Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Raja M on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31086-DB
WP No. 10714 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10714 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE AND
COMMISSIONER,
DEPT. OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND
LAND RECORDS, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA.)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI D AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 1. SRI RAJA M
S/O MUDDAPPA P.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT TORANAGHATTA,
JAGALUR TALUK-577528,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
2. BASAVARAJA S. R.
S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT M. SHIVARA, BAGUR HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN-513111.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31086-DB
WP No. 10714 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
05.11.2019 PASSED IN A.No-328/2014 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KSAT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
05.11.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'KSAT' for
short) in Application No.328/2024.
2. Heard the learned Government Advocate
appearing for petitioners.
3. The private respondent had submitted an
application in response to the Notification dated
25.06.2011 for the post of Land Surveyor. The application
was submitted claiming reservation of Scheduled Tribe
NC: 2024:KHC:31086-DB
under Rural/Kannada Medium/Physically Handicapped
category.
4. It is submitted that the private respondent was
entitled to reservation under Category-1 as Physically
Handicapped/Kannada Rural. He had made a request to
the Selection Authorities stating that he belongs to
Category-1 and that the statement in the application that
he belongs to Scheduled Tribe was a mistake and that his
application should be considered in the appropriate
category. However, the candidature of the applicant was
rejected. He has approached the Tribunal contending that
even if he was considered under the General Merit quota,
in view of the fact that he had secured more marks, he
was entitled for appointment. The Tribunal had allowed
the application quashing the final selection list insofar as it
relates to the selection of third respondent and has
directed the consideration of the candidature of applicant
under the General Merit quota (Physically Handicapped)
and directed the respondents to take necessary steps for
NC: 2024:KHC:31086-DB
his selection and appointment within three months. It is
submitted that pursuant thereto, the private respondent
was appointed. However, it is contended that the
directions of the Tribunal were erroneous and requires
consideration.
5. We notice that the Tribunal had specifically
considered the provisions of Clause 13 of the Recruitment
Notification dated 25.06.2011 which was produced as
Annexure-A1. It was clearly stated in Clause 13 that
candidates who fail to produce the certificates required for
claiming reservations, their candidature would be
considered under General Merit category.
6. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant
before the Tribunal who is a private respondent herein,
had secured 141 marks and if his candidature had been
considered under the General Merit (Physically
Handicapped) category, his name would have found a
place in the select list and he would have been appointed.
The third respondent who has secured 137.5 marks had
NC: 2024:KHC:31086-DB
been selected vide final selection list dated 05.11.2013
produced as Annexure-A9.
7. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the order of the Tribunal which considered
the factual aspects does not suffer from any patent error
or illegality and requires no interference. The writ petition
therefore fails and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
SSD
