Karnataka High Court
Vishwaraj vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 9 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1434
WP No. 200412 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.200412 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
VISHWARAJ
S/O SRINIVAS VAGANGERI,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. VILLAGE NEERALKOD,
TQ: JEWARGI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585310.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN M MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF TRANSPORT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
L MALAGHAN BENGALURU-560001.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KALYANA KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION (KKRTC),
CENTRAL OFFICE,
OPP. KBN HOSPITAL, KALABURAGI-585102.
3. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION (KKRTC),
CENTRAL OFFICE,
OPP. KBN HOSPITAL,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1434
WP No. 200412 of 2024
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJKUMAR A. KORWAR HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. DEEPAK. V. BARADA ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, THEREBY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 06.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND
ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION TO CONSIDER THE CANDIDATURE OF THE
PETITIONER AS LOCAL CANDIDATE ENTITLE FOR
RESERVATION UNDER ARTICLE 371-J, IN THE SELECTION
PROCESS OF BUS DRIVERS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
A) Issue a writ or order or direction in the
nature of mandamus, thereby directing the
respondent Corporation to consider the
representation dated 06.02.2024 vide
Annexure-J and issue further direction to the
respondent Corporation to consider the
candidature of the petitioner as Local
Candidate entitle for reservation under Article
371-J, in the selection process of Bus
Drivers, in the interest of justice and equity.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1434
B) Issue any such writ or order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the ends of justice.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on
03.01.2020, the NEKRTC had issued notification inviting
applications for appointment of 900 Bus Drivers and 615
Drivers cum Conductors vide notification bearing
No.1/2020. On 03.01.2020 pursuant to the said
notification, the petitioner has applied for the same and
also mentioned that he is a local candidate who is entitled
for the reservation under Hyderabad Karnataka Category
as provided under Article 371-J. After verifying the online
application, the respondent Corporation had issued
communication dated 20.02.2023, inviting the petitioner
for verification of records and physical examination to be
conducted on 23.02.2023. The petitioner had obtained
the certificate from the competent authority with regard to
his local status dated 26.02.2020. He had appeared
before the authority and also produced a certificate issued
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1434
by the competent authority. Petitioner in the test
conducted had obtained 46 out of 50 marks. The
respondents have appointed the petitioner as driver on
temporary basis on 20.11.2023. It is submitted that as he
obtained 46 marks out of 50 marks and he belongs to
Hyderabad Karnataka Region, the petitioner was in the
found hope that he would secure appointment. To the
surprise of the petitioner the provisional list was published
on 03.02.2024 and the name of the petitioner is missing.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the persons who have got 29.5 marks also
their name found place in the provisional list, but the
petitioner's name was not included. It is submitted that
he had approached the respondent by way of a
representation on 06.02.2024, but there is no response
from the respondents. Having no other hope and no other
effective alternative petitioner had approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on an order
passed by this Court in WP.No.203264/2023 dated
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1434
18.12.2023, wherein the respondents were directed to
consider the representation of the petitioner. In the light
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of RAM KUMAR GIJROYA VS. DELHI SUBORDINATE
SERVICES SELECTION BOARD1.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the notification was issued on 03.01.2020
and the certificate was issued by the competent authority
in favour of the petitioner on 26.02.2020. Learned
counsel submits that as on the date the notification the
petitioner was not having the certificate. The petitioner
failed to produces the certificate before the respondents,
his case was not considered under the local category. He
submits that the order which the learned counsel relying is
before the provisional list is published, the said judgment
cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this
case. Petitioner had kept quite from Feburary-2023. It is
also submitted that once a provisional selection list is
AIR 2016 SC 1098
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1434
notified, the candidates who are unsuccessful have every
right to file their objections, if the objections are tenable,
the authorities will consider those objections in accordance
with law. He submits that in this case, the petitioner
without even availing the opportunity and the effective
remedy available to him has come up before this Court by
filing the instant writ petition. Learned counsel submits
that when there is an effective alternative remedy
available to him, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 is a pure abuse of process and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either
sides, perused the entire material on record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that as on
the date of notification i.e. on 23.01.2020 the petitioner
was not having the certificate under Article 371-J.
Certificate was issued by the competent authority on
26.02.2020, the verification of document was done on
23.03.2023. This Court is not able to appreciate the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1434
contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that
the petitioner has not produced the document and they
could not consider his case under the local Category.
When the petitioner who had secured 46 marks out of 50
marks and when he is entitled for the benefit under Article
371-J when the certificate was issued on 26.02.2020 it
cannot be believed that the petitioner has not submitted
the document. Even otherwise, neither the petitioner nor
the respondents have record to show that what are the
documents produced. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondents, when the provisional
list is notified, the petitioner whatever the grounds that he
has taken before this Court ought to have taken the same
before the respondents and if the same was not
considered he would have come before this Court.
Without availing the said remedy, he is before this Court.
However, considering the facts and circumstances, this
Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition
with the following directions:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1434
1) The petitioner shall file his objections to
the provisional list through Online by
12.02.2024.
2) The respondent shall consider his
objections in accordance with law, until such
objections are considered, they shall not
finalise the list .
The learned counsel for the respondents is permitted
to file vakalath within two weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP
