IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.53240/2017(S-RES) Between:
MS. ANURADHA S PATIL D/O SHALIVANA PATIL # 21, GORTA VILLAGE BASAVAKALYAN TALUK BIDAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA.
BENGALURU ADDRESS:
#622/C, 14TH MAIN ROAD 1ST PHASE, GOKULA, HMT MAIN ROAD YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE – 22. .. PETITIONER (BY MRS AZMA BEGUM, ADV. FOR SRI SHARATH BABU Y) AND:
THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BANGALORE – 560 01. ..RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO CONSIDER HIS GRIEVANCE AND AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY AS PER REQUISITION DATED 26.10.2017 I.E., ANNEXURE ‘E’.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
(A) ISSUE a writ of mandamus directing the department to consider his grievance and afford an opportunity as per requisition dated 26.10.2017 i.e,. Annexure “E”.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 20.08.2017, the petitioner had taken the Preliminary Examination in the State Services conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (‘the Commission’ for short). Subsequently, on 20.08.2017, the Commission had published the answer keys of paper – I and paper – II. According to the answer keys, the petitioner had secured 101.5 marks. However, again on 16.09.2017, the Commission republished the answer keys. According to the new answer keys, the petitioner had secured merely 100.5 marks. Thus, her marks were reduced by one. On 21.09.2017, the Commission published the final list of those who were found to be eligible for taking the written examination, scheduled to be held in December, 2017. According to the Commission, the last date for submission of the application for the written examination was 27.10.2017. Realising that the last date was fast approaching on 26.10.2017 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commission to re-calculate her marks, and to allow her to appear in the written examination. However, her representation did not elicit any reaction from the Commission. Therefore, on 22.11.2017 the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that petitioner had submitted a representation on 26.10.2017, which has fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, the petitioner is being denied her right to take the written examination scheduled to be held on 16.12.2017. Thus, this Court should not only issue a direction to the respondent to consider her representation, but should also direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to provisionally take the written examination.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Needless to say that holding of a written examination by the Commission has its own logistical problems as thousands of hopeful candidates, who have qualified the preliminary examination, wait to take the written examination. Thus the Commission is duty bound to conduct the state-wide written examination smoothly. In order to hold an examination on such a large scale, logistical problems are bound to occur. Admittedly, the final list was published by the Commission on 21.09.2017, and the last date for submitting of the application was 27.10.2017. Yet, the petitioner has chosen to maintain a silence till 26.10.2017, a day prior to the last date for submission of the application. Then, the petitioner rushed to the Commission with her grievances. Even after submitting the representation, the petitioner maintained an absolute silence for another month before coming to this Court. Meanwhile, the Commission has already prepared to hold the written examination on 16.12.2017. Therefore, the present writ petition is clearly hit by delay and laches.
6. It is, indeed, trite to state that a litigant who sleeps over his or her interest, or rights and approaches this Court at the eleventh hour, cannot expect the Court to rush to his or her rescue.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition is hit by delay and laches. It is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE brn