Karnataka High Court
Kum. Banashri vs The Mangalore Electricity on 28 February, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP No. 14265 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14265 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KUM. BANASHRI
D/O SHANKAR PUJAR
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
by SUSHMA RESIDING AT NO. 2774
LAKSHMI B S SAIKRUPA, NEAR MAMADI GARADI
Location: HIGH MALPE POST
COURT OF UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 108.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KRUPESH.M.D, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PADMANABHA.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
CORPORATE OFFICE
PARADIGM PLAZA
A.V.SHETTY CIRCLE
MANGALORE - 575 001.
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS;
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.Pra.Vya(Aa)/Sa.Pra/Vya (C)Le.(P)/Hisa/18-19/2683 DATED
24.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED AT SL.NO.18 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SELECT AND APPOINT
THE PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT UNDER 2A-W CATEGORY WITH
RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
FOR WHICH SHE IS ENTITLED TO AS PER LAW IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 14265 of 2019
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is
belonging to Billava Community which has been categorized as
IIA by the State Government. Pursuant to the notification dated
08.01.2016 (Annexure-A), petitioner has made an application to
the respondent / Corporation seeking appointment to the post of
"Assistant". It is further stated in the writ petition that the
petitioner is meritorious, however, the name of the petitioner did
not find place in the selection list issued on 09.11.2017 and
accordingly, the petitioner has presented this writ petition
challenging the notification dated 24.11.2018 (Annexure-F).
2. I have heard learned counsel Shri Krupesh M.D.,
appearing on behalf of Shri Padmanabha.R., learned counsel for
the petitioner and Shri H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner being qualified and meritorious candidature for the
post of "Assistant", as notified in the notification dated
WP No. 14265 of 2019
08.01.2016 (Annexure-A), however, appointment of the
petitioner was not considered on the ground that the petitioner
has not produced the relevant caste certificate at the time of
filing of the application. Accordingly, petitioner has sought for
interference of this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent /
Corporation submitted that the petitioner is duty bound to
enclose all the relevant documents and accordingly, he invited
the attention of the Court to the terms and conditions stipulated
in the notification dated 08.01.2016 and further submitted that
the petitioner has submitted the caste certificate after the
selection process is completed and therefore, he contended that,
the writ petition does not survive for consideration.
5. In the light of the submissions made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the
notification dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-A), wherein the terms
and conditions at paragraph No.10(e) reads as under:
C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀ×À eÁw, ¥Àj²µÀ×À ¥ÀAUÀq,À ¥Àª
æ U À I, IIA,
À ð
IIB, IIIA ªÀÄvÀÄÛ IIIB AiÀÄ°è£À «ÄøÀ¯ÁwUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÀÄvÀ¼À
«ÄøÀ¯ÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, Cfð ¸À°¸
è ®
À Ä ¤UÀ¢¥
ü r
À ¹gÀĪÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ
WP No. 14265 of 2019
¢£ÁAPÀzA
À zÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀz°è ZÁ°ÀA
Û iÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ««zsÀ
DzÉñÀU¼
À °
À £
è À ªÀiÁ£ÀzA
À qªÀ£ÀÄßÀ w½¢gÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ .
A perusal of the said clause enclosed along with the notification
dated 08.01.2016 would indicate that the candidates, requiring
the benefit under the respective category are bound to produce
the caste certificate at the time of filing of the application
seeking appointment under the particular post.
6. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner herein,
admittedly, has not filed the relevant documents along with the
application pursuant to the notification dated 08.01.2016 and in
view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation
Limited & Another v. H.L.Kaveri & Others1, the relevant
portion reads thus:
"12. Under its advertisement dated 11-11-2013, it
was specifically indicated that separate application
should be submitted for each post accompanied with
various requirements including qualification, experience,
etc. and incomplete application, if any, is liable for
rejection without assigning any reason. The first
respondent applied for the post of Senior
Assistant/Junior Assistant vide application dated 29-11-
(2020) 3 SCC 108
WP No. 14265 of 2019
2013. After scrutiny of the applications, the select list of
backlog vacancies was published on 16-1-2015 and it
reveals from the record that impleaded third respondent
in the writ petition (Smt Priyanka A. Chanchalkar) was
provisionally selected as Senior Assistant securing
64.65% marks. At the same time, the first respondent
secured 65.43% marks but since the first respondent
failed to submit experience certificate along with the
application form, her application at the stage of scrutiny
itself was rejected.
13. The Corporation in IA No. 3457 of 2020 has
indicated that total 31 applications for the post of Senior
Assistant were rejected in view of not enclosing of self-
attested documents and there are 7 women candidates
listed as valid applicants for Senior Assistant against the
single post of female (Scheduled Caste) which remain
unfilled because of the orders of the Court. At the same
time, the Corporation rejected 106 number of
applications for the post of Junior Assistant for not
enclosing the documents required including self-attested
copies of experience certificate/caste certificate/
computer tally-certificate/graduation certificate/birth
certificate, etc.
14. It remains undisputed as recorded by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after
perusal of the original records of which reference has
been made that the first respondent had not enclosed
her experience certificate along with the application and
her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect
and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms
WP No. 14265 of 2019
of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013 for which the
Corporation was not required to assign any reasons
which although was disclosed before the Court and
noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.
15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any
error being committed by the Corporation in its decision-
making process while rejecting the application of the first
respondent for non-fulfillment of the necessary
experience certificate which was to be enclosed along
with the application as required in terms of the
advertisement dated 11-11-2013."
Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to above, I am of the view that the petitioner has not
made out a case for interference in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss
