IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.30225/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SMT. R. INDIRA W/O M. SATHISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.907 1ST MAIN, BAHUBALINAGAR BANGALORE-560013 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI BASAVARAJU S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SPECIAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY MADIVALA, BANGALORE-560 068 2. THE DIRECTOR FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY MADIVALA, BANGALORE- 560 068 3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID, TRAINING AND SPECIAL UNITS AND ECONOMIC OFFENCES CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 5. SRI PARVIN PARVATHAPPA BARIGIDAD SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY MADIVALA, BANGALORE-560 068 6. MISS SAVITHA S SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY MADIVALA, BANGALORE-560 068 7. SMT. GUNDAMMA PATIL C/O THE DIRECTOR FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY MADIVALA, BANGALORE-560 068 ...RESPONDENTS (GA SD) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.4224/2010 (ANNEX-B) AND TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION WITH COSTS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore dismissing the petitioner’s application in Application No.4224/2010.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
3. In the aforesaid application before the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the notification dated 04.02.2004 publishing the final list of candidates selected for the posts of Scientific Assistant pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 25.02.2003 and the endorsement dated 17.02.2010 issued by respondent No.1. Relevant portion of the endorsement reads as follows:
“ …….. On such consideration, your case of selection to the post of Scientific Assistant stands rejected on the following grounds:
1. Your representation is barred by time (after a lapse of more than 6 years).
2. The merit possessed by you is far lower than those selected and placed last in the final selection list under various categories, the posts in various sections to which you had applied pursuant to the Govt. notification no. OE 51 POCIPA 2003 dated 25-02-2003.
3. The last candidate selected for the post of Scientific Assistant in all the four sections to which you had applied, has higher merits than yours.
……………………………………..”
4. The question that fell for consideration before the Administrative Tribunal is as to whether two years work experience certificate produced by the petitioner is acceptable? This aspect has been considered by the Administrative Tribunal at paras 11 and 12 of the order which read as follows:
“11. In so far as the 1st question is concerned, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to convince us that she had produced a valid experience certificate to the Recruitment Committee at the time of consideration of her candidature. It is very clear that she had produced the 1st certificate at page No.20 of the application at Annexure 44, the first sentence of which reads as follows:
“Ms.Indira has been currently working in my laboratory as a project assistant for nearly the Past two Years.”
This certificate is issued by Prof. M.R.N. Murthy, Professor of Molecular Biophysics Unit, IISc, Bangalore on 31.01.2000. However, she had produced one more certificate dated 31.01.2000, issued by the same Professor, the first sentence of which reads as follows:
“Ms. Indira has been working in my laboratory as a project Assistant during the period 18.09.1997 to 31.01.2000 (two and half years).”
12. We fail to understand how the applicant could Produce two certificates with the same date to the Recruitment Committee- one certificate stating that she had worked nearly for the past two years and one more certificate stating that she had worked for two and half years. We do not see anything wrong with the Recruitment Committee which has gone by the first certificate produced by the applicant and accordingly she was considered as a candidate without experience. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the applicant that she was a candidate with two years′ experience having higher merit than the 5th respondent at the time of consideration of her candidature by the Recruitment committee.”
(Underlining supplied) 5. On the facts stated above, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the Administrative Tribunal in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE KSR