Karnataka High Court
Manjunath Ballari vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.2722/2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH BALLARI
S/O RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABLOUT 41 YEARS
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
(UNDER RULE 32 OF KCSR)
DPAR, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
R/AT "PRAMATHA"
2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS
OPP: SIDDESHWARA APARTMENT
SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT
SIDEDAHALLI, BAGALAGUNTE
BENGALURU - 73.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RANGANATHA S. JOIS., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
2
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU- 01.
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOG SOUDHA
PARK HOUSE
BENGALURU - 01.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA., AGA FOR R-1;
SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE FINAL ORDERS DATED 10.02.2017 AND
04.09.2020 PASSED IN THE APPLICATION BEARING NO.
6828/2006 AND REVIEW APPLICATION BEARING RA
NO.91/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND J AND AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL
ARBITRARY AND ALSO SUFFERS FROM THE ERROR
APARENT ON THE FACT OF RECORD.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 16/10/2024 COMING ON
THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner, applicant before the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short
"Tribunal") is before this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness
and legality of the order dated 10.02.2017 in
application No.6828/2006 by which, the petitioner's
request for a direction to the respondents to consider
him to the post of Tahsildar since he is from Rural
category instead of the post of Section Officer in the
Karnataka Government Secretariat, is rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are :
The respondents, by notification dated
04.11.2004 invited applications from the eligible
candidates to fill up 153 vacancies of Gazetted
Probationers Group-A and Group-B posts. Pursuant to
the said notification, the petitioner applied under
general merit and claimed reservation meant for
Kannada Medium Students (KMS). The petitioner was
called for preliminary examination and as the
petitioner qualified in the preliminary examination, he
was called for main examination. It is stated that the
petitioner scored 1026 marks including the marks
obtained in personality test(viva-voce). Based on the
marks obtained in the main examination, list of
eligible candidates to be called for interview was
published on 06.03.2006. In terms of the said list,
the petitioner was called for interview on 27.03.2006.
The petitioner was interviewed as general merit - KMS
candidate. Thereafter provisional select list was
published on 15.04.2006. While filing objections to
the provisional select list, the petitioner enclosed Rural
Certificate dated 03.04.2006 and claimed Rural
reservation. Thereafter, final select list was published
on 04.05.2006 and the petitioner was selected for the
post of Section Officer in the Karnataka Government
Secretariat and accordingly he was appointed under
General Merit - KMS.
3. Petitioner's representation to consider his case
under Rural reservation was rejected and
endorsement dated 29.04.2006 was issued to the
petitioner, stating that the petitioner has claimed
Rural reservation on the basis of Rural Certificate
obtained on 03.04.2006 i.e., subsequent to
preparation of eligibility list for interview. Challenging
the said endorsement and seeking for a direction to
consider his case for appointment as Tahsildar by
providing Rural reservation, the petitioner was before
the Tribunal in Application No.6828/2006. The
Tribunal, under impugned order rejected the prayer of
the petitioner, with an observation that the petitioner
has not claimed Rural reservation and only after
preparation of provisional select list, he has come up
with a request, claiming Rural reservation.
Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal as well
as endorsement issued by the second respondent-
Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short
"KPSC"), petitioner is before this Court in this writ
petition.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Jois for
petitioner and learned AGA Sri. Shivareddy for
respondent No.1 as well as Smt.M.R.Sinchana,
learned counsel for respondent No.2-KPSC. Perused
the writ petition papers.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is more meritorious having
obtained 1026 marks and hence, he ought to have
been selected as Tahsildar by providing Rural
reservation. Learned counsel would submit that as on
the date of submitting the application, the petitioner
and similarly situated persons could not claim Rural
reservation since the place where they studied was
urban area as on the said date. It is submitted that in
terms of the judgment dated 22.03.2005 in
W.A.No.4456/2004 (KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND
ANOTHER v/s SAIFULLA M), this Court held that, to
provide Rural reservation, it is to be examined as to
whether the village or the place where such candidate
studied was located in a rural area as on the date of
his study. Since the petitioner had studied at Haveri
and as on the date of his study it was rural area, he
obtained Rural Certificate in pursuance of notification
dated 10.08.2005, issued pursuant to the order
passed by this Court. Further, he submits that he
claimed Rural reservation which respondent No.2
ought to have considered and selected him as
Tahsildar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the case of the petitioner is treated with
discrimination, in that, one Mallikarjuna who had
secured 1020 marks and another candidate
Sri.Naveen Kumar Raju who submitted Rural
Certificate subsequently, were provided Rural
reservation. Similarly, case of the petitioner also
ought to have been considered and he should have
been provided with Rural reservation. Learned
counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR
1968 SC 346 in the case of STATE OF MYSORE v/s
S.R.JAYAMMA to contend that the recruitment by
open competition aims at ensuring equality of
opportunity in the matter of employment and
obtaining services of the most meritorious candidates.
Further, learned counsel for the petitioner also places
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal 6072/2023 dated 22.09.2023 (SWEETY
KUMARI v/s THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHES)
to contend that the petitioner had studied in Rural
area and production of such Certificate at later stage
could be permitted. Thus, he prays for allowing the
writ petition.
6. Per contra, Smt.Sinchana learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner applied
for the post of Gazetted Probationer under general
merit claiming KMS reservation. It is specifically
contended that the petitioner initially had not claimed
Rural reservation. The petitioner request to provide
Rural reservation was only after publication of
provisional select list and that too based on the
certificate obtained on 03.04.2006. Learned counsel
would submit that production of such Certificate which
is obtained after publication of provisional select list is
impermissible and further submits that if the
petitioner had claimed Rural reservation while
submitting the application, production of Certificate
later could have been permitted. Learned counsel
would submit that list of eligible candidates to be
called for interview was published on 06.03.2006 and
as on the said date, the petitioner had not claimed
Rural reservation. List of eligible candidates for
interview was prepared based on the roster and if the
Rural reservation claimed subsequently is considered,
whole selection process would get vitiated. Thus, she
prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the point
which falls for consideration is as to whether the
second respondent is justified in rejecting the request
of the petitioner to provide Rural reservation claimed
subsequent to publication of provisional select list?
8. Answer to the above point would be in the
negative and affirmative respectively for the following
reasons:
Admittedly, in pursuance of the recruitment
notification dated 04.11.2004 published by the second
respondent, the petitioner applied for the post of
Gazetted Probationer Group-A and Group-B posts in
terms of Annexure-A2 as general merit candidate
claiming reservation under KMS. A perusal of
Annexure-A2 application of the petitioner would not
indicate claiming any other reservation. In other
words, the petitioner has not claimed Rural
reservation while submitting his application for the
Gazetted Probationer Post. The petitioner having
qualified in the Preliminary and Main examinations, he
was called for interview on 27.03.2006, in terms of
the list of eligible candidates for interview published
on 06.03.2006. As on the said date also, the
petitioner had not claimed Rural reservation.
9. It is true that in pursuance of the judgment of
this Court in W.A.No.4456/2004 disposed of on
22.03.2005, the State Government issued
Government Order dated 10.08.2005 modifying Form
No.1 and Form No. 2 in exercise of its power under
Section 5 of the Karnataka Reservation of
Appointments or Posts (in the Civil Services of the
State) for Rural Candidates Act, 2000. Pursuant to
the said notification, the petitioner obtained Rural
Certificate only on 03.04.2006 and submitted the
same along with a representation dated 20.04.2006,
that too after publication of provisional select list. If a
candidate fails to claim reservation initially, he cannot
claim such reservation benefit subsequent to
personality test or publication of select list either
provisional or final. Providing reservation at that
stage would dislocate the entire selection process, in
that, the entire selection process which is based on
the roster would get vitiated.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner had not claimed Rural
reservation while submitting his application. The
petitioner claimed Rural reservation only subsequent
to publication of provisional select list which is
impermissible. If the petitioner had claimed Rural
reservation while making his application at the initial
stage itself, production of Rural Certificate could have
been permitted at a later stage. When the petitioner
has not claimed Rural reservation till publication of
provisional select list, he cannot be permitted to claim
Rural reservation subsequent to publication of
provisional select list.
11. The decision in S.R.JAYARAM (supra) would not
assist the petitioner. In that, it is held that Recruiting
Authority has to obtain services of most meritorious
candidates. In the instant case, as the petitioner was
meritorious, he is selected as Section Officer in
Karnataka Government Secretariat under general
merit (KMS) category. The decision in SWEETY
KUMARI (supra) would also not assist the petitioner.
When the petitioner had not claimed Rural reservation
at all till publication of provisional select list, he
cannot be permitted to claim Rural reservation by
producing Rural Certificate obtained subsequently.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that his case has been treated with discrimination and
the Rural Certificates of one Sri.Mallikarjuna B and
Sri.S.Naveen Kumar Raju submitted subsequently
have been considered. In that regard, respondent
No.2-KPSC was directed to file affidavit of Secretary.
Respondent No.2/KPSC has filed affidavit dated
19.09.2024 stating that Sri.Mallikarjuna B had claimed
Rural reservation at the time of applying for the post
itself and had produced Rural Certificate to the
Commission along his main examination application.
Further, in respect of Sri.S.Naveen Kumar Raju, it is
stated that he had produced Rural Certificate much
before the issuance of eligibility list for personality
test. In view of the said statement, it cannot be said
that the case of the petitioner is treated with
discrimination.
13. For the reasons recorded above, we are of view
that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly,
the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR)
JUDGE
MPK
CT: RS
