Karnataka High Court
Dr. Pradeep L Doddamani vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3583
WP No. 200540 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO.200540 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. PRADEEP L. DODDAMANI S/O LASKARI NAIK,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
IN UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL,
GANGAVATI-583227.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
Digitally signed by VETERNIARY SERVICES, M.S BUILDING,
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
KARNATAKA OF KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL AND,
FISHERIES SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY,
NANDINAGAR, P.B NO.6,
BIDAR-585401.
3. THE REGISTRAR
OF THE KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL AND
FISHERIES, SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
NANDINAGAR P.B NO.6
BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.B YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3583
WP No. 200540 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE REVISED
PROVISIONAL INELIGIBLE LIST IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER AT
SL.NOS.42 AND 43 DATED 30.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ENDORSEMENT
DATED 08.02.2023 IN NO. R / KVAFSU / 371-J / ASST. PROF /
ENDORSEMENT / 2022-23, VIDE ANNEXURE- F AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed praying the following
reliefs:-
"To issue writ of certiorari quashing the revised
provisional ineligible list in so far as petitioner at
Sl.Nos.42 and 43 dated 30.09.2022 vide Annexure -
D issued by the respondent No.3 and endorsement
dated 08.02.2023 in No. R / KVAFSU / 371-j /
ASST.PROF / ENDORSEMENT / 2022-23, vide
Annexure - F.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3583
02. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.3 has issued a notification vide Annexure-A dated
30.09.2022 calling upon the application for recruitment to
the post of Assistant Professors Fisheries at Karnataka
Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, at
Bidar, in different department.
03. The petitioner had applied to the post of
Assistant Professor Fisheries. He has filled the format and
submitted through proper channel vide Annexure-B. In the
said Form at Page No.14 (running Page No.19) he has
quoted the period of experience in the Government of
Karnataka Department of Fisheries for a period of 07 years
01 month and University of Agricultural Riachur, for a
period of 03 years 01 month and prayed for relaxation of
age.
04. It is further case that according to the
notification, age limit for scheduled castes candidates was
40 years. It is also referred in the said notification that
"age relaxation for any other seats will be considered
based on the order of Government of Karnataka".
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3583
05. According to the petitioner his age is 43 years
and he is entitled for relaxation of 03 years. Since, he has
been in Government service for more than 07 years. The
respondent No.3 considered his application and in the
provisional list his name was referred at Sl.Nos.72 and 73
vide Annexure-C. However thereafter, vide Annexure-D his
name was mentioned in the ineligible list. Thereafter, he
made a representation to the Registrar for the age
relaxation. The Registrar had issued endorsement dated
08.02.2023 stating that he has not uploaded the service
certificate to claim the age relaxation under in service
category. Hence, his application was rejected.
06. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that age relaxation was not given to him only on the
ground that his service certificate was not uploaded and
there is no condition in the notification that such certificate
shall be uploaded. As per the conditions Nos.11 and 38 it
was sufficient to furnish such certificate at the time of
verification of the records and application. He has also
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3583
relied on the judgment of this Court rendered by the
Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.24847/2022 by the Prl. Bench
at Bengaluru rendered on 31.01.2023.
07. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that he is only the candidate who has applied
and selected in the provisional list. There is no competitor
for the said post. After his representation, he has been
selected in the provisional list and due to Annexure-D
appointment order not issued. With these reasons prays to
quash the Annexure-D i.e., revised provisional ineligible
list in respect of the petitioner at Sl.Nos.42 and 43.
08. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3
submits that the applicant has not uploaded the copy of
the service certificate and furnished the hard copy of the
said document. Therefore, by an order dated 08.02.2023
endorsement was given to him on the ground that his
application was rejected as he had not submitted the hard
copy of the application through post. On the said ground
Annexure-F was also given. There is no illegality in the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3583
said endorsement. The learned counsel for respondent has
not able to show in the Annexure-A that there is a
condition precedent that the service certificate or other
documents shall be uploaded along with online application.
09. In the Annexure-F there is reference regarding
the age relaxation as per law. The Karnataka Civil Services
(General recruitment) Rules, 1977 (Amendment upto
December-2020 incorporation), Rule-6 Sub-Rule-3 (b),
wherein age relaxation can be given for in-service
candidates. The notification is also reveals that the age
relaxation would be given on the order of the Government
of Karnataka. The respondent No.3 ought to have
considered these facts and considered the name of the
petitioner for the said post that he is belonging to the
scheduled caste and having experience of 07 and odd
years in the said period.
10. In the judgment rendered by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24847/2022, relying on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3583
necessary documents were not submitted along with the
application due to reason beyond the control of applicant
and it could be produced in due course if materials are
available already on record. In this case, in the application
itself, as stated above, the petitioner had furnished pursue
of in service. In support of that he had furnished the said
relevant papers along with his representation vide
Annexure-E. The same was not considered by the
respondent No.3. Therefore, the Annexure-D pertaining to
the petitioner at Sl.Nos.42 and 43 is not in accordance
with law. Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
I. The writ petition is allowed.
II. Including the name of the petitioner in the
provisional "ineligible list" at Sl.Nos.42 and 43 dated
30.09.2022, is quashed, only in respect of petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3583
III. If petitioner's name is already shown in the selection
list as submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be
considered.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
CT:PK
