Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumadas vs Sri Vidyasagar L on 1 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO.18700 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANUMADAS
S/O DODDATIMMAYYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO.41, KAREKAL VILLAGE
YEDLAPUR POST
RAICHUR-584 170
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VIDYASAGAR L.
S/O LACHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT. RANGAVVANAHALLI
LAMBANIHATTI, HATTIMAGE POST
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
-
2
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 009
4. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOGA BHAVAN
PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2024 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION No.4659/2023 (ANNEXURE-C) AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION No.4659/2023
FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.09.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is challenged against the order of the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) dated 07.03.2024
allowing Application No.4659/2023 filed by the petitioner.
-
2. We have heard Shri. Rajendra M.S. and Shri.
Vivek Holla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Shri. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 1, Shri. Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.2 & 3
and Shri Basavaraj. S. Sappannavar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4-KPSC.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the petitioner challenged the selection
process for the recruitment of Assistant Engineers by the
Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) under the
Karnataka Water Resources Department Recruitment
(Special) Rules, 2017 (herein after referred to as the 'Rules,
2017' for short). The recruitment process commenced with a
notification dated 22.06.2017 for filling up of 600 Assistant
Engineer posts and 289 Junior Engineer posts. The
petitioner, having completed his Bachelor's Degree in
Mechanical Engineering, had applied for the post of Assistant
Engineer on 03.07.2017, claimed a reservation under the
Scheduled Caste, Rural, and Kannada Medium categories.
-
As per Rule 5(7) of the Rules, 2017, KPSC was required to
prepare an additional select list, in case candidates from the
final list failed to report for duty. Despite participating in the
examination, his name was not included in the provisional
select list dated 20.08.2018 or the final select list dated
27.09.2018.
4. It is further submitted that due to delay in
document verification, appointment orders were issued from
11.01.2019 until 30.06.2021. Subsequently, the State
Government cancelled the candidature of candidates whose
documents were not verified and requested KPSC to issue an
additional list for unfilled posts on 02.11.2021. However,
KPSC refused to publish the said list, leading several
candidates to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal on
07.11.2022, directed KPSC to publish the additional select
list. On 13.01.2023, KPSC called meritorious candidates for
verification of documents, but the petitioner, being a
resident of a remote Village in Raichur District with limited
internet access, did not receive proper communication. As a
result, the petitioner was unaware of the document
-
verification process and his name was excluded from the
additional select list published on 15.03.2023.
5. The petitioner submitted a representation dated
28.03.2023, pointing out that no written communication had
been sent to him. In response, KPSC published a revised
additional select list on 10.10.2023, including the petitioner
who had secured 165.50 marks and removing first
respondent, who had secured 164 marks. Hence, the
application was filed before the Tribunal by the first
respondent challenging the revised additional select list. The
Tribunal considered the contentions and held that in the
absence of any provision empowering the KPSC to revise a
final additional list, the application filed by the first
respondent was to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the order
of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the KPSC did not publish an additional
select list as mandated by Rule 5(7) of the Rules, 2017
which delayed the process for nearly four years until
-
15.03.2023, when the additional list was finally released.
The KPSC issued postal intimations to other candidates
regarding document verification, no such postal notice was
sent to the petitioner. Instead, an email dated 06.01.2023
was issued to the petitioner calling for document verification
on 13.01.2023, but due to his residence in a remote village
with limited internet access, the petitioner was unaware of
this communication. Consequently, the petitioner was
excluded from the additional select list published on
15.03.2023. Upon realizing this omission, the petitioner
submitted a representation to the KPSC on 28.03.2023. As a
result, revised additional select list was published on
10.10.2023 and the petitioner's name was included in the
said list.
7. It is also contended that KPSC was well within its
legal authority under Rule 5(7) of the Rules, 2017 to rectify
the mistake and publish a revised additional select list. It is
also contended that petitioner's exclusion from the original
additional select list was due to KPSC's failure to issue a
-
postal notice and the Tribunal failed to consider that KPSC
had the inherent power to correct errors.
8. In Support of his contentions, he placed reliance
on the following judgments:-
• Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri
and others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 448; and
• The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Sri.
Vidyasagar L. and others, by Order dated 31.05.2024
passed in WP No.13581/2024 (S-KSAT).
9. In reply, it is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the fourth respondent-KPSC that the petitioner
did not attend the document verification process on
13.01.2023 due to a communication failure. The petitioner
claimed that the communication from the KPSC did not
reach him, preventing his participation. After considering
this representation, the KPSC granted another opportunity
for the petitioner to attend the document verification since
he was a more meritorious candidate.
10. It is further contended that the petitioner's
documents were verified on 17.07.2023. It was found that
-
he was more meritorious than the first respondent.
Consequently, the petitioner's name was included above the
first respondent's name in the revised additional list
published on 10.10.2023 and based on a request from the
third respondent to fill up non-reported vacancies, including
one post for the SC/Rural category. Hence, the petitioner
was recommended for selection.
11. Placing reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Another
v. Umesh Kumar reported in (2020) 11 SCR 583, the
learned counsel seeks to support the decision to include the
petitioner in the revised list based on merit and the
verification of his documents.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent submits that this Court in W.P.No.13581/2024
(S-KSAT), has already considered the contentions of the
KPSC with regard to its power to revise a final additional list.
It is submitted that the additional list published by the KPSC
on 15.03.2023 was admittedly a final additional list and
there is absolutely no provision for revision of a final
-
additional list. It is submitted that the contention that the
petitioner was unaware of the communication issued on
06.01.2023 cannot be believed under any circumstances
since the petitioner's application was itself one submitted
online and all communications by the KPSC are routed online
to candidates. It is submitted that communications to all
candidates were issued online and that the petitioner was
not interested in keeping himself informed about the further
selection process and had not responded to the email
communication dated 06.01.2023. It is further submitted
that the petitioner had no case that the email
communication was not sent to him on 06.01.2023 and
therefore, he had absolutely no justification for not
attending the document verification on 13.01.2023 and later
submitting a representation on 28.03.2023 seeking revision
of the already finalised additional select list. It is further
submitted that a reading of the representation dated
28.03.2023 submitted by the petitioner would itself show
that he was well aware of the issuance of the email on
06.01.2023.
-
13. We have considered the contentions advanced on
all sides. We have also perused the judgment of this Court in
the writ petition filed by the KPSC as against the very same
order of the Tribunal dated 07.03.2024. We notice that
there is no specific power in the KPSC to revise a finalised
additional select list. Though, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he was more meritorious than the
first respondent, we notice that the conduct of the selection
and all its attendant procedures are to be conducted in
accordance with the provisions, which governs such
selection. The general conditions contained in the
notification would be binding on the candidates. If finalized
select list and additional select list are sought to be
interfered with and modified without there being any
provision of law permitting such procedure, the entire
process of selection would be rendered meaningless and
irrational.
14. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the contention that the petitioner should have
been granted another opportunity to place his credentials on
-
record is unsupported by any provision of law and the KPSC
cannot be permitted to carry out such exercises without
power being conferred for the same. In the above view of
the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the
Tribunal does not warrant any interference in this writ
petition.
15. The writ petition fails, the same is accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
cp*
