IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.47584/2018(S-RES) SRI. J. SHASHIDHAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE E L JAYARAM, R/O.96/M, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, BAPUJINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026 (BY SRI SHANTAKUMAR K C, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCES) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, ... PETITIONER POST BOX NO.9990 CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND EMPLOYMENT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE SERVICES OF THE R-1 BOARD, WITHOUT BROOKING ANY FURTHER DELAY IN THE MATTER BUT MAKING AVAILABLE TO HIM ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THEREFROM.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner herein had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.24388/1998, seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to provide preference in direct recruitment to the clerical posts in the services of the respondent-Corporation, which was earlier known as Karnataka Electricity Board.
2. This Court by order dated 16.09.1998 observed that the Board having taken a policy decision as contained in its order dated 13.03.1997 had provided preference in direct recruitment to those apprentice trained in Karnataka Electricity Board and therefore this Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to abide by the law on the subject; provided the petitioner makes an application pursuant to general notification for selection of persons to the posts of Clerks, as and when the occasion arises.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order was passed by this Court, the respondent- Corporation has called for application by direct recruitment by way of notification dated 08.09.2016, which, in fact was not produced along with the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has placed a copy of the notification dated 08.09.2016 on record along with a memo.
4. The prayer in this petition is as follows:
i) call for the records relating to, concerning and connected with the impugned endorsement bearing No. KaVePraNeNe/B16/25025/2015-16 dated 10.9.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-E, peruse the same and quash the said endorsement as arbitrary, perverse and capricious;
ii) issue a consequential direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend employment to the petitioner in the services of the 1st respondent-Board, without brooking any further delay in the matter but making available to him all the consequential benefits flowing therefrom; and iii) pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation would point out to the age criteria in the general instructions in the notification dated 08.09.2016. As per the notification, the candidates should have attained the age of 18 years as on the last date fixed for receipt of application and shall not be more than 35 years in case of General Merit candidates.
6. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner is more than 53 years as of now and as on the date of notification he was about 51 years old. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is ineligible for even making an application under the notification dated 08.09.2016. The learned Counsel further submits that the other grounds raised by the petitioner that preference should be given to persons like the petitioner for making preference, since they are trained apprentice with the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board, is of no avail.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent-Corporation never called for any application for direct recruitment in clerical posts from the year 1997, the petitioner should be permitted to make application even if he is age barred, does not impress this Court.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent brings to the notice of this Court a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Suma B. and Another Vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Others in W.P.Nos.51947-51948/2016 decided on 17.04.2018, wherein under similar circumstances and similar prayers being made by the petitioners therein and calling in question the very same notification, this Court has held that the petitioners were even otherwise not qualified to respond to the notification dated 08.09.2016 since the petitioners have exceeded the age criteria as provided therein. Therefore, in the circumstance when they are not even qualified to apply, considering the case of the petitioners to provide the weightage of Apprenticeship training was rejected and the petitions were dismissed.
9. This Court is in respectful agreement with the decision in the case of Suma. B and Another (supra). In the light of the above, this petition also stands dismissed for the reasons stated above.
I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
JT/-
SD/- JUDGE