IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION No.25369/2019 (S-KSAT) Between:
Sri.Ravikumar.K.R, S/o.Range Gowda, Aged about 39 years, Residing at Karekere, Shanthi Grama Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District-573 220. …Petitioner (By Sri.Satish, Advocate for Sri.M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate) And :
1. Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Udyoga Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The State of Karnataka, Represented by Principal Secretary, Department of Education, (Primary and Secondary), M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondents (By Sri.Reuben Jacob, Advocate for R1; Smt.M.S.Prathima, AGA for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1602/2012 (Annx-A) and consequently allow the said application No.1602/2012 as prayed for by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group this day, NARAYANA SWAMY J, made the following:
ORDER By notification dated 5.11.2007 the State of Karnataka had invited applications for 629 posts of Head Masters/Head Mistresses. The petitioner submitted his application and sought to consider the same. It is his case that he had requisite qualification prescribed for the post of High School Head Master and he had said qualification on the last date of submission of his application though the last date was extended from 24.12.2007 to 29.12.2007. The petitioner’s case is that he is eligible to be selected on the ground that he had acquired the requisite qualification as on the last date of submitting his application.
2. The respondents appointed the Retired District Judge to go into the matter and after issuance of notice to the petitioner he had appeared and he had submitted that as on the last date for receipt of the application he had acquired the required qualification was his case, that under similar circumstances, one of his Classmates had also submitted her application and she got selected and similar benefit may be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Bengaluru. The Tribunal by its order dated 20th December, 2018 rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not suppressed any material facts and he had the requisite qualification on the last date of submitting his application and he had attended the examination. Having attended the examination itself enables him to submit application and make him eligible for selection and further submitted that the similarly placed candidates have been selected and the petitioner is denied of such opportunity of appointment and the same is violation of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the Tribunal. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (2007) 4 SCC, 54, the respondents submitted that if the applicant did not possess qualification, the Court should not venture to entertain such type of writ petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order passed by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that the petitioner had not acquire the requisite qualification on the date of last date of receipt of application. Mere appearing for examination itself on the last date of receipt of application, for the post of Head Master, does not confer right on him to say that he had acquired the requisite qualification as on the last date of receipt of the application. Considering all these facts, we are of the opinion that the petitioner had not acquired requisite qualification as on the last date of receipt of application. Therefore, we confirm the order passed by the Tribunal as we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner can make application in case the respondents issue fresh notification calling for application and if the application is submitted by the petitioner, the KPSC shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nm