IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.738 OF 2018 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
K. REKHA D/O SRI. DAYANANDA JOGI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.35/2 ”VIGHNESH NILAYA”, 2ND CROSS SREENIVASA REDDY LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. PUTTIGE R, RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 2. THE DIRECTOR (P AND E) KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 3. B. PUSHPANJALI D/O A. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS MG DIBBA, HOSADURGA POST CHITRADURGA-577 527 4. K.T. PUSHPALATHA W/O J.GG. VIRUPAKSHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS LAKSHMIPURA EXTN.
JAVAGAL POST, ARASIKERE(T) HASSAN DIST 5. MAHADEVI CHENNI D/O VIJAYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS C/O BOMMANNA BUILDING THIRD MAIN BANGALORE-560 058 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 TO R5 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL SELECT LIST DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEX G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner, in response to an advertisement given by KSRTC, submitted his application for the post of Establishment Supervisor. She was not selected. Feeling aggrieved, she has challenged the Selection List.
2. Shri Puttige R.Ramesh, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner has higher qualification than what was prescribed for the said post. However, respondent-KSRTC have not considered the petitioner’s case.
3. Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned advocate for respondent – KSRTC submitted that it is settled that the employer can prescribe qualification for a post. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court of India in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others1.
4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
5. In substance, petitioner’s case is that she has higher qualification i.e., Master’s Degree in Human Resource Management though what is required for the post of Establishment Supervisor is Diploma in Personnel Management.
6. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others (supra), it is held as follows;
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K.5 in the 1 (2019) 2 SCC 404 subsequent decision in Anita7. The decision in Jyoti K.K.5 turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an interference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K.5 turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench1 of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment2 of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision1 of the Division Bench.”
(Emphasis supplied) 7. Thus, employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. Though, petitioner claims that her qualification is higher than what is prescribed by the KSRTC, admittedly, petitioner holds Master Degree in Human Resource Management whereas qualification required is Diploma in Personnel Management. In view of the settled position, no interference is warranted in this petition. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
8. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV