Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishna S T S/O Thimmaiah vs The Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 8 August, 2023
Bench: N S Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27974
WP No. 21705 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 21705 OF 2010 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMAKRISHNA S T,
S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A C/O NO.12, 5TH A CROSS,
8TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI,
2ND STAGE,BANGALORE-560072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHUPATI.M.J., FOR M/S T.N.S.ASSOCIATES .,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR(ADM & HR)
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009.
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJA S
Location:
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
HIGH COPORATION LTD.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009.
3. VIDYASAGAR R, S/O RAMU M
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/A NO.213, 3RD CROSS,
K.N.PURA, UDAYAGIRI POST,MYSORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADV., FOR R-1 7 R-2;
SRI.MALLAPPA S.NACHAVAR FOR
SRI.B.S.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27974
WP No. 21705 of 2010
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO THE RECRUITMENT, PERUSE THE
SAME. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT HOLDING
THAT NON-SELECTION AND INCLUSION OF THE PETITIONER
TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECL) UNDER ST
RESERVATION CATEGORY IN PURSUANCE OF THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 26.08.2009 AS ILLEGAL AND TO SELECT
AND INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE FINAL
SELECTION LIST NO. KPTCLB-16/3439/2008-09 DATED
20.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE J
AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER WITH ALL THE BENEFITS, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is calling in question the provisional
selection list, under which respondent No.3 has been
selected for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had also
applied under the very same Notification and he was more
meritorious than respondent No.3 inasmuch as he had
secured 69.39% whereas respondent No.3 had secured
62%. He, therefore, submits that appointment of a less
meritorious candidate cannot be sustained and the same is
required to be quashed.
NC: 2023:KHC:27974
WP No. 21705 of 2010
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
('KPTCL' for short) submits that on consideration of the
petitioner's application, he was issued a call letter for
verification of his original documents by communication
dated 26.11.2009 vide Annexure 'D'. He submitted Clause
(14) of the said call letter required that the petitioner to
produce a No Objection Certificate or Service Certificate
from his present employer. He submits that the
petitioner, however, did not produce any such certificate
till 15.02.2010. He submits that as could be seen from
the letter dated 15.02.2010, which is produced as
Annexure 'H', the petitioner himself had admitted that he
was not able to produce the No Objection Certificate from
his employer for various reasons and therefore, it is clear
that the petitioner did not comply with the requirement of
producing the No Objection Certificate as per the call
letter.
NC: 2023:KHC:27974
WP No. 21705 of 2010
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
contends that there is no such stipulation in the
Recruitment Notification which required a candidate to
produce the No objection certificate from the employer
and the imposition of such a condition while issuing a call
letter was wholly illegal. He submits that since the
requirement of calling for a No Objection Certificate is not
forthcoming in the Recruitment Notification, the same
would have to be ignored and petitioner ought to be
appointed in the place of respondent No.3.
5. It has to be stated here that on the publication of the
provisional list, as per the Rules, KPTCL would have to call
successful candidates in excess of the posts available. For
instance, if 100 posts are available, they would probably
call 150 candidates in anticipation that some of the
candidates would not be in possession of the required
documents.
6. Merely because such stipulation was not forthcoming
in the Recruitment Notification, that would not absolve the
NC: 2023:KHC:27974
WP No. 21705 of 2010
requirement of the petitioner in obtaining a No Objection
Certificate.
7. It is also to be stated here that in a given case, if a
candidate is already in service under some other
employer, it would also to be inappropriate for KPTCL to
appoint him and therefore, the imposition of the condition
to secure a No Objection Certificate while issuing a call
letter cannot be said to be in contravention of any
established procedures. This condition was more or less
designed to ensure that the appointment of the candidates
goes through smoothly and without any impediments.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
however, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Oriental
Insurance Limited and others, (2011) 12 SCC 85 to
contend that there shall be a strict adherence to the
stipulated selection procedure.
NC: 2023:KHC:27974
WP No. 21705 of 2010
9. It has to be stated here that it is not the case of the
petitioner that the selection process was not strictly
adhered to in the present case, but it is his case that after
the selection process was complete, an additional
condition was imposed. As stated above, the requirement
of calling upon a candidate to furnish a No Objection
Certificate from his present employer cannot be termed as
a condition which prejudices the selected candidates in
any way. Therefore, this judgment is of no application to
the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner
also relied upon similar judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on the same lines.
10. It is also to be noticed here that respondent No.3 has
been in employment for the past nearly thirteen years. He
was appointed fundamentally because the petitioner was
unable to produce the No Objection Certificate and as a
consequence, the KPTCL was required to choose the next
meritorious candidate.
NC: 2023:KHC:27974
WP No. 21705 of 2010
11. In my view, the Appointment Letter made in favour
of respondent No.3 cannot be in any way held to be illegal
so as to necessitate interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
12. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
