Karnataka High Court
Mahesh S/O Ningappa Sandigod vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2023
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100218 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100542 OF 2022 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100089 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN WA NO. 100218/2023
BETWEEN:
1. RAMESH S/O. SIDDAPPA HUGARAKAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: POST CHATTARAKI, TQ: SINDAGI,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR-586215.
2. MURAGAYYAS S/O. JADEANDRAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: C/O: N.S.GOUDAN, AIKAR MALLIKARJUN NAGAR
B.H.SHIVANANDMATH, BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, HUBBALLI
DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580025.
3. BASAVARAJ S/O. CHANNABASAPPA MARIGOUDAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: PATTADAKALLU, TQ: BADAMI,
DISTRICT: BAGALAKOT-587201.
VINAYAKA
BV 4. SHIVANAND S/O. APPAYYA GOTHE,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Digitally signed R/O: C/O: SHRIRAM NIVAS MISKIN,
by VINAYAKA B
V CHAL NEAR SIDDESHWAR SCHOOL, SIDDESHWAR NAGAR
Date: 2023.11.28 UNAKAL, TQ:HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-581107.
12:23:36 +0530
5. SOMMANNA S/O. BASAVANTAPP KALLANNAVAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: C/O : SOMMANNA B. KALLANAVAR,
POST HARALAPUR,
TQ: KUNDAGOL, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-581107.
6. BASAVARAJ S/O. VEERAPPA SUDI,
AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: NILL,
R/O: SHARANABASAV TEMPLE, HIREMANNAPUR,
TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
7. SHIVANAND S/O. KANTHEPPA HADAPAD,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HADAPADAVAR ONI, ITAGI,
TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT: GADAG-582241.
8. YALLAPPA S/O. HONNAPPA HUGAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O:AT POST MALLAPUR, TQ: ROAN,
DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.
9. MUTTANNA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA GADAGI,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: SHIVAPETI, TQ: ROAN,
DISTRICT : GADAG-582209.
10. SHANTAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA TIMMANAGOUDRA,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O : GANAGER ONI, TQ: ROAN,
DISTRICT : GADAG-582209.
11. NAGABHUSA S/O. ISHWAR SHINGTALUR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: NO. 34, SHRI LAXMI NIVASA, 9TH WORD,
SHANKAR COLONY, ANANTASHAYANA GUDI, HOSPET,
TQ: HOSPET, DISTRICT : VIJAYANAGAR-583201.
12. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O. MAHESHGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: SHIVAPETE, 2ND CROSS, TQ: ROAN,
DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.
13. VIJAY S/O. KARIYAPPA KORANNAVAR.,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: NEAR M.R.B.C.GATE ROAN,
TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.
14. VIJAY S/O. ISHWARAPPA SHINKTALUR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O:#34, SHRI LAXMI NIVAR, SHANKAR COLONY,
ANANTA SHEYAN GUDI, TQ: HOSPETE,
DISTRICT: VIJAYNAGAR-583201.
15. MAHANTAPPA S/O. CHIDANANDAPPA KUNDAGOL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: POST PASHUPATHIHAL TQ: KUNDAGOL,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD-581113.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
16. SHIVAJI S/O GURUNATH LAMANI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:NIL
R/O: MASABINAL ROAD, L.T.NO. 03,
TQ: BASAVANABHAGEVADI,
DISTRICT: VIJAYPURA-586203.
17. PANDURANG S/O VAMANRAO PADAKI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC:NIL
R/O: NEAR TELPHONE EXCHANGE,
BARAPET MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DISTRICT: VIJAYPUR-586212.
18. AMBRESH S/O ADAPPA KUMBAR
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC:NIL
R/O: NERABENCHI, TQ:MUDDEBIHAR
DISTRICT : VIJAYPUR-586245.
19. VERRAPPA S/O BASAPPA CHIKKOLI
AGE: 45 YEAS, OCC:NIL
R/O: RADDI STREET, NALAVATWAD,
DISTRICT: VIJAYPUR-586124.
20. GURUPAD S/O DHARMANNA HARIJAN
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC:NIL
R/O: WANAKIHAL, POST HIREMURALA
TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DISTRICT: VIJAYPUR-586124.
21. YALLAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AVARADI
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O: NEAR MAHADEV TEMPLE, MADAR GALLI
POST RABKAVI, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587314.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALURU-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDA
BENGALURU- 560001
BY ITS SECRETARY.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
3. THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION SOCIETY BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(AN ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA)
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, #. 8, M.S.B-1,6TH AND 7TH FLOOR,
BENGALURU-560052.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIEF SECRETARY
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING , BENGALURU-560001..
5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
(PRIMARY & HIGH SCHOOL EDUCTION)
K.R.CIRCLE, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR RBI,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
SAMPNAGI RAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 R5,
SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE
THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.103027/2022 (S/RES), DATED
29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING
THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN SO FOR AS APPELLANTS ARE CONCERN IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO. 100542/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SANJEEVAKUMAR S/O VEERABHADRA TILAGAR
AGE: 43 YERS, OCC: NIL
R/O: AT POST M.K.HUBBALLI,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591118.
2. UMESHA S/O BASAVANNEPPA KUMBAR
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O: AT POST KODACHAWAD, TA: KHANAPUR
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591131.
3. FAKKAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA MEDAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O: AT POST GURUWAR PETH, MEDAR ONI
CH KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI- 591115.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
4. KALLAPPA S/O YALLAPPA ARER
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O: AT POST AMBADAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591112
5. MADIVALAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA BADIGER
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O: AT POST MADHANABHAVI,
TQ AND DISTRICT : DHARWAD-581105.
6. UMESH S/O ANNAGOUDA PATIL
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O: AT HOSUR, POST YARANAL,
TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591221.
7. MOULI NALAVADE S/O SHREEPATIRAO NALAVADE
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O:POST NAYANAGA, TQ: BAILHONGAL
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591102.
8. GOPAL S/O SHIVACHANDRA MADENNAVAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NILL
R/O: AT HANDAYANWADI, POST CHINCHANI
TQ: CHIKODI,DISTRICT :BELAGAVI-591287.
9. NOOR AHMED KANKARPEER S/O HATELSA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O: NEAR TIPPU SULTAAN CIRCLE,
TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI, DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA.
10. PRAVEEN S/O VASANT PATTAR
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O:AT POST BELLADBAGEWADI
TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591305.
11. MALAPURE SHASIKANT S/OKALLAPPA MALAPURE
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O:AT CHINCHNI, POST CHINCHNI,
DISTRICT :BELAGAVI-591287.
12. SURESH S/O MALLAPPA POLESI
AGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: NIL
R/O: S M POLESI, AT POST HOLEALUR,
TQ: RON, DISTRICT: GADAG-582203.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY & SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALURU-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDA
BENGALURU- 560001
BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION SOCIETY BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(AN ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA)
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, #. 8, M.S.B-1,6TH AND 7TH FLOOR,
BENGALURU-560052.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIEF SECRETARY
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING , BENGALURU-560001.
5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
(PRIMARY & HIGH SCHOOL EDUCTION)
K.R.CIRCLE, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR RBI,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
SAMPNAGI RAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4, R5,
SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, PLEASE SET
ASIDE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.104728/2021 (S-RES), DATED
29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING
THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN SO FOR AS APPELLANTS ARE CONCERN IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO. 100089/2023
BETWEEN:
1. MAHESH S/O. NINGAPPA SANDIGOD,
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
R/O.MIG 1, 138, SIDDALING NAGAR,
GADAG-582103.
2. BASAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA VANTELI,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. HOUSING BOARD COLLONI,
AT POST YELABURGA,
DIST. KOPPAL-583236.
3. BHEEMARAYAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA PATTAR,
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. # 131, MARUTI GALLI, BAILHONGAL,
AT POST. BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.
4. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVABASAPPA VEERASHETTI,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O.AT POST. NAGANUR,
TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.
5. RAVIKUMAR S/O. SHIDDAPPA KURDIKERI,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. ACCHAVVA COLONY,
1ST CROSS, SAINAGAR,
HUNAKAL, HUBLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580031.
6. SHIVANAD S/O. BASAVANTAPPA HURAKADLI,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O.AT. MACHAPUR,
POST. BELAVANTAR,
TQ. KALAGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580012.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
UDYOGA SOUDA,
BENGALURU-560001,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION SOCIETY BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(AN ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA)
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, # 8, M.S.B-16TH AND 7TH FLOOR,
BENGALURU-560052.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
(PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION)
K.R.CIRCLE, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR RBI,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SAMPNAGI RAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5,
SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, MAY PLEASE
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.
105152/2021(S/RES) DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
WA No. 100218 of 2023
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Writ Appeal No.100089/2023 has been filed by
Sri.Mahesh and 05 others challenging the order passed in
W.P.No.105152/2021 and connected matters disposed of on
29.10.2022. Writ Appeal No.100218/2023 has been filed by
Sri.Ramesh and 20 others challenging the order passed in
W.P.No.103027/2022 and connected matters. Writ Appeal
No.100542/2023 has been filed by Sri.Sanjeevakumar and 11
others challenging the order passed in W.P.No.104728/2021.
2. As all the writ appeals are filed against the common
order passed in the writ proceedings, accordingly the appeals
are clubbed and disposed of by a common order.
3. By virtue of the order passed in
W.P.No.105152/2021, the writ petition filed by the appellants
herein came to be disposed of rejecting their contentions and
refusing to set aside the notification dated 17.06.2014 and the
notification for recruitment dated 03.11.2016. The petitioners
have also challenged the Government Order of 16.10.2019,
which was a clarificatory notification and the challenge to the
same also came to be rejected. Petitioners had sought for
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
further relief by way of issuance of writ of mandamus to adopt
selection method by taking into consideration 50 marks
obtained in SSLC by while making appointments to the post of
Drawing Teacher. The learned Single Judge, by a detailed
consideration, has rejected the petition.
4. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the
present appeals are that the petitioners had claimed that they
had requisite qualification for appointment to the post of
Drawing Teacher and that they had applied for the said post
pursuant to the notification dated 27.04.2011. At the first
instance, it is submitted that the said notification was
challenged before this Court and was set aside as per the
order passed in W.P.No.34861-34871/2012 as there were
certain ambiguities in prescribing the qualification for the post
of Drawing Teacher as admitted by the authorities. It is further
made out from the facts that subsequently, an amendment
came to be made on 17.06.2014 to the Regulations prescribed
for selection to the post of Drawing Teacher.
5. It is in pursuance of such Regulations that
notification came to be passed on 03.11.2016 seeking to
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
recruit and fill up the post of Drawing Teachers. In light of the
earlier notification of 27.04.2011 having been set aside, those
who had applied at the first instance were exempted from
paying application fee and there was relaxation insofar as age
limit. Accordingly, the petitioners have stated to have applied
pursuant to the notification dated 03.11.2016. It is an
admitted fact that selection was on the basis of merit with no
role assigned to the interview and accordingly, in the
provisional selection list of 25.11.2021 petitioners having been
excluded they are aggrieved by such selection. The said
provisional selection list came to be affirmed by issuance of a
final list.
6. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions
seeking for the reliefs as referred to above. It is to be noticed
that the petitioners while filing the writ petitions had
challenged the notifications of 17.06.2014 as well as the
notification dated 03.11.2016 issued by the authority as well
as the notification of 16.10.2019. The primary contention of
the petitioners is that in the selection process, the respondent
- Karnataka Public Service Commission has not taken note of
the marks in SSLC for preparation of merit list. It is submitted
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
that though the Recruitment Rules were amended in 2014, the
2011 Recruitment Rules must be read in conjunction with the
Government Order of 21.03.2006 as well as the notification
dated 21.05.1998 and if all such documents are read together,
the select list ought to have been prepared by giving due
weightage to the extent of 50% of marks obtained in SSLC.
7. The learned Single Judge, while considering the
contentions of the petitioners, has rejected the writ petition on
the ground that the petitioners having taken part in the
selection process by filing their applications pursuant to the
notification of 03.11.2016 and not having been selected, have
sought to challenge the very Regulations pursuant to which the
notification dated 03.11.2016 was passed and such challenge
is not maintainable in light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of H.C.Pradeep Kumar Rai and others vs.
Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others reported in 2015 (11)
SCC 493.
8. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge
that there has been a change in the qualification between the
earlier notification passed on 27.04.2011 which was passed in
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
terms of the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 2011 as
well as the changes made in the notification of 17.06.2014
which was reflected in the notification of 03.11.2016. It was
noticed by the learned Single Judge that the amended
Regulations of 17.06.2014 was upheld by this Court in
W.P.No.21856/2017 and connected matters and accordingly,
the learned Single Judge did not find any legal infirmity in the
notification of 03.11.2016 following the Cadre and Recruitment
Rules relating to Recruitment of 17.06.2014. The Single Judge
has also noticed the Government Order dated 16.10.2019
which clarifies that the marks obtained in the public
examination should alone be considered for purpose of the
appointment process and records a finding that the G.O. does
not alter or modify the qualification prescribed, while holding
so, the writ petitions came to be rejected.
9. It must be noticed that the case put forward by the
petitioners in the writ proceedings is a challenge to the
notification dated 07.06.2014, which are the Cadre and
Recruitment Regulations as well as Notification issued pursuant
to such Regulations on 03.11.2016. It is a settled legal
position that once candidates who have applied for recruitment
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
and notification is issued pursuant to the recruitment Rules the
candidates cannot subsequently after the selection process is
over, turn around and challenge the very validity of the Rules
pursuant to which notification for recruitment has been issued.
The said legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court
in the case of Ashok kumar Sharma & Others v/s State of
Bihar and Others1.
10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
contend that they are giving up their attack insofar as the
validity of the Regulations of 17.06.2014 as well as the
Notification of 03.11.2016 and would contend that even as per
the existing recruitment Regulations and the Notification of
03.11.2016, the authorities have not taken the selection
criteria into account, it cannot be missed that the case put
forward in the writ proceedings is an attack to the validity of
the Cadre and Recruitment Notification on 17.06.2014 as well
as the Recruitment Notification on 03.11.2016. Accordingly
insofar as the finding of the learned Single Judge that the
petitioners cannot turn around and question the validity of the
(2017) 4 SCC 357
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
Recruitment Notification pursuant to which they themselves
have participated requires affirmation.
11. Insofar as their contention that even if Regulation
of 17.06.2014 is taken note of and the Notification of
03.11.2016 is accepted, the selection process ought to have
taken note of 50% of marks from the S.S.L.C. which is an
interpretation they have placed on the basis of the earlier
Cadre and Recruitment Rules cannot be taken note of or
considered as the petitioners seek to set up a new case in the
present appeals which can not be permitted. The case put
forward by the petitioners being clear from the prayers sought
for in the writ petitions they cannot seek to make out a
different case in the appeal proceedings.
12. Even if the contention relating to 50% of marks in
the S.S.L.C. is considered, the reading of Regulation of
17.06.2014 and Notification of 03.11.2016 do not permit
taking note of 50% of marks of S.S.L.C. The learned Single
Judge has applied his mind and analyzed such contention while
referring to both the earlier recruitment Rules of 2011 as well
as subsequent recruitment Rules of 17.06.2014. The analysis
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
made in paragraphs no.14 to 16 as regards such aspect cannot
be interfered with. The contention of counsel for the
petitioners regarding S.S.L.C. marks is based on an
interpretation on the basis of the earlier regulation which
according to them continues in force and are not amended by
the subsequent amendments. However the said finding of the
learned Single Judge being one that is plausible it will not be
appropriate to set aside such conclusion merely because in
appeal proceedings the Court may decide to come to a
different conclusion on the same set of facts.
13. Insofar as the further contention that the
notification issued relating to the qualification on 16.10.2019
has changed the Rules of the game as the same has been
passed subsequent to the recruitment process having been
initiated. It must be noticed that the Government Order on
16.10.2019 merely states that while considering the Diploma
qualification, the marks of 1st, 2nd and 5th year annual
examination conducted by the University will only be taken
note of. It does not in any way to change the qualification as
contained in the Regulation and in the notification of
03.11.2016. No doubt the said qualification refers to the
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB
C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.
100089 of 2023
marks to be taken note of for Diploma and such clarification is
in consonance with the broader qualification regarding having
cleared the Diploma examination.
14. Though the counsel for the petitioners would
contend that the amendment and qualification even if accepted
do not take away from the requirement of taking 50% marks
of the S.S.L.C. course, we do not find any such requirement
plainly flowing from a reading of the recruitment rule
17.06.2014 or the notification of 03.11.2016. Further,
notification and recruitment regulation of 03.11.2016 is in
consonance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations.
Accordingly we find no infirmity with the order of learned
Single Judge and the appeals are rejected.
Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
