IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.24342/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN :
SRI. LOKESH PATIL, S/O GURUNATHAGOWDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, PH.D.SCHOLAR, DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, GKVK, BENGALURU – 560 065.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD., NO.43, PREEM ROSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 024.
3. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, GKVK, BENGALURU – 560 065.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NILONFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R3; MS.NAYANA SHRI, ADV. FOR SRI.JAGADEESHA B.N., ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF IMPUGNED NOTIFICATE DATED 29.04.2016 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNX-C IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO QUALIFICATION PRESCRIBED FOR THE POST OF WAREHOUSE MANAGER (GRADE-II) AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the notification No.Ka.Ra.U.Ni/Adalitha/Nera nemakathi/391/2016-17 dated 29.04.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure – C in so far as it relates to qualification prescribed for the post of Warehouse Manager (Grade-II) and direct the respondent No.2 to issue a fresh notification prescribing M.Sc. (Agriculture) as one of the qualification for the post and consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the application submitted by him, with M.Sc. (Agriculture) as qualifying examination and complete the process of selection and appointment within the time frame.
2. The petitioner claims to be the holder of B.Sc. (Agriculture) and also M.Sc. in Agriculture and is eligible to the post of Warehouse Manager (Grade-II). It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.2 had issued notification dated 29.04.2016 calling for applications from the eligible candidates among others for the post of Warehouse Manager (Grade-II) (14 posts). The qualification prescribed for the said post was B.Sc. (Agriculture), B.Sc. (Agriculture, Marketing and Co- operation)/M.Sc./M.Com./M.B.A. awarded by a University established by the law in India. The petitioner applied for the post of Warehouse Manager (Grade-II) through online and was issued with Admission Ticket to appear for competitive examination scheduled to be held on 22.01.2017. On 09.02.2018, the respondent No.2 issued a provisional Select List publishing the list of 114 candidates, for which the petitioner filed objections. The respondents authorities clarified that the qualification of M.Sc./M.Com/M.B.A. are general degree and degree holders in M.Sc. (Agriculture) are not eligible.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the final Select List dated 07.01.2019 reveals that the persons with M.Sc. (Agriculture) are selected based on the qualifying examination marks submitted by them and the petitioner being similarly qualified ought to have been considered for the post of Warehouse Manager (Grade-II).
4. Learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the writ petition is rendered infructuous in view of the final list of the selected candidates being declared on 07.01.2019 and the appointment orders issued on 17.05.2019.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 supports the submissions made by the learned AGA for respondent No.1.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, the undisputed facts are that the notification was issued on 29.04.2016, competitive examination was conducted on 22.01.2017, provisional list was announced on 09.02.2018, final list was declared on 07.01.2019 and the appointment orders was issued on 17.05.2019. Thus, it is clear that the entire selection process is over pursuant to the notification dated 29.04.2016, impugned herein.
7. It is well settled that the rule of the game cannot be changed after the issuance of appointment orders and the selection of the candidates. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner does not survive for consideration.
8. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to file representation before respondent No.2, if so advised. If such representation is filed, respondent No.2 shall consider the same in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-