IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL WRIT PETITION NO. 27454/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI KUMARASWAMY K.N, S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS KAMBATHANAHALLY AT AND POST GULUR HOBLI-572 118 TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DODDAVEERANAHALLY C.
NANDIHALLY POST, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA,BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UDYOGA SOUDHA,BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:05.06.2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.3092/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-G & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. Heard. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore rejecting petitioner’s application No.3092/2017.
2. The petitioner claimed age relaxation to appear for Gazetted Probationers’ examination pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 12.05.2017 issued by Karnataka Public Service Commission (respondent No.2). The Tribunal has considered the grievance of the petitioner and has rejected his application with the following reasoning:
4. The applicant is aged about 43 years and the maximum age limit for the category which he belongs (SC) is 40 years as per the notification dated 12.05.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent. Merely, because two additional attempts have been given to the candidates who had appeared for examination earlier in the year 2011, they have no right to claim age relaxation beyond the maximum age limit prescribed in the latest Notification dated 12.05.2017. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the application. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
We find no error in the above reasoning of the Tribunal to warrant interference.
Petition dismissed.
HR Sd/- JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE