Karnataka High Court
Somashekhar Hatti vs Managing Director And Ors on 21 December, 2023
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9372-DB
WA No. 200190 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200190 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SOMASHEKHAR HATTI S/O LACHACHAPPA HATTI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O AT POST JEVOOR, INDI
TALUK, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-
560 027.
2. THE CHIEF PERSONAL MANAGER (RECRUITMENT),
Digitally signed CENTRAL OFFICE, KHA, SANTHINAGAR,
by LUCYGRACE
BANGALORE-560 027.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. THE DIRECTOR (SECURITY AND VEGILANCE)
KARNATAKA
AND CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE,
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE -560 027.
4. HANMANTHRAYA
AGE: MAJOR, R/O FLAT NO.98/84 REDDY,
RAICHUR, TQ. DIST. RAICHUR-584 207.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9372-DB
WA No. 200190 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-08-2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN R.P.NO.200052/2022 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT DATED 07-02-2022, PASSED IN W.P.
NO.201678/2018 AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER AS
MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ASHOK S.
KINAGI, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated
03.08.2023 passed in R.P.No.200052/2022 confirming the
order dated 07.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.201678/2018.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are
as under:
Respondent No.2 issued notification dated
11.01.2016 inviting applications for the post of Traffic
Inspector. The appellant applied for the said post. The
appellant was called for online examination on
01.02.2016. The appellant was attended the examination
and he was called for verification of the documents. The
provisional list was published on 04.12.2017. As per the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9372-DB
information obtained by the appellant, he has secured
60.19% and respondent No.4 has secured 59.15%.
Respondent No.2 issued endorsement dated 06.02.2018
stating that appellant has not produced any documents for
having possessed computer knowledge and he was
declared as ineligible. The appellant submitted
representations dated 16.02.2018 and 13.03.2018 to
reconsider his case, as the appellant has possessed
computer knowledge. Respondent No.2 issued an
endorsement dated 12.04.2018 stating that certificate
produced at the time of verification and the certificate
enclosed along with the representations are not similar.
Hence, the representations of the appellant cannot be
considered. Respondent No.3 issued additional waiting list
dated 28.05.2018 reflecting the name of respondent No.4
who is less meritorious. Thus, the appellant aggrieved by
the endorsement dated 12.04.2018 and additional waiting
list dated 28.05.2018 filed writ petition. The learned Single
Judge vide order dated 07.02.2022 dismissed the writ
petition. The appellant filed review petition in
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9372-DB
R.P.No.200052/2022. The learned Single Judge vide order
dated 03.08.2023 dismissed the review petition. The
appellant aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid
writ petition and review petition has filed this writ appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant submitted relevant documents along with the
representations contending that appellant possessed
computer knowledge. Further, the documents produced
along with the representations were not considered by the
respondents. He further submits that judgment relied
upon by the learned Single Judge in the review petition as
well as in the writ petition is not applicable to the present
case on hand. He submits that learned Single Judge has
committed an error in passing the impugned orders.
Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9372-DB
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
supports the impugned orders. He submits that as per the
notification dated 11.01.2016, the appellant supposed to
file all the relevant documents along with the application
and he has failed to produce the documents along with the
application. He submits that the respondents rightly
declined to consider the representations submitted by the
appellant. Hence, on these grounds, he prayed to dismiss
the appeal.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 issued
notification dated 11.01.2016 vide Annexure-A inviting the
applications for the post of Traffic Inspector. Pursuant to
the said notification, the appellant applied for the said
post. After receiving applications from the applicants, the
respondents conducted online examination and thereafter
appellant was called for verification of the records by
respondent No.3. After verifying the documents produced
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9372-DB
by the appellant, respondents published the provisional list
on 04.12.2017 as per Annexure-P. As per the notification
vide Annexure-A, the candidates are required to produce
the documents along with the application. Admittedly, the
appellant has not produced documents to demonstrate
that he was possessing computer knowledge. After
verification of the documents, the respondents found that
appellant had not produced any document to demonstrate
that he had possessed computer knowledge as on the date
of submitted an application. The respondents published
provisional list on 04.12.2017. The appellant kept quit for
1½ years from the date of publication of the provisional
list. Thereafter, the appellant submitted representations
dated 16.02.2018 and 13.03.2018 along with certificate
for having possessed computer knowledge. The
respondents declined to accept the documents produced
by the appellant after publishing provisional list on the
ground that appellant is ineligible for the post of Traffic
Inspector. The appellant has submitted the documents for
having possessed computer knowledge at belated stage.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9372-DB
8. The learned Single Judge after considering the
material on record held that appellant had failed to
produce the relevant documents along with the application
as per the notification vide Annexure-A. Further, the
respondents have already issued appointment order in
favour of respondent No.4. It is further observed that, if
the claim of the appellant is accepted, it may unsettle the
appointment order issued in favour of respondent No.4
and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
9. The appellant filed review petition in
R.P.No.200052/2022. The learned Single Judge placing
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Karnataka State Seeds Development
Corporation and Another vs S.L.kaveri and Others
reported in 2020 (3) SCC 108 and also judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shriram Sahu (dead)
through Legal Representatives and Others vs Vinod
Kumar Rawat and Others reported in (2020) SCC
Online SC 896 held that there is no error apparent on the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9372-DB
face of the records passed in W.P.No.201678/2018. From
perusal of the records, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG,SBS
