
        KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
        BENGALURU-560 009.

2.      THE DIRECTOR
        (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE)
        CORPORATE OFFICE, KPTCL
        KAVERI BHAVAN, KG ROAD
        BENGALURU-560 009.
                              2



3.    CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
      SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
      REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
      A AND HR CORPORATE OFFICE
      NO.29 VIJAY NAGARA II STAGE
      HINKAL, MYSURU - 570017.

                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S. SRIRANGA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
  MRS. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV.,)
                            ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.54484/2017 (S-RES) DATED 13.07.2021.
ALLOW THE PETITION NO.54484/2017 (S-RES) FILED BY THE
APPELLANT HEREIN ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HONBLE COURT, AS PRAYED FOR.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

Mr.B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr.S.Sriranga, learned Senior counsel for the

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 13.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking

quashment of revised list for selection to the post of

Assistant, has been dismissed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal in a nutshell are

that the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) invited

applications on 08.09.2016 for filling up various posts

including the post of Assistant. The appellant, in response to

the aforesaid notification, submitted his application for the

post of Assistant on 16.09.2016. Thereafter, written

examination for the first batch was held on 11.07.2017 in

which the appellant participated. Thereupon, a notification

was issued on 14.07.2017 by which the objections were

invited to the questions and key answers and such objections

were to be submitted on or before 27.07.2017. After expiry

of the cut off date i.e. 27.07.2017, the Corporation published

the final key answers on 23.08.2017 as well as final list in

the ratio of 1:2 in which the appellant was placed at

Sl.No.20.

3. However, revised final list was published on

13.11.2017 on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates

after the revision of answer to the questions and the

appellant was shown at Sl.No.33. The appellant thereafter

submitted a representation to consider his candidature by

revaluating his answers. The appellant thereupon filed a writ

petition challenging the revised list which was issued by the

Corporation. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated

22.01.2018, directed that any appointment made to the post

of Assistant shall be subject to the outcome of the writ

petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the

Corporation published a provisional selection list on

16.03.2018. By way of amendment, the appellant also

assailed the validity of the aforesaid list.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, two of the

candidates who were selected as Assistant had voluntarily

tendered their resignation from the post of Assistant. The

appellant thereupon made a prayer before the learned Single

Judge that he be accommodated for the aforesaid vacant

post. The learned Single Judge granted an ad interim order

on 22.04.2019 by which it was directed that no fresh

appointment shall be made in view of the resignation

tendered by the aforesaid two candidates. The learned

Single Judge, however by an order dated 13.07.2021,

dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant has not been assigned marks for question No.22

and a candidate namely Parmesha B. who was placed below

the appellant in the revised selection list i.e. at Sl.No.34, was

given appointment. It is also submitted that since a post has

fallen vacant as one candidate namely Parmesha B. who was

placed below the appellant in the revised selection list i.e.

Sl.No.34, has resigned, therefore, the appellant is entitled to

seek appointment on the post in question. In support of

aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on order

dated 27.02.2003 in W.P.No.27251/1998.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the

respondent while inviting the attention of this Court to the

affidavit sworn in by the Director, Administration and Human

Resources dated 01.08.2019, has submitted that the marks

were assigned to the appellant in respect of question No.22.

It is further submitted that the appellant as well as the

candidate who was placed in Sl.No.34 of the revised select

list, had obtained the same marks. However, the candidate

mentioned in Sl.No.34 namely Parmesha B. was given

preference in the matter of selection as he was elder in age.

It is also submitted that the appellant's name was included in

the revised list which remained in operation only for a period

of one year and has expired. Therefore, the appellant has no

statutory right to claim the appointment. It is also submitted

that under Regulation 3(c)(iv) of the Karnataka Electricity

Board Recruitment and Promotions Regulations, Employees

(Probation) Regulations and Employees (Seniority)

Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for

short), the Corporation is required to notify the vacancies

and the same cannot be filled up. In support of aforesaid

submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the

Supreme Court in 'VALLAMPATI SATHISH BABU Vs.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS' 2022 SCC

ONLINE SC 470.

7. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record. The issue with regard to

filling up any vacancy in case any candidate selected for

appointment does not join, has to be determined with

reference to the statutory rules. In the instant case, the

recruitment was in accordance with the Regulations.

Regulation 3(c)(iv) of the Regulations reads as under:

(iv) The Recruiting Authority shall in accordance with the provisions of (c)(iii) above also prepare a reserve list of names of candidates not included in the list prepared under (c)(iii) above in which the number of candidates to be included shall be 50% (fifty percent) of the number of vacancies notified, and may be operated within a period of one year from the date of approval of the main list or till the next recruitment whichever is earlier.

Thus, it is evident that the waiting list may be operated

within a period of one year from the date of approval of main

list or till the next recruitment, whichever is earlier. In the

instant case, revised main list was published on 13.11.2017.

The aforesaid revised main list was not stayed by this Court.

Therefore, the waiting list could be operated up to

13.11.2018. After expiry of one year from the date of

publication of the revised main list, the appellant who was

included in the waiting list, did not have any right to seek

appointment.

8. The grievance of the petitioner that he has not been

assigned marks in respect of question No.22 is concerned,

suffice it to say that from the affidavit sworn in by the

Director, Administration and Human Resources, it is evident

that the appellant has been awarded marks in respect of

question No.22. The appointment to the post which has

fallen vacant subsequent to the completion of process,

cannot be made de hors the procedure contained in the

Regulations. Under none of the Regulations, the appellant is

entitled to seek appointment after expiry of period of one

year. Therefore, the contention that the appellant should be

appointed on the post of Assistant on account of the vacancy

which has been caused subsequently, does not deserve

acceptance.

9. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant as well

as candidate who was included at Sl.No.34 namely Parmesha

B., have obtained same marks in the examination and

therefore, candidate at Sl.No.34 namely Parmesha B. was

given appointment being elder in age. The fact that the

appellant and aforesaid Parmesha B had secured similar

marks has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the

appellant.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV