Karnataka High Court
The Superintendent Of Police vs Mr Devaraj G on 22 October, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
WP No. 3864 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3864 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
WIRELESS, BENGALURU
O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
WIRELESS, No.1, M.G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, AAG, A/W.
SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA)
AND:
1. MR.DEVARAJ.G
S/O GOVINDA NAIK.B.H
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577548
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by (BY SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE)
MARIGANGAIAH
PREMAKUMARI
Location: HIGH THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
COURT OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; ISSUE A
KARNATAKA WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10/06/2020 IN APPLICATION NO.63592018 (ANNXURE-A) PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
WP No. 3864 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner, Superintendent of Police (Wireless),
Bengaluru is before this Court aggrieved by order dated
10.06.2020 in Application No.6359/2015 passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for
short, 'Tribunal') allowing respondent's application
directing to consider the candidature of the respondent for
the post of Police Constable (wireless) (men and women) if
the applicant is otherwise entitled to the said post and to
issue appointment order.
2. Facts leading to filing of the present writ
petition are that, respondent who was applicant before the
Tribunal possesses the qualification of SSLC and Degree
Bridge Course from Karnataka State Open University (for
short, 'KSOU'). Petitioner under Recruitment Notification
dated 19.06.2014 called online applications from the
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
qualified candidates to fill up the posts of Police Constable
(Railways) (men and women) and Police Constable
(wireless) (men and women). In pursuance to the said
notification the applicant submitted his application
claiming reservation under Scheduled Caste Category for
the post of Police Constable (wireless) (men and women).
It is stated that the respondent was called for endurance
test and physical standard test, wherein he stood
qualified. Thereafter, the applicant was also called for
verification of original documents. The provisional select
list was published on 19.10.2015 wherein the name of the
applicant found at Sl.No.62. As the name of the
respondent was not found in the final select list, he made
representation to the petitioner and the respondent was
issued with endorsement dated 01.12.2015 stating that
the qualification of Degree Bridge Course is not equivalent
to PUC. Challenging the said endorsement and for a
direction to appoint the respondent/applicant to the post
of Police Constable (wireless), the respondent approached
the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner who was
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
respondent contended that the respondent herein did not
possess the requisite qualification and qualification
possessed i.e., Degree Bridge Course from the Karnataka
State Open University is not equivalent to PUC. The
Tribunal under impugned order holding that circular issued
on 27.01.2015 (Annexure-A13) is subsequent to the
notification calling for the application and is having
prospective effect, directed to consider the case of the
respondent for appointment as Police Constable
(Wireless). Questioning the said order of the Tribunal,
petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General
Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.H.K.Kenchegowda,
learned Additional Government Advocate for petitioner and
learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa for respondent.
Perused the writ petition papers.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General would
submit that the qualification possessed by the respondent
i.e., Degree Bridge Course from the Karnataka State Open
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
University is not equivalent to Pre-University Course
conducted by the Karnataka Pre-University Board. When
the respondent would not possess the requisite
qualification, Tribunal committed grave error in directing
to consider his case for appointment as Police Constable
(Wireless). It is pointed out that the Tribunal misdirected
itself in placing reliance on the decision of this Court dated
12.01.2015 in W.P.Nos.17758-17759/2014 and
W.P.No.34255/2016 dated 27.06.2016 to come to a
conclusion that Bridge Course studied by the applicant i.e.,
respondent herein from the Karnataka State Open
University is to be considered for the purpose of getting
employment. He submits that those decisions relate to the
Degree Course and the orders were passed by this Court
on the concession of the learned counsel appearing for the
UGC. It is submitted that in the instant case, there is no
clarification from the Pre-University Board or there is no
notification under Rule 2(h) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 declaring equivalence
of Bridge Course conducted by KSOU to that of PUC.
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
Further, learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that the observation of the Tribunal that the Circular dated
27.01.2015 is subsequent to recruitment notification
issued in the year 2014, hence, it would have no
application is misconceived. It is submitted that earlier to
the Circular dated 27.01.2015, there was no equivalent
notification and it only clarifies that 10+2 of the Karnataka
State Open University cannot be considered for
appointment. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa
for respondent vehemently submits that the qualification
possessed by respondent i.e., Degree Bridge Course from
the KSOU is equivalent to PUC and submits that Tribunal
rightly directed the petitioner to consider the case of the
respondent for appointment as Police Constable
(Wireless). Learned counsel refers to various decisions of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to submit that Bridge
Course from KSOU is equivalent qualification to PUC i.e.,
W.P.Nos.47033-47039/2017 dated 08.12.2017
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
(Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs.
Raghuveersingh Thakur & Others), W.P.Nos.9335-
9338/2012 dated 05.09.2012 (Karnataka Public
Service Commission Vs. Sri.Rajkumar and Others)
and W.P.Nos.29048-29055/2002 and Connected
Matters dated 28.11.2002 (Narasimha Khatarch and
Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others).
Further, learned counsel would also contend that Circular
dated 27.01.2015 which clarified that 10+2 of KSOU could
not be considered for employment is a subsequent
notification to employment notification issued in the year
2014, as such, it would have no application. In support of
this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.4846/2021 dated 17.08.2021 (Prveen Kumar.C.P.,
Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others).
Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the
only point which falls for consideration is as to,
"Whether the Tribunal is justified in
directing the petitioner herein to consider the
candidature of the respondent for the post of
Police Constable (Wireless) by rejecting the
contention that the Degree Bridge Course of
KSOU cannot be considered to be equivalent to
PUC?"
7. The answer to the above point would be in the
Negative for the following reasons:
8. The petitioner under Notification dated
19.06.2014 called applications from the qualified
candidates to fill up the post of Police Constable (Railways)
(men and women) and Police Constable (Wireless) (men
and women). In the instant case, we are concerned with
the post of Police Constable (Wireless). The qualification
prescribed for the post of Police Constable (Wireless) reads
as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
"©) ¥Éưøï PÁ£ïìmÉç¯ï (ªÉÊgï¯É¸ï) (¥ÀÄgÀĵÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛÄÛ ªÀÄ»¼Á) ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ:
¦AiÀÄĹ AiÀÄ°è «eÁÚ£À CxÀªÁ «eÁߣÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è
vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sËvÀ±Á¸ÀÛç ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀtÂvÀ
«µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀ¤µÀ× 50 CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CxÀªÁ
vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ
J¯ÉPÁÖç¤Pïì/J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ïì/mÉ° PÀªÀÄÄå¤PÉõÀ£ïì/PÀA¥ÀÆålgï
¸ÉÊ£ïì «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèêÀÄ
¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CxÀªÁ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ
¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ «eÁÚ£À «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀgÁ¸Àj ±ÉÃ.50 CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ (J¸ï¹/J¸ïn ªÀÄvÀÄÛ N©¹ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ
±ÉÃ.45 CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.)"
9. A candidate must have studied Science subject
in PUC or equivalent qualification in Science with Physics
and Mathematics subjects, with minimum 50% marks or
three years Diploma from Technical Education Board in
Electronics / Electricals / Telecommunications / Computer
Science or equivalent qualification with 50% marks in
Science subject.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
10. The qualification possessed by respondent is
SSLC and Degree Bridge Course (equivalent to 10+2 /
PUC-2) Science examination (as described in the
statement of marks - Annexure-A3) from Karnataka State
Open University. The said Degree Bridge Course from
KSOU is not declared as equivalent qualification to PUC
conducted by Pre-University Board at any point of time, as
required under Rule 2(h) of the General Recruitment
Rules. The respondent has not placed on record any
material either before the Tribunal or before this Court to
establish that the Degree Bridge Course from KSOU is
equivalent to PUC. Admittedly, no notification under Rule
2(h) of General Recruitment Rules is issued declaring
equivalence of Degree Bridge Course as equivalent to PUC.
In the absence of such notification, Degree Bridge Course
of KSOU cannot be equated to PUC qualification.
11. Learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa contended
that Circular dated 27.01.2015 which clarified that 10+2
examination of KSOU cannot be considered for
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
employment, is subsequent to recruitment notification
issued in the year 2014, hence, the said circular would
have no application. It is true that the above circular is
subsequent to the recruitment notification, but, prior to
issuance of that circular dated 27.01.2015, there was no
notification declaring equivalence of Degree Bridge Course
of KSOU with PUC qualification. Circular dated 27.01.2015
further clarified that 10+2 of KSOU cannot be considered
for employment. In the said circumstances, the said
circular would have no consequence in the present case.
The decision relied upon by the learned counsel in
Praveen Kumar.C.P. (supra) would have no application
to the facts of the present case. Therein, the State of
Kerala had issued Government Order clarifying the already
existing equivalence. Noticing all the Government Orders,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that equivalency orders were
merely clarificatory in nature and the GO's only confirm
the equalency of their B.Ed Degrees.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
12. Learned counsel for respondent also placed
reliance on the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench stated
supra to contend that, the 10+2 Degree Bridge Course is
equivalent to PUC. We have gone through those decisions
and on going through, it is seen that those decisions relate
to Vocational Courses and PUC (Job Oriented Course)
conducted by Pre-University Board. Considering the fact
that Vocation Course as well as PUC (Job Oriented Course)
are conducted by the Pre-University Board, this Court held
that those courses are equivalent to PUC. In the instant
case, the Degree Bridge Course 10+2 is conducted by the
KSOU which specifically needs equivalence notification and
this Court is not an expert body to go through the syllabus
of both the courses and to declare equivalence. Declaring
equivalence is to be left to the experts and it is for the
employer to prescribe qualification required for the post.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.U.Joshi and Others Vs. the
Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others1, has
(2003) 2 SCC 632
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
made it clear that it is open and within the competency of
the State to prescribe, vary qualifications, eligibility criteria
and other conditions of service.
13. The Tribunal is not right in placing reliance on
the decisions of Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.Nos.17758-
17759/2014 dated 12.01.2015 and
W.P.No.34255/2016 dated 27.06.2016. Those decisions
related to the Degrees awarded by KSOU and those
decisions were rendered on the submissions made by UGC
with regard to recognition or otherwise of KSOU.
Moreover, it is not with regard to 10+2 or Degree Bridge
Course of KSOU.
14. Thus, we find force in the contentions raised by
the State and for the reasons recorded above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43318-DB
ii) Order dated 10.06.2020 in Application
No.6359/2018 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru
is set aside and Application stands
rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
NC
CT: bms
