Karnataka High Court
Sri.Maddeppa S/O Madiwalappa ... vs The Karnataka Power Transmission on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION No.101829/2020 (S-RES)
C/W W.P.Nos.101828/2020 AND 148566/2020
IN W.P.NO.101829/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. DADAKALAND AR,
S/O BABUSAB DOD AWAD,
AGE: 34 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAKKUND, T Q: BAILHON GAL,
DIST: BELA GAVI - 590003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISS ION
CORPORATION LIM ITED,
REPRES ENATED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATION OF FICE, KAVERI BHA VAN,
BENGALURU - 560009.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCE
CORPORATE OFFI CE,
KAVERI BHAVAN ,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE MANAGING DI RECTOR,
OFFICE & MAINTENANCE,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICILY SUPPLY COM PANY,
2
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580025.
4. ADYAKSHARU,
KIRIYA MARGAKARMI HUDDEGA L
NEMAKATIYA VRUTTA / ZILLA MATTA DA
PARISHOD HANA S AMITI MATTU
ADHIKSHAKA ENGI NEER,
(VIDYUT) KARYA
MATTU PALANE, V RUTTA,
HESCOM , BELAGA VI- 590001.
5. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATI ON
EXAMINATION BOA RD,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU- 560003.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI B. S . KAMATE, ADV OCATE F OR R1-R3)
(SRI. V . S . KALAS URMATH, HCGP FOR R2 & R5)
(NOTICE T O R4 S ERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITI ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A ND
227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
REJECTION OF THE CANDIDATESHIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR
APPOINTMENT OF THE JUNIOR POW ERMAN VIDE ANNEXURE-K
DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.
IN WP 101828/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. MADEPPA ,
S/O MADIWALAPPA BENAKATTI,
AGE: 32 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAKKUND, T Q: BAILHON GAL,
DIST: BELA GAVI - 590003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISS ION
CORPORATION LIM ITED,
3
REPRES ENATED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATION OF FICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN ,
BENGALURU - 560009.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCE
CORPORATE OFFI CE, KAVERI BHAVA N,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE MANAGING DI RECTOR,
OFFICE & MAINTENANCE,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICILY SUPPLY COM PANY,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580025.
4. ADYAKSHARU,
KIRIYA MARGAKARMI HUDDEGA L
NEMAKATIYA VRUTTA / ZILLA MATTA DA
PARISHOD HANA S AMITI MATTU
ADHIKSHAKA ENGI NEER, (VIDYUT) K ARYA
MATTU PALANE, V RUTTA,
HESCOM , BELAGA VI- 590001.
5. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATI ON
EXAMINATION BOA RD,
MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU- 560003.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI B. S . KAMATE, ADV OCATE F OR R1-R3)
(NOTICE T O R4 & R5 S ERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITI ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A ND
227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDI A PRAYING T O QUASH THE
REJECTION OF THE CANDIDATESHIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR
APPOINTMENT OF THE JUNIOR POW ERMAN VIDE ANNEXURE-K
DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.
4
IN WP 148566/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MADEPPA ,
S/O MADIWALAPPA BENAKATTI,
AGE: 32 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAKKUND, T Q: BAILHON GAL,
DIST: BELA GAVI - 590003.
2. SRI. DADAKALAND AR,
S/O BABUSAB DOD AWAD,
AGE: 34 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VAKKUND, T Q: BAILHON GAL,
DIST: BELA GAVI - 590003.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE GOV ERNMENT OF KARNAT AKA,
R/BY THE S ECRET ARY,
DEPART OF POWER AND EN ERGY,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETA RIAT
3 R D F LOOR, VIKAS A SOUD HA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISS ION
CORPORATION LIM ITED,
REPRES ENATED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATION OF FICE, KAVERI BHA VAN,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCE
CORPORATE OFFI CE, KAVERI BHAVA N,
BENGALURU - 560009.
4. THE MANAGING DI RECTOR,
OFFICE & MAINTENANCE,
HUBBALLI ELECTRICILY SUPPLY COM PANY,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580025.
5
5. ADYAKSHARU,
KIRIYA MARGAKARMI HUDDEGA L
NEMAKATIYA VRUTTA / ZILLA MATTA DA
PARISHOD HANA S AMITI MATTU
ADHIKSHAKA ENGI NEER,
(VIDYUT) KARYA
MATTU PALANE, V RUTTA,
HESCOM , BELAGA VI- 590001.
6. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATI ON
EXAMINATION BOA RD,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU- 560003.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI B. S . KAMATE, ADV OCATE F OR R2-R5)
(SRI. V . S . KALAS URMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R6)
THIS WRIT PETITI ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A ND
227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDI A PRAYING TO A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING RES PONDENT NO.2 TO INSERT
WORD AS EQUIVA LENT TO EXAMINA TION (QUALIFI CAT ION) IN
THE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION REGULATIONS EMPLOYEES
(PROBATI ON), REGULATIONS AND EMPLOYEES (SENIORITY)
(AMEDNEMENT) REGULATIONS 2014AT SL.N O.8 AFT ER THE
WORD 10 T H STA NDARD VIDE ANNEXURE-L AS PER THE
ENDORSEMENT A ND NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE STATE
GOVERNEMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.06.2021, THIS D AY, THE
COURT , PRONOUN CED THE F OLLOWI NG:
6
ORDER
Since subject matter of these writ petitions is
selection to post of Junior Lineman in second respondent
authority, in pursuance of employment notification dated
25.02.2019, they were clubbed together, heard and are
disposed of.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Maddeppa
Madivalappa Benakatti filed W.P.No.101828/2020 stating
that he had applied for selection to post of Junior Lineman
in pursuance of employment notification dated 25.02.2019
(Annexure-F) issued by second respondent. That essential
educational qualification for post was pass in SSLC or 10 t h
Std. from Karnataka State. The notification provided for
reservation for Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes as well as reservation for
Physically handicapped persons among others.
3. Petitioner had passed Karnataka Open School
Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'KOSE' for short)
conducted by Karnataka Secondary Education Examination
Board (hereinafter referred to as 'KSEEB' for short). He
belonged to 'Kuruba' caste falling under Category II-A. He
was also suffering from hearing impairment to the extent
of 55%. Therefore, he claimed reservation under Category
II-A (Physically handicapped).
4. Likewise, Dadakalandar Babusab Dodawad filed
W.P.No.101829/2020, stating that he had also passed
KOSE examination, belonged to 'Mohmedan' caste falling
under category II-B and was suffering from hearing
impairment of 55%. Therefore, he claimed reservation
under Category II-B (Physically handicapped).
5. After fixation of cut-off percentage, both
petitioners were found to be above cut-off. In short-list of
candidates (in ratio of 1:5) published, name of petitioner
Maddeppa Benakatti was at Sl.No.1901, while
Dadakalandar Dodawad was at Sl.No.1984. They were
called for document verification and endurance test.
6. During verification, they were found to be
ineligible for selection as they had passed KOSE
examination, which was not recognized by KPTCL as
equivalent to SSLC examination conducted by KSEEB.
Endorsements dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure-K) were
issued to them by fourth respondent for rejecting their
candidature. Reasons stated were:
1. Candidate had passed S.S.L.C.
Examination in Open School.
2. Failed to produce physically handicap
certificate in required form.
7. Challenging endorsements on the ground that
rejection of candidature was contrary to Government
Order dated 06.09.2006 (Annexure-L) issued by State
Government declaring that 10 t h Std. examination
conducted by JSS Karnataka Open University, Mysuru was
equivalent to SSLC Examination conducted by KSEEB upon
compliance of conditions notified therein. They also
contended that State Government had issued G.O. dated
05.03.2018 declaring that certificates and marks cards
issued by Karnataka State Open University, prior to
withdrawal of recognition to open universities by
Universities Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as
'UGC' for short), to be considered for purposes of further
education, appointment and promotion.
8. Writ petitions were opposed by KPTCL by filing
statement of objections contending that as per conditions
stipulated in employment notification only candidates who
had passed SSLC examination or 10 t h Std. examination
from educational institutions in Karnataka were eligible to
apply. Notification specifically barred candidates who had
passed 10 t h Std. (bridge course) or SSLC from Open
University or as an external candidate. Therefore,
petitioners were ineligible. It was also stated that
recruitment was governed by Recruitment Rules and
Regulations of Corporation and conditions mentioned in
employment notification. As petitioners did not confirm to
said stipulations, rejection of their candidature was
justified. It was also stated that question of equivalence
of educational qualification was in domain of employer and
could not be declared by Courts.
