H S Manjunath vs The Karnataka State Road ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9954 Kant

                             1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                          PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

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

             W.A. NO.1423 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)
                           IN
             W.P.No.12744 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

H S MANJUNATH,
S/O SRI. SIDDAIAH H S,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.DF-21/B,
NEW COLONY, BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
                                        ... APPELLANT
(BY MR.NAIK V S, ADV.,)

AND:

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICES,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
                                         ... RESPONDENT
                           ---
     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 03.08.2021 IN WP
NO.12744/2021 (S-KSRTC) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW
WP 12744/2021 (S-KSRTC) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER FURTHER
RELIEFS
     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               2


                        JUDGMENT

Mr.Naik V.S, learned counsel for the appellant.

This intra Court appeal arises out of an order

dated 03.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge

by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant

has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the appellant joined the services

of National Mineral Development Corporation Limited

as Deputy Manager (Personnel) on 04.06.2014. The

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

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

issued an advertisement on 04.01.2017 by which the

applications were invited to fill up the vacant post of

Security and Vigilance Officer. The required

qualification for appointment to the post in question is

MSW with Criminology. The appellant has admittedly

passed MSW examination with Human Psychology

subject. The appellant applied for the aforesaid post

and was appointed by an order dated 19.05.2018.

Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 14.09.2018 was

issued to the appellant by which he was called upon

to show cause as to why his appointment be not

cancelled as he does not have the requisite

educational qualification to the post in question.

Thereafter, by an order dated 14.01.2019, the

appointment of the appellant to the post in question

was cancelled. The appellant challenged the aforesaid

order in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by

an order dated 03.08.2021, dismissed the writ petition

preferred by the appellant. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant had not given any false information

with regard to his educational qualification.

Therefore, Regulation 4(9) of the Karnataka State

Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment)

Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for

short) could not have been invoked against the

appellant.

4. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and have

perused the record. It is not in dispute that under

Regulation 3 of the Rules, a candidate has to pass

MSW with Criminology subject. It is also not in

dispute that the appellant does not have the requisite

qualification i.e. he has not passed MSW examination

with Criminology subject. However, it appears that

inadvertently, an order of appointment has been

issued in favour of the appellant on 19.05.2018.

However, when the aforesaid inadvertent error came

to the notice of the Corporation, a show cause notice

was issued to the appellant and thereafter, by an

order dated 14.01.2019, his appointment to the post

in question has been cancelled. The appellant

admittedly does not hold the requisite qualification for

the post in question. The Corporation has the power

to appoint and it implies that the Corporation also has

the power to cancel the appointment as well. The

aforesaid power has been exercised after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The learned

Single Judge has therefore rightly held that the order

neither suffers from any arbitrariness or malafides

which calls for any interference.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV