Sri Nagaraju R vs The Director Sanjay Gandhi ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11770 Kant

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                       PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

            W.A. NO.1296 OF 2021 (S-RES)
                         IN
            W.P. NO.13579 OF 2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NAGARAJU .R
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.61, SAPTAGIRI NILAYA
NEAR POLICE STATION QUARTERS
J B KAVAL, KRISHNANDANAGARA
NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 096.
                                       ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A, ADV.,)

AND:

1.    THE DIRECTOR
      SANJAY GANDHI INSTITUTE OF
      TRAUMA AND ORTHOPEDICS
      BYRASANDRA, BENGALURU 560011.

2.    MR. VINOD YELIGAR
      NO.4077, 18TH MAIN
      30TH CROSS, BENGAURU 70.

                                      ... RESPONDENTS
                              2



     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL. AND THERE BY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 07.09.2021, IN W.P.
NO.13579/2014 (S-RES). AND THERE BY ALLOW THE W.P.
NO.13579/2014 ( S-RES), FILED BY THE APPELLANT. GRANT
SUCH OTHER RELIEF/ RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE INCLUDING AWARDING OF COSTS THROUGHOUT.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal arises out of an order

dated 07.09.2021 passed in W.P. No.13579/2014, by

which writ petition seeking quashment of

appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of First

Division Assistant, has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the Director, Sanjay Gandhi

Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Institute' for short) issued a

Notification dated 12.03.2013 by which applications

to fill up various posts including the post of First

Division Assistant were invited. Out of two posts of

First Division Assistant, one post of First Division

Assistant was reserved for General Merit and one post

was reserved for Category-I. The qualification

prescribed for the aforesaid post is that the candidate

must hold Bachelor Degree awarded by a University

established by law in India and must possess

Proficiency in Computer Operation as prescribed by

Director from time to time.

3. The selection was to be made on the basis

of the marks obtained in qualifying examination,

written examination and interview. The appellant as

well as respondent No.2 qualified in the written test

and were called for interview. The appellant secured

61.35 marks, whereas respondent No.2 secured 61.04

marks. However, the appellant did not produce the

original Computer Operation Certificate, whereas,

respondent No.2 produced the Computer Operation

Certificate and was appointed as First Division

Assistant.

4. The appellant challenged the selection and

appointment of respondent No.2 as First Division

Assistant, in a writ petition, inter alia on the ground

that appellant has secured more marks than

respondent No.2 and had studied computer subject in

the degree level examination and had Proficiency in

Computer Operation. The learned Single Judge by an

order dated 07.09.2021 has dismissed the writ

petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that appellant is more meritorious than

respondent No.2 as the appellant had secured more

marks. However, the respondent No.2 who was less

meritorious was appointed as First Division Assistant.

It is therefore, submitted that, the impugned order be

set aside.

6. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused

the records. Admittedly, in the Notification as well as

the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, the qualification

prescribed for post of First Division Assistant is a

Bachelor Degree awarded by the University

established by law in India as well as Proficiency in

Computer Operation. The respondent No.2 produced

Computer Proficiency Certificate, whereas the

appellant despite opportunity being given to him, did

not produce the Certificate relating to Proficiency in

Computer Operation. The appellant in the absence of

Certificate, did not have the requisite qualification and

therefore, merely because appellant secured 0.31

marks more than the respondent No.2, he could not

have been appointed as First Division Assistant, in the

absence of requisite qualification.

7. 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 the same is

hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS