IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NOS.31034-31035/2009 (S-KSRTC) Between:
A. Venkataramana, Son of A. Akkulappa Aged about 46 years Residing at No.6, 6th ‘A’ Main Road Srikenteshwara Nagar Nandini Layout (Post) Bengaluru -560096 …Petitioner (By Sri. L. Shekar, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Ministry of Transport Vidhana Soudha Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru 2. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Represented by its The Managing Director Central Offices, K.H. Road, Shanthinagar Bengaluru – 560027 3. The Chief Personnel Manager Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Central Offices K.H.Road, Shanthinagar Bengaluru – 560027 4. The Director (P&E) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Central Offices K.H. Road, Shanthinagar Bengaluru – 560027 ... Respondents (By Sri.E.S.Indiresh, AGA for R-1; Smt.H.R.Renuka, Advocate for R2-R4) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 at Annexure- A and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing-B group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned AGA and the standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 to 4 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner is an ex-servicemen who had served in the elite Indian Army as a sepoy for more than 15 years between 22.12.1984 to 30.11.2000 and that he has served the Air Force with distinction in far-flung field areas and peace station and that he has been awarded certificate whereby his character has been described as exemplary and he retired at the age of about 36 years and that during his service with the Army, he has been granted a Graduation Certificate dated 30.11.2000 and produced as Annexure-C to the writ petition. The said certificate has also been recognized by the Government of Karnataka as a qualifying certificate vide notification No.DPAR/11-SRR- 86 dated 04.05.1987 and that the Central Government has also, by its notification No.15012, 8/82 Est.(D) dated 12.02.1986, has recognised that the Graduation Certificate issued by the Indian Army as equivalent to Graduation Certificate issued by the Universities. It is also seen that the petitioner has also obtained a graduation degree from Osmania University.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after retirement, the petitioner applied for and was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the 2nd respondent Corporation and that during his employment, 2nd respondent issued a notification vide Annexure-B calling for application for the post of Traffic Inspector and certain posts were also reserved for ex-servicemen. The petitioner being a graduate had applied for the said post. Pending consideration of his application, he moved this Court in W.P.No.7771/2009 c/w W.P.No.7772/2009 seeking for setting aside the qualification prescribed by the 2nd respondent Corporation for the post of Traffic Inspector contending that the same is not applicable to the reserved post of ex-servicemen.
4. This Court after consideration has, by its detailed order, declined to interfere. But while so declining to interfere and grant relief as prayed for, it has noticed that the provision of Regulation 20 of the KSRTC Servants (C&R) Regualtions,1982, invests the 2nd respondent with the discretion to waive or relax the condition of employment or qualification prescribed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, this Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to prefer such representation to the management and further directed that if such a representation is received, the same would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.
5. Persuant to the direction by this Court in writ petition W.P.No.7771/2009 c/w W.P.No.7772/2009 dated 26.05.2009, petitioners made a representation to the 3rd respondent. The Chief Personal Manager (Recruitment) by an endorsement dated 30.09.2009, has disposed of the representation with a one line order which reads as follows:
“It is informed that it is not possible to relax the prescribed qualification and the Percentage of Marks (emphasis by me).”
Aggrieved by the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that apart from Regulation 20, the Regulation 4 Clause 8 also stipulates that the minimum educational qualification and the knowledge of Kannada as prescribed by the Corporation by time to time, are not applicable to applicants like the petitioner i.e., ex- servicemen and their children who are residing in the State of Karnataka and to such other class of people. He would contend that the minimum educational qualification prescribed would not apply to the case of the petitioner. He would submit that, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not posses minimum qualification of graduation. It is the case of the respondents that, he has not completed the graduation course with higher percent of merit as prescribed by the 2nd respondent Corporation. He would contend that the defense personnel constitute a special class by themselves and the state in recognition of the ex-servicemen as a separate class, has introduced reservation in appointments in various posts. He would contend that the impugned order is vitiated by non application of mind and that the same is a non speaking order.
6. Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would vehemently contend that the exception under Clause 8 of Regulation 4 is only with regard to the knowledge of Kannada and does not exempt the possession of minimum educational qualification i.e, she would further contend that the question of exercising the power of relaxation under Regulation 20 does not arise as it would lead to dilution of standards and would amount to encouraging in competency.
7. The learned AGA would also canvas the stand adopted by the counsel for the respondent Corporation. This Court, by order dated 26.05.2009, had specifically directed the consideration of the representation with reference to Regulation 20. A perusal of Annexure-A does not disclose such a consideration. The reading of the impugned order would disclose that no judicious exercise has been conducted while considering and disposing of the representation. The direction of this Court in order dated 26.05.2009, requires judicious exercise of the discretional power vested in the Corporation under Regulation 20. It is also seen that the impugned order has been passed without reference to Clause 8 of Regulation 4 of the Corporation Regulations. Further Regulation 20 vests the power in the Corporation to relax the qualification prescribed for recruitment of candidates if suitable candidates are not available. It is not the case of the respondents that candidates with suitable qualification were available and hence, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. Further a reading of the provisions of Regulation 20 would reveal that the relaxation, is and ought to be by a resolution which would imply that the consideration ought to be by the Board. In the instant case, the consideration is by a subordinate of the Board. The direction of this Court was to consider the representation with reference to Regulation 20. That being the case, the consideration ought to have been by the Board. The reading of Annexure-A proceedings, the order impugned herein, does not reveal such an exercise by the Board.
8. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned is not incompliance with the direction issued by this Court. Further, it is also apparent that the consideration is by an authority who is not competent to exercise the powers under Regulation 20. Hence, ends of justice requires that the impugned endorsement be quashed.
9. Accordingly, impugned endorsement dated 30.09.2009 stands quashed. Further, direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the representation dated 15.06.2009 vide Annexure-S to the writ petition. The consideration shall be with reference to the provisions of Clause 8 of Regulation 4 and Regulation 20.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
11. The 2nd respondent shall endeavor to consider and complete the exercise of disposal within a period of 6 months from today. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the 2nd respondent.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by an interim order dated 02.11.2010, this Court directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 to keep one post of Traffic Inspector vacant. The interim order shall continue till the final consideration and disposal of the representation vide Annexure-S to the writ petition.
Sd/- JUDGE Dn/-