Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 590 (KAR)

V. Sathish v. Karnataka Power Transport

2012-07-26

SUBHASH B.ADI

body2012
Judgment : 1. The petitioners have sought for declaration that the qualification prescribed as Diploma in Electrical / Mechanical / Electronics / Telecommunication from any polytechnic of the State of Karnataka for the purpose of promotion as per the schedule item No.2 to the Karnataka Electricity Board of Recruitment and promotion Regulation 3rd as void and unconstitutional. Further for a direction, directing the 2nd and respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for the appointment to the post of Junior Engineers (Electrical) under the in-service quota. 2. The case of the petitioners is that: The petitioners were appointed as a Lineman and Station Attendant. The next higher post is Junior Engineer, the selection to the said post is 40% by direct recruitment and 10% from amongst the in-service candidate who are qualified and having diploma in Electrical / Telecommunication / Engineer in any of the polytechnic of the State of Karnataka. 3. Prescribing the qualification of Diploma Certificate only from the Schedule to the Regulations is also contrary to the Regulation No.2(f) as the definition of diploma does not require the diploma from any of the polytechnic from the Karnataka State is violative of Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India, only from the polytechnic of State of Karnataka. The definition reads as under: "Diploma or certificate means a Diploma or certificate granted by a University established by Law in India or by an authority authorised by the Government to grant such Diploma or Certificate". Hence contended that when the regulation does not prescribe the diploma only from the polytechnic of the State of Karnataka, asking the diploma from polytechnic of the state of Karnataka is also violative of Regulation. 4. All petitioners alleged that they have acquired the diploma from the Janardhan Rai Rajasthan Vidyapeeth in Udaipur University recognized by the United Grants Commission. However, the said certificate was accepted by the respondents only on the ground that, the said diploma certificate is not from the polytechnic of the State of Karnataka. Petitioners were informed by the respondents as per Annexure-K dated 15.04.2008 stating that the diploma obtained by the petitioner is from the institution outside of the State of Karnataka. Accordingly, their case was not to be considered for recruitment under 10% quota for the post of Junior Engineer. 5. Petitioners were informed by the respondents as per Annexure-K dated 15.04.2008 stating that the diploma obtained by the petitioner is from the institution outside of the State of Karnataka. Accordingly, their case was not to be considered for recruitment under 10% quota for the post of Junior Engineer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, when the regulations does not specify that the diploma should be only from the polytechnic of the State of Karnataka as prescribed in the Schedule, the schedule to the regulation must be in conformity and regulation and not contrary to the provisions of regulations. In support of his contentions, he also relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 378 in the matter of M/s. Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus State of Maharastra at para 30 and 31 and submitted that, the explanation to schedule cannot rendered the Schedule redundant and the schedule to be used in construing the provisions in the body of the Act. Expressions in the schedule cannot control or prevail against the express enactment and in case of any inconsistency between the schedule and the enactment, the enactment is to prevail and if any part of the schedule cannot be made to correspond it must yield to the Act. 6. He also relied upon the unreported Judgment of Punjab and Harayana in CWP No.1405/2009 dated 13.01.2010 and submitted that in respect of the identical certificate obtained by the petitioners herein from the very same institutions has been accepted as equivalent to the diploma. In view of the above rejection of the claim of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of the Junior Engineer under 10% quota of in-service quota is erroneous and liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the petitioner being an employee of the respondent-establishment, it is not known as to how the petitioners have acquired diploma from the Janardhan Rai Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan a deemed university. The said Diploma certificate is not equivalent to the diploma prescribed in the State of Karnataka. As such the case of the petitioners was not considered. The said Diploma certificate is not equivalent to the diploma prescribed in the State of Karnataka. As such the case of the petitioners was not considered. He also submitted that, the certificate obtained by the petitioners were considered by the authorities and found that the diploma certificate issued by Janardhan Rai Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan is not equivalent to the diploma certificate issued by the polytechnic institution in Karnataka. 8. As far as Regulation is concerned, the definition of diploma qualification means; "Diploma or certificate granted by the University established as per law or any authority authorised by the Government to grant such order certificate". From the plain reading of this regulation, it is clear that the diploma certificate issued need not be from the University or Polytechnic in the State of Karnataka as such certificate from the University established by law in India which is equivalent to the certificate of diploma issued by the polytechnic is sufficient. As such Diploma Certificate issued by the institution recognized by established university, established by law in India, is sufficient qualification. 9. However, comparison of the certificate issued by any other university, though called as diploma requires to be considered, as to know whether it is equivalent to the diploma certificate issued by the University recognized by law. The interpretation of regulation and schedule is concerned, when the regulation specifies certain things, if there is anything contrary to the regulation, in the schedule to the regulation the regulation will prevail. As such the Diploma Certificate by the polytechnic in the State of Karnataka to be read as, the Diploma Certificate issued by any polytechnic or university or institution established by law in India which is equivalent to the certificate issued by Polytechnic in the State of Karnataka. 10. Hence I find a direction could be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. If the respondents finds that the certificate obtained by the petitioner is not equivalent to the diploma certificate issued by the polytechnic in the state of Karnataka, it is open to the respondent consider the same and issue appropriate endorsement by giving proper reasons for not accepting the said diploma certificate. However, if there are any other reasons for not selecting under the regulation, it is also open for the respondent, reject the request of the petitioner by giving reasons for the same. However, if there are any other reasons for not selecting under the regulation, it is also open for the respondent, reject the request of the petitioner by giving reasons for the same. However, if there is any difference of opinion as regard to the Diploma Certificate on the ground the same is not equivalent in the certificate of Diploma in Karnataka, the petitioners be given an opportunity to explain the same. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise of consideration of the case of the petitioners in the light of the above observations as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of the representation that may be filed by the petitioner in this regard. 11. With the above observations, the writ petitions stands disposed of.