9. In said writ petitions, petitioners filed
I.A.no.1/2020 seeking for amendment of writ petition for
seeking additional prayer to challenge clause-8 of
notification dated 25.02.2019, contending that several
departments of State and statutory authorities had
accepted pass in KOSE as equivalent to SSLC, therefore
bar against such candidates in notification was illegal.
Copies of employment notifications issued during years
2018, 2019 and 2020 for recruitment in judicial services
and notifications issued by NEKRTC, Karnataka State Fire
and Emergency Services and Police Department are
produced. Copy of Circular dated 27.02.2018 issued by
Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms
clarifying that Secondary Education Level Course
conducted by KSEEB as equivalent to SSLC was also
produced.
10. Amendment sought for was opposed by KPTCL
on the ground that conditions in recruitment notification
were in consonance with recruitment Rules and
Regulations applicable to post. It was contended that said
regulations were amended by notification dated
09.08.2016 deleting the words 'equivalent qualification' in
regulation justifying the bar contained in employment
notification.
11. Challenging notification dated 31.12.2014
issued by KPTCL amending Karnataka Electricity Board
Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, both petitioners
joined together and filed W.P.148566/2020.
12. Main ground of challenge to regulations is that
it was discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles
14, 15, 16 and 19(g) of the Constitution of India.
13. Sri. S.L. Matti, learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that petitioners passed KOSE conducted by
KSEEB, which was equivalent to SSLC, as mentioned in
the marks-cards issued by KSEEB. Further, they were
testing for hearing impairment assessed at 55%. As per
their merit, they were notified in short-list and issued
with call letters for document verification and endurance
tests.
14. Though they were duly qualified, during
verification, their candidature was rejected on the ground
that their educational qualification did not confirm to
notified standards. Learned counsel submitted that KOSE
conducted by KSEEB was notified as equivalent by the
Government by issuing G.O. dated 06.09.2006. Even in
G.O. dated 05.03.2018, it was clarified that degrees and
certificates issued by Open Universities prior to
withdrawal of recognition granted to them by the UGC in
the year 2015 would be considered for purposes of higher
education, appointment and promotion. Such being case,
regulations framed for recruitment by KPTCL were
arbitrarily and discriminatory. It was also submitted that
conditions contained in employment notification dated
25.02.2019 barring candidates who had passed KOSE was
arbitrary and unconstitutional and sought for quashing the
same.
15. In support of his submission, learned counsel
relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Prakash Chand Meena and others Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484.
16. On the other hand, Sri. B.S. Kamate, learned
counsel for respondent - KPTCL submitted that
recruitment to notified post were governed by Karnataka
Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations,
Employees (Probation) Regulations (hereinafter referred
to as 'KEB Regulations' for short) and therefore,
Government Orders or Karnataka Civil Services (General)
Recruitment Rules, 1957 would not apply. Employment
notification dated 25.02.2019 clearly mentioned in clause
- 8 that educational qualification prescribed was SSLC or
10 t h Std. from Karnataka State, followed by a note
clarifying that no other equivalent qualification would be
considered namely candidates who had passed 10 t h Std.
(bridge course) or SSLC from Open University or as an
external candidate. It was further contended that before
filing these writ petitions, petitioners had participated in
recruitment process and only after failing to secure
employment had approached Court challenging notification
on spacious grounds. Amendment sought as well as
subsequent writ petition filed challenging amendment to
regulation was belated and when recruitment process was
almost completed. It was submitted that disrupting
recruitment process at this stage, would cause prejudice
to large number of applicants who had participated in
same. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Sanjay Kumar Manjul Vs. Chairman, UPSC and
others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 42, learned counsel
submitted that statutory authority was entitled to frame
rules laying down terms and conditions of service and also
qualifications necessary for particular post. It was
submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that
jurisdiction of superior courts would not extend to
supplant or supplement rules but would be limited to
interpreting same and ordinarily jurisdiction under Article
226 or 32 of Constitution of India did not permit issuance
of direction to an employer to prescribe a qualification for
holding a particular post.
