Karnataka High Court
Maruti S/O Mayappa Kariyavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
WA No. 100622 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100622 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MARUTI S/O. MAYAPPA KARIYAVAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
RANI CHENNAMMA UNIVERSITY, BELAGAVI,
R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ. DT. GADAG.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPT. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (HIGHER
EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
KATTIMANI
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
Date: 2024.01.22
17:22:00 +0530 RANI CHENNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYA SANGAMA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-4,
BHUTARAMANAHALLI, BELAGAVI-591156.
3. THE REGISTRAR,
RANI CHENNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYA SANGAMA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-4,
BHUTARAMANAHALLI, BELAGAVI-591156.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
31/10/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.102037/2023 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
WA No. 100622 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a candidate to the post of Office
Superintendent in pursuance to the recruitment
Notification dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-A) issued by
respondent Nos.2 and 3, is before this Court questioning
the correctness and legality of order dated 31.10.2023
passed in W.P. No.102037/2023 by the learned Single
Judge, whereby petitioner's prayer to quash selection
process to the post of Office Superintendent is rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri. Shivaraj C. Bellakki
for appellant and learned counsel Shri. Sangram S.
Kulkarni for caveator/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused
the writ appeal papers.
3. Brief facts are that, the appellant/petitioner is
working as Second Division Assistant in the third
respondent-Rani Chennamma University. Respondent-
University by recruitment notification dated 09.02.2023
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
(Annexure-A) invited applications from eligible candidates
to fill up various posts including the post of Office
Superintendent. It is stated that the petitioner-appellant
having qualifications, applied for the post of Office
Superintendent. It is further stated that the respondent-
University published eligible list of candidates for the post
of Office Superintendent and list of candidates, who are
not eligible for the post of Office Superintendent. The
petitioner's name was found place in the eligible list dated
16.03.2023 for the post of Office Superintendent and
immediately on the very next day, his name was deleted
from the eligible list. Thereafter, the petitioner approached
this Court in W.P. No.102037/2023 with a prayer to quash
the entire recruitment proceedings under Notification
dated 09.02.2023(Annexure-A) and with a consequential
prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents/University to conduct recruitment process
afresh.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
4. On appearance, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed
their statement of objections contending that appellant-
petitioner would not possess qualification as prescribed in
Annexure-A recruitment notification and further they
contended that the petitioner-appellant would not possess
the requisite experience among other contentions.
5. Learned Single Judge on consideration of rival
contentions under impugned order rejected the writ
petition holding that the petitioner has failed to establish
that he has possessed necessary qualifications prescribed
namely three years of prior experience in supervisory
capacity.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is discriminated while
permitting other similarly situated candidates to
participate in the selection process. Learned counsel would
further submit that the candidates, who have no prior
experience in supervisory capacity, are permitted to
participate in the recruitment proceedings, while denying
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
the opportunity to the petitioner to participate. Further, it
is also submitted that the candidates, who have no prior
experience in supervisory capacity are selected for the
post of Office Superintendent. Thus, learned counsel would
pray for an opportunity to participate in the selection
process.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Shri. Sangram S.
Kulkarni for caveator/respondent Nos.2 and 3 supporting
the order passed by learned Single Judge would submit
that the appellant-petitioner had not possessed the
requisite prior experience in supervisory capacity as
required under recruitment notification. Learned counsel
referring to recruitment notification would submit that one
of the qualifications prescribed to the post of Office
Superintendent is, 3 years experience as Office
Superintendent in any of the Government or Educational
Institution. He submits that the appellant-petitioner is
working as Second Division Assistant in the University and
he has no work experience as Office Superintendent or in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
a Supervisory post. Thus, learned counsel would justify
the action of the respondent- University. Further, learned
counsel would submit that the contention of the appellant-
petitioner that candidates who have no prior experience in
Supervisory capacity are permitted to participate in the
proceedings is false and he submits that none of them
have been selected. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the
writ appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only
point which falls for consideration is as to whether the
learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the appellant's
writ petition.
9. The answer to the above point would be in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
10. It is not in dispute that the respondent Nos.2
and 3 University under recruitment notification dated
09.02.2023 invited applications from eligible candidates to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
fill-up various posts including the post of Office
Superintendent. The qualification prescribed for the post of
Office Superintendent under recruitment notification reads
as follows:
3. ಕ ಅ ೕಕಕ :
1.ಅಂ ೕ ತ ರ ೕಯ ಶ ಲಯ ಂದ
ತಕ ಪದ ಯ ಕ ಷ ೕಯ ದ ! "# ೕ$ಯ
ಪ# ಶತ %. 55% (ಎ'.(/ಎ'.). ಅಭ +!ಗ-. 5%
/ ಯ ) ಅಂಕಗ0ಂ . 1ಗ!2 3ಂ ರ45.
2. ಸ7!/ ಅಥ9 :;$ಕ <=> ಯ ಕ ಷ 03
ವಷ! ಕ@A ಇಲ CD ಕE/ F GರH I9
ಅJಭವವJ 3ಂ ರ45.
3. ಶ ಲಯದ ಪ/ ಯಮಗL ಮMN ಕO!ಟಕ
ಸ7!ರ 7ಲ7ಲQR 3ರ@Sವ ಇತT ಯಮಗL
ಅನ ಯ9VತN W.
11. A candidate who intends to participate in the
selection process to the post of Office Superintendent shall
possess "Degree with minimum of 55% marks and for
SC/ST 50%". The other qualification is that "one should
have 3 years experience as Office Superintendent in any of
the Government or Educational Institution".
12. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Second
Division Assistant in the respondent-University. Petitioner
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
is not working or he has not worked as Office
Superintendent or he has not discharged the functions of
Office Superintendent as required. When a candidate
would not possess qualification as prescribed, such
candidate would have no locus to challenge the selection
process.
13. Learned Single Judge is right in holding that,
writ petitioner would not possess or has failed to establish
that he possessed necessary qualifications prescribed
namely 'three years prior experience in Supervisory
capacity'.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
contended that candidates, who have no experience and
qualification have been permitted to participate and such
candidates are selected. On the other hand, learned
counsel for respondent-University submitted that no such
candidates are selected. Still, if the appellant-petitioner is
of the opinion that such candidates are selected. It is open
for the petitioner to challenge those selections. In the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:645-DB
present petition, they are not parties and this Court would
not go into such allegation in the present writ petition.
Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.
15. Accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKM
