Karnataka High Court

Krishnamurthy D H vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2022

Bench: G.Narendar, M.G.S. Kamal

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                         AND

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

      WRIT PETITION NO.24206 OF 2021 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:


1.     KRISHNAMURTHY D H
       S/O HOBYA NAIK
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       R/AT POOJARAHALLI THANDA (POST)
       KUDLIGI TALUK
       BALLARI DISTRICT
       PIN-583135

2.     SOMASHEKHARA
       S/O VEERANNA
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.48,
       BEERAIAHANA PALYA
       MADHURE HOBLI,
       DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
       PIN-561203.
                                    ....PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.PARASHURAM R. HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF HOME
                          2




     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU-01
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.   COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
     BENGALURU CITY
     INFANTRY ROAD
     BENGALURU-560001.

3.   DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
     RECRUITMENT AND CO-ORDINATOR,
     CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE
     RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
     CARLTON BHAVAN
     PALACE ROAD
     BENGALURU-560001.
                                  ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OR CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE COMMON ORDER DATED 13.10.2020 PASSED BY THE
KSAT IN APPLICATION NO 88-93/2020 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KSAT.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
M.G.S.KAMAL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                   3




                                  ORDER

The present petition is filed by the petitioners

seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the

common order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the

Tribunal in Application Nos.88-93/2020.

2. The petitioners/applicants have filed the above

application before the Tribunal contending inter alia

that in response to the recruitment notification dated

21.06.2018 calling online applications for recruitment

to the post of Civil Police Constable, they had applied

and attended the written examination. Their names

were included in the eligibility list. That they were

subjected to Physical Standard Endurance Test and

were called upon for document verification. That in the

provisional selection list dated 29.08.2019, their

names were included, but thereafter, they did not

receive any intimation regarding validation of

document, though the candidates who were

provisionally selected along with them had received

intimation in that regard. That on enquiry with the

authorities, the petitioners were orally informed that

the candidates with only diploma course certificate

without passing the language course for Pre-University

Board would not be considered for selection.

Consequently, the petitioners submitted a

representation to the Respondent No.2 requesting to

consider their candidature for selection. Since there

was no response thereof, the petitioners filed the

above applications before the Tribunal.

3. It is contended by the petitioners that as per

the recruitment notification, the minimum qualification

prescribed for the post of Civil Police Constable is pass

in Pre-University course (PUC) or equivalent

qualification and on the basis of treating the job

oriented course (JOC) as equivalent to PUC, the

petitioners were permitted to appear for written

examination and hence, non-selection of the

petitioners even though they possess requisite

qualification was arbitrary. That after subjecting the

applicants to tests and inclusion of their names in the

provisional select list, the respondent ought not to

have denied selection on the premise of petitioners not

possessing requisite qualification and such rejection of

their candidature for selection was per se arbitrary and

illegal.

4. On behalf of the State, it was contended

that based on the provisional selection list, the

applicants were called to appear for medical

examination and to produce original documents in

respect of eligibility and in the course of examination of

the same it had come to light that the petitioners had

not passed "One Language Course conducted by the

National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and one

curriculum subject (Distance Education Method) that

they had neither passed the examination in the local

language nor one subject conducted by the Pre-

University Education Board." Hence, the petitioners did

not fulfill the eligibility criteria. Hence, sought for

dismissal of application.

5. The Tribunal has noted that as per Clause-6

of the Recruitment Notification, the qualification

prescribed for the post of Civil Police Constable is pass

in PUC or 12th standard or equivalent examination and

that the petitioners had passed only Job-Oriented

Diploma course which was equivalent to PUC. That the

Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms

by its Circular dated 27.02.2018, had prescribed

additional qualification, i.e., a candidate holding JOC is

required to pass one language paper and one subject

in the examination conducted by NIOS. The Tribunal

has also taken note of the fact that the petitioners

have not possessed the aforesaid additional

qualification of pass in one language course conducted

by NIOS and one curriculum subject (Distance

Education Method) or pass in examination in one

language or one subject conducted by the Pre-

University Board. The Tribunal has also taken note of

the fact that the statements of marks produced by

them for having passed Diploma examination also did

not reflect that they having passed any subject as

required under the aforesaid Circular. Consequently,

held that the petitioners were not eligible for

consideration of their candidature for selection and

appointment to the post of the Police Constable and

rejected their application as devoid of merits.

Aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2020, the petitioners

are before this Court in the above petition.

6. Sri.Parashuram R. Hattarakihal, learned

counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds

urged in the writ petition submitted that:

(a) Passing of course conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling- NIOS is not a requirement, since it is not notified during the course of selection of the petitioners. As such, their case needs to be

considered with reference to Government Order dated 27.01.2015.

(b) Respondent No.3 has not published final selection list and has not even considered the representation made by petitioners to include their names in the final selection list. As such, the action of the Respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal.

       (c)    He further submitted that the
Apex       Court    in the case of Bedanga
Talukdar       vs.        Saifuddin             Khan         and
others reported in 2011 (12) SCC 85
has    held    to       the    effect      that    selection

process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. That when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained and there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved. Thus, he submits that the Tribunal has not taken

these aspects of the matter into consideration while rejecting the application.

7. On the other hand, Sri.B.Rajendraprasad,

learned HCGP for the respondents justifying the order

passed by the Tribunal submitted that the petitioners

are not eligible as they have not fulfilled the

qualification criteria prescribed under the Notification

dated 21.06.2018 and there cannot be any relaxation

in that regard. It is only for the said reason, the case

of the petitioners has not been considered. There is no

infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the

Tribunal warranting interference. Hence, sought for

dismissal of the petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

9. The educational qualification prescribed for the

post of Civil Police Constable (Men and Women) as per

Clause-6 of the notification dated 21.06.2018 is pass in

PUC or equivalent qualification. It is necessary to note

that by an earlier Circular dated 27.02.2018, the 1st

respondent-State Government has clarified the

qualification equivalent to SSLC, PUC and Degree for

the purpose of Karnataka Civil Service (General

Recruitment) Rules, 1977. Courses equivalent to PUC,

relevant for the purpose of this case is extracted

hereunder:

"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀÆªÀð ²PÀët ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀ ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉUÀ¼ÀÄ:

1. ¹.©.J¸ï.E ªÀÄvÀÄÛ L.¹.J¸ï.E ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀ PÁè¸ï 12 ¥ÀjÃPÉë;

2. EvÀgÉ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀjÃPÁë ªÀÄAqÀ½UÀ½AzÀ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀ PÁè¸ï 12 ¥ÀjÃPÉë;

3. £ÁåµÀ£À'ï E¤ì÷ÖlÆåmï D¥sï N¥À£ï ¸ÀÆÌ°AUï(J£ï.L.N.J¸ï) ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀ G£ÀßvÀ ¥ËæqsÀ ²PÀët PÉÆÃ¸ïð/ºÉZï.J¸ï.¹;

4. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ CxÀªÁ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À L.n.L PÉÆÃ¸ïð CxÀªÁ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÀÈwÛ ²PÀët r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ (eÉ.N.¹/eÉ.N.r.¹/eÉ.J'ï.r.¹) C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ J£ï.L.M.J¸ï £À ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀ MAzÀÄ ¨sÁµÁ PÉÆÃ¸ïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è (zÀÆgÀPÀ°PÉ ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ°è) CxÀªÁ ¥ÀzÀ«¥ÀÆªÀð ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ¨sÁµÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è GwÛÃtðgÁzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ."

10. In the instant case, though the petitioners are

contending that selection process has to be conducted

in accordance with stipulated selection procedure, the

Notification dated 21.06.2018 specifically provides that

the candidates shall have passed P.U.C or equivalent

educational qualification. What is equivalent

educational qualification has been clarified by the

Government in the aforesaid Circular as extracted

hereinabove.

11. Though, the petitioners claim to have passed

the job oriented Pre-University Diploma (2 years) and

that the same to be treated as equivalent to the PUC,