Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Hussain Sab Rajesab on 24 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, K.S.Hemalekha
-1-
WP No. 110449 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 110449 OF 2017 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME and TRANSPORT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
GADAG DISTRICT,
GADAG.
...PETITIONER'S
(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGAOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.HUSSAIN SAB RAJESAB
CHIKKOPPA S/O RAJESAB,
AGE: ABOUT 28 YEARS,
AT POST : KURTOKOTI,
TALUK and DIST: GADAG.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.A. PATHAN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 110449 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION ONN 17.12.2016
ON IN APPLICATION NO.1365/2008 (ANNEXURE-A) TO THE
WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING
ORDER
I.A.1/2017 filed seeking dispensation with production
of typed copies and English translated copies is allowed.
The State has filed the present petition calling in
question the correctness of the order of the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, (for short, 'Tribunal') dated
17.12.2015 in application No.1365/2008 whereby the
application came to be allowed and quashing the impugned
endorsement dated 18.01.2008 as well as the earlier
endorsement dated 08.01.2003 and further directing the
appointing authority to consider his appointment subject to
fulfillment of other conditions for appointment to the post of
'Civil Police Constable' within a period of three months.
WP No. 110449 of 2017
2. The parties are referred to by their ranks before
the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience.
3. The applicant had applied for the post of 'Civil
Police Constable' as per the notification dated 23.03.2002
produced at Annexure-R2. The undisputed facts being that
the applicant was found eligible as per the objective criteria
and had been provisionally selected and name was included
in such provision selection list. However, it comes out from
the facts that at the time of verification of the document,
while coming to know that the applicant was involved in a
criminal case CC No.7/2004 and had been arrayed as
accused No.69, endorsement came to be given at
Annexure-A4 dated 08.01.2003 to the effect that he was
involved in a criminal case bearing Crime No.55/97 and
accordingly, as per the recruitment rules as he was required
to have good character and behaviour and due to non
fulfillment in the light of breach of such requirement his
name was removed from the provisional selection list. The
said endorsement came to be issued on 08.01.2003. It is
WP No. 110449 of 2017
also not in dispute that subsequently, the applicant came to
be acquitted as per the judgment passed in CC No.7/2004
on 04.08.2007. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to
have approached the respondent authorities seeking for
appointment and reconsideration of the earlier endorsement
at A4. The said representation of the applicant has also
been rejected by virtue of an endorsement dated
18.01.2008 at Annexure A7, wherein it was pointed out that
the earlier endorsement was already issued in 2003 itself
and the question of reconsideration of earlier position did
not arise.
4. The applicant had approached the Administrative
Tribunal and upon hearing of the matter allowed the
application and noticing that the applicant was acquitted in
CC No.7/2004 and that the said aspect of the matter
required to be taken note of and the impugned
endorsement warranted reconsideration.
5. We have heard the learned Government
Advocate Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar appearing on behalf of the
WP No. 110449 of 2017
petitioner as well as learned counsel Sri. A.A.Pathan,
appearing on behalf respondent.
6. It is clear that the recruitment notification was of
the year 2002 i.e. 23.03.2002. Rule 10 of the Karnataka
Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, relates to
Suitability and Certificate of Character. The said Rule reads
as follows:-
10. Conditions relating to suitability and certificates of
Character:-No person shall be appointed to any
service or post unless the appointing authority is satisfied
that he is of good character and is in all respects suitable
for appointment to Government service.
Every candidate selected for direct recruitment shall
furnish to the appointing authority
certificates given not more than six months prior to the
date of his selection, by two
respectable persons unconnected with his college or
university, and not related to him
testifying to his character, in addition to the certificate or
certificates which may be required to be furnished from the
educational institution last attended by the candidate.
If any doubt arises regarding the suitability of a candidate
for appointment to Government service, the decision of the
Government shall be final."
WP No. 110449 of 2017
7. Even if the applicant were to fulfill all the
objective criteria justifying his provisional selection as has
been done in the present case, final decision would be taken
as per the procedure after necessary verification and Rule
10 is required to be satisfied which provides that the
appointing authority is to be satisfied that the prospective
employee is a good character and is in all respect suitable
for appointment to Government Service. As rightly pointed
out by the learned Government Advocate, the decision as to
suitability is a decision of the appointing authority which is
final in terms of Rule 10. Undisputedly, there was a
criminal case pending as against the applicant as on the
date of consideration of the applicant pursuant to the
notification at Annexure R2. It was only in the year 2007
that he came to be acquitted.
8. Clearly the relevant dates to determine his
suitability is on the date of consideration of the application
under Annexure-R2. When as on the relevant date, he is
found not suitable in terms of Rule 10 and endorsement at
WP No. 110449 of 2017
Annexure-A4 has been passed, the question of any
reconsideration at a later point of time on acquittal in the
criminal proceedings is unavailable. Once the applicant is
found unsuitable for employment as in this case by virtue of
pendency of the criminal proceedings against him as on the
relevant point of time, the applicant loses his right. The
applicant has missed the bus and his subsequent acquittal
in 2007 would not enable reconsideration of his candidature
as the recruitment process under the recruitment Rules as
per the notification at Annexure-R2 has spent itself. In fact,
as on 2007 the post as per the notification at Annexure-R2
is unavailable for being considered. Accordingly, we find
that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous in its entirety
insofar as the question of going into the aspect of
honourable acquittal does not arise as there was no post in
2007 available for being filled up under the Notification at
Annexure-R2 dated 02.03.2002. Accordingly,
reconsideration of the representation of the applicant in the
WP No. 110449 of 2017
year 2007 as regards recruitment in the year 2002 does not
arise.
9. Accordingly, we allow the petition, set aside the
order of the Tribunal and the application No.1365/2008 is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB/VP
