Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Public Service ... vs Sri. Kiran on 14 February, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6224-DB
WP No. 25432 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 25432 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOGA SOUDHA PARK HOUSE ROAD
BANGALORE -560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KIRAN
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O SRI CHANDAKANT RATHOD
Digitally signed
by SHARADA R/AT SOCIETY WADI TANDA
VANI B CHIKLI, AURAD
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 326
KARNATAKA
2. PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND
WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M S BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE -560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6224-DB
WP No. 25432 of 2022
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 27/08/2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION 6897/2018 BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-C & ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The KPSC is grieving before this Court against the
Tribunal's Order dated 27.08.2021 whereby the 1st
Respondent's Application No.6897/2018 having been
favoured, the conduct of the Petitioner herein having been
found faulty, it directed the KPSC to call the Private
Respondent for interview for the post of Assistant Engineer
and accomplish the task within two months.
2. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner/KPSC contends that the production of Rural
Certificate countersigned by the jurisdictional BEO at a
particular stage of recruitment is mandatory and that
mandate having not been complied, the Tribunal ought to
have denied relief to the Private Respondent herein.
NC: 2024:KHC:6224-DB
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and having perused the Petition papers, this
Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the
Apex court in RAM KUMAR GIJROYA vs DELHI
SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND
ANOTHER, (2016) 4 SCC 754 has held that the
requirement of producing the Rural Certificate although is
a must, the stage at which it should be produced is
directory. In fact, the Tribunal at page No.9 of its order
has rightly observed as under:
" In so far as the stand of the KPSC that the
rural certificate has not been produce as on the
last date of for filling up of the application, it
does not have any relevance because as per
communication at Annexure-A8, the KPSC itself
ha relaxed that condition and given an
opportunity to the applicant to produce the rural
certificate countersigned by the BEO before the
date of interview. Moreover, the last date fixed
for producing such documents in terms of the
recruitment notification is not sacrosanct in
terms of the judgment of the Hon. Supreme
Court in Ram Kumar Gijiroy's case as cited by
the applicant. For the aforesaid reasons, in our
view, the application deserves consideration and
we feel that this is a fit case which calls for our
interference."
NC: 2024:KHC:6224-DB
3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.708/ 2023 between SRI. DEVARAJ P R vs.
KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS
FEDERATION LIMITED, disposed off on 08.11.2023 has
also taken the same view; paragraph No.9 of the said
Judgement which reads as under:
"It hardly needs to be stated that when the
recruiting entity is an instrumentality of the
State under Article 12, the persons in the fray
have a fundamental right to have their
candidature considered vide Article 16 of the
Constitution. If the error is attributable to such
an agency, it cannot ordinarily be permitted to
argue the difficulty of undertaking its
rectification, the error being plainly curable.
Otherwise, illegalities in the recruitment process
despite challenge would go with impunity and
the right thinking people in the society will not
approve of it. Turning away a deserving job
aspirant is not a happy thing to happen in a
Welfare State. Courts in general and Writ Courts
in particular cannot deny justice to a citizen who
has brought a worthy cause to their portal, by
quoting some jurisprudential theories. Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a century ago has said in
DAVIS vs. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451 (1904):
"Constitutions are intended to
preserve practical and substantial rights,
not to maintain theories...".
NC: 2024:KHC:6224-DB
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being
devoid of merits is liable to be rejected in limine and
accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to
the Private Respondent by Speed Post immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