17. Learned counsel also relied upon decision of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director
(Admin & HR) KPTCL and others Vs. Mohamad
Hanisab in W.A. No.100238/2019 and connected
matters disposed of on 22.07.2019 wherein Division
Bench set aside order of learned Single Judge interfering
with recruitment process on the ground that prescription
of educational required for posts in statutory authority
was within exclusive jurisdiction of authority by referring
to Sanjaykumar Manjul's case (supra).
18. Reliance was also placed on decision of learned
Single Judge in case of Shrishail Nayikar and another
Vs. KPTCL and another in W.P.101730-731/2016 and
connected matters disposed of on 31.01.2017 wherein
rejection of candidature of applicants who had passed 10 t h
Std. from KOSE was upheld referring to decision in
Sanjay Kumar Manjul's case (supra). Reference was also
made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Maharshtra Public Service Commission through its
Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others
reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362 wherein in paragraph
no.10 it was held as follows:
"10. The esse ntial qualificatio ns fo r
appo intment to a post are fo r the employer to
decide . The emplo yer may prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications , including any grant of
prefe rence . I t is the emplo yer who is best suite d
to decide the re quirements a candidate must
possess according to the needs of the employe r
and the nature o f work. T he court cannot lay
down the conditio ns of eligibility, much less can
it delve into the issue with regard to desirable
qualifications be ing at par with the essential
eligibility by an interpre tive re writing of the
adve rtisement. Questions of equivalence will also
fall outside the domain of judicial revie w. If the
language of the advertisement and the rules are
clear, the Court canno t sit in judgment over the
same. If there is an ambiguity in the
adve rtisement o r it is contrary to any rules or
law the matte r has to go back to the appointing
authority afte r appropriate o rde rs , to proceed in
accordance with law. I n no case can the Court, in
the garb of j udicial re view, sit in the chair o f the
appo inting authority to de cide what is best for
the emplo yer and inte rpret the co nditio ns o f the
adve rtisement co ntrary to the plain language of
the same."
19. Relying upon Division Bench decision in case of
South Western Railway through CPO and another Vs.
Fakruddin Baba Sahib and others in
W.P.No.67479/2011 disposed of on 18.02.2015 to
contend that petitioners having participated in selection
process knowing fully well about prescribed educational
qualification could not after being unsuccessful, challenge
same. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for
dismissal of writ petitions.
20. Undisputed facts are that petitioners have
passed 10 t h Std. in KOSE equivalent to SSLC examination
conducted by KSEEB. The educational qualification
prescribed for selection to post of Junior Lineman in
impugned notification dated 25.02.2019 are SSLC or 10 t h
Std. from Karnataka State, followed by note stating that
other equivalent qualification namely 10 t h Std. (bridge
course) or SSLC from Open University or as an external
candidate would not be considered.
21. The fact that petitioners belong to category II-A
and II-B is not in dispute. The fact that petitioners were
within zone of consideration as their names in short-list of
candidate is also not in dispute. Their candidature is
rejected at stage of verification on two reasons namely
that their educational qualification i.e., pass in KOSE was
not recognised educational qualification and failure to
produce physically handicap certificate in prescribed form.
22. The Petitioners are not only challenging
endorsements issued to them rejecting their candidature,
they are also seeking to challenge, clause no.8 of the
notification containing bar against Open School candidates
from applying. Petitioners are also seeking for directions
for amending the KEB regulations by seeking for insertion
of eligibility of equivalent educational qualification for
posts of junior lineman.
23. It is not in dispute that several departments of
State Government as well as other authorities have
accepted equivalence of KOSE to SSLC.
24. But before consideration of validity of bar
against candidates passing KOSE from applying for
selection to posts in KPTCL, it is first required to be
considered whether petitioners are entitled to challenge
the notification and regulations.
25. It is settled principle of Service Law that
prescription of education qualification was within exclusive
domain of employer. The employer would be best suited to
decide requirements considering nature of work.
26. The specific prayer sought in I.A.No.1/2020 in
W.P.Nos.101828/2020 and 101829/2020 is for quashing
relevant portion of clause - 8 of notification dated
25.02.2019 (Annexure-F) to the extent "equivalent
educational qualification would not be considered".
27. In W.P.No.148566/2020, prayer sought is for
issuance of a direction to respondent no.2 to insert words
"equivalent educational qualification" in KEB Recruitment
and Promotion Regulations Employees (Probation)
Regulations and Employees (Seniority) (Amendment)
Regulations, 2014 at Sl.No.8 after the words "10 t h Std.",
in Annexure-L - Notification.
28. In Sanjay Kumar Manjul's case (supra),
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction of
superior Courts would not extend to supplant or
supplement rules but limited to interpreting same and
ordinarily jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of
Constitution of India would not permit issuance of
direction to employer to prescribe a qualification for
holding a particular post.
29. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep
Shriram Warade's case (supra) has further held that
questions of equivalence would fall outside domain of
judicial review.
30. Admittedly, recognition of Open Universities has
been cancelled by UGC due to rampant irregularities.
Taking note of above, KPTCL amended KEB Regulations
barring candidates from Open Universities to participate in
selection process. There is prima-facie justification for the
Regulations. Moreover, it is settled law that the
constitutional validity of any statute, rules or regulations
is to be presumed until declaration of invalidity. [Refer
Mohamad Hanif Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar reported
in AIR 1958 SC 731; A.C. Aggarwal Vs. Mst. Ramkali
reported in AIR 1968 SC 1; People's Union for Civil
Liberties Vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 2 SCC
476].
31. In the case on hand, there is no proper
challenge to regulations, despite contentions urged about
their invalidity as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of
the Constitution of India. Though it was submitted by
learned counsel for petitioners that this Court had ample
powers to mould the relief, Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Bihar and another Vs. Dr. Radha Krishna Jha
and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 308 has held that
in absence of specific prayer, general direction cannot be
issued. Further in State of A.P. Vs. K. Jayaraman,
reported in 1974 (2) SCC 738, it is held that High Court
cannot decide constitutional validity of an act or rule suo-
motu. In paragraph no.3 its observations are as follows:
"3. ... ... The petitione rs had only prayed fo r
the quashing o f the GO No. 929 of N ovember 29,
1971 of the Health and Municipal Department
fixing the gradation of the pe titioners vis-a-vis
other emplo yees. They had no t prayed for any
declaration of invalidity of the AT A Rules. The
question of its validity wo uld have affected a
number of perso ns who we re no t befo re the
Court."
Therefore, the need for specific prayers in service
matters cannot be over emphasized.
32. But the basic issue that arises in these writ
petitions is whether petitioners are entitled to challenge
selection process after having participated in it after
finding themselves unsuccessful.
33. Admittedly, petitioners herein participated in
selection process knowing fully well about the conditions
and prescription for selection, without demure. Only after
being unsuccessful and suffering rejection of their
candidature, they filed writ petition initially challenging
validity of endorsement. Only after filing of statement of
objections, justifying endorsement in terms of conditions
stipulated in employment notification, petitioners have
sought amendment of writ petition to include challenge to
conditions in notification.
34. It is noted that Employment notification in
question was issued on 25.02.2019. Impugned
endorsements were issued on 26.12.2019. Writ petitions
W.P.No.101828/2020 and 101829/2020 were filed on
02.01.2020. Statement of objections was filed on
04.08.2020 after serving copy on petitioners on
29.07.2020. I.A.No.1/2020 for amendment of writ petition
is filed on 03.08.2020. Thereafter, W.P.No.148566/2020 is
filed on 15.10.2020, when selection process was at
conclusion stage. It was stated that employment
notification in question (for recruitment to 1425 posts of
Junior Lineman) was subscribed to by a large number of
applicants and selection process is in conclusion stage.
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in several
decisions held that challenge to recruitment process by
candidates who had participated in it would be barred.
[Refer - University of Cochin By its Registrar Vs. N.S.
Kanjoonjamma and others reported in (1997) 4 SCC
426. D. Saroja Kumari Vs. R. Helen Thilakom and
others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478.]
36. Under above-mentioned circumstances, I am of
considered view that this is not a fit case for exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction as sought for at the behest of
candidates, who had participated in selection process and
therefore estopped from challenging its validity and also
on the ground that challenge is defective if not belated.
Hence W.P.Nos.101828 and 101829 of 2020 are
dismissed along with I.A.No.1/2020 filed therein.
W.P.No.148566/2020 is also dismissed.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
BV K
