Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1282 (KAR)

P. S. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

2019-06-15

RAVI MALIMATH, S.G.PANDIT

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ravi Malimath, J. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.34075- 34076 of 2013, by which the writ petitions were dismissed, the petitioners are before this Court in these appeals. 2. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with several prayers, however, on 15.07.2014 by filing a memo, they confined their prayers to prayer Nos.1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 which read as follows: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash (in-service recruitment for class II Officers Posts) Scheme, 1997 as at Annexure-A passed by the 2nd respondent as approved by the 1st respondent insofar as it relate to Proviso (a) & (b) of Eligibility criteria para (ii); (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 1st respondent to accord its approval for the proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent in its communication KST/KeKa/Adalitha/SeNi/ 283/163/11-12 dated 13.02.2012 as at Annexure-C; (vi) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash the selection made as at Annexure-L by the 2nd Respondent in No.KST/CO/Rec/C 1/718/2013- 14 dated 27.07.2013; (vii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to hold fresh selection without reference to the Proviso (a) & (b) of Eligibility criteria para (ii) in the (In-Service recruitment for Class II Officers Posts) Scheme, 1977 as at Annexure-A; and (viii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to declare that the partial sanction accorded by the State Government vide Annexure-M dated 05.11.2012 is unenforceable; and (Amended pursuant to order on IA No.I of 2014 Dt..03.02.2014). 3. The petitioners state that they joined services of the Respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) on 28.04.2002 and 20.04.2002 respectively. The second respondent-Corporation has its own Cadre and Recruitment Regulations for appointment and recruitment of personnel. As per the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 1982, there are two modes of recruitments that is through promotion and through direct recruitment. Under direct recruitment also certain percentage of posts are reserved for in-service candidates i.e., the officials working in the respondent-Corporation. The second respondent-Corporation has its own Cadre and Recruitment Regulations for appointment and recruitment of personnel. As per the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 1982, there are two modes of recruitments that is through promotion and through direct recruitment. Under direct recruitment also certain percentage of posts are reserved for in-service candidates i.e., the officials working in the respondent-Corporation. In-service quota in direct recruitment is prescribed so as to encourage the in-service candidates to participate in the direct recruitment and to get appointment in the higher posts. The qualification prescribed for direct recruitment for Class-II posts is Post Graduate Degree, whereas under direct recruitment for in-service candidates, the Recruitment Regulations provides for relaxation in qualification, in that, degree is the qualification for inservice candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that they made a representation to the Corporation requesting to prescribe higher qualification for Class-II posts under inservice category also without there being any relaxation. Notification dated 06.12.2012 invited applications for filling up of Class-II Posts mentioned therein from in-service candidates. The petitioners applied in pursuance of the said notification. As their names did not appear in the select list published under Annexure-H, Annexure-J and Annexure-K, all dated 27.07.2013, in respect of various posts of Class-II, the petitioners filed the instant writ petitions. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed their independent statement of objections. The first respondent-State Government in its objections has contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable since the petitioners who participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. The second respondent-Corporation in its statement of objections contended that the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the Corporation would prescribe education qualification and it also prescribes relaxation of qualification for in-service candidates. It is stated that the recruitment has been notified as per the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules and there is no violation of the Regulations. The learned Single Judge, considering the rival contentions of the parties, by order dated 07.08.2014 dismissed the writ petitions holding that the petitioners having acquiesced themselves, could not have challenged the selection process and further observed that the prescription of qualification is a policy decision which cannot be questioned. Hence, the present appeals. 5. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the appeal papers. 6. Hence, the present appeals. 5. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the appeal papers. 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact of discrimination in prescription of educational qualification for the Class-II posts in the Corporation. The order of the learned Single Judge is the result of non-appreciation of the grounds urged by the appellants. It is contended that in the interest of Corporation, higher qualification is to be prescribed, on par with regular direct recruitment. It is his submission that there need not be any relaxation of educational qualification for in-service candidates. It is also contended that the post of Welfare Officer requires a Post-Graduate qualification of M.S.W, which the selected candidates did not possess. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeals. 7. Per contra, learned counsels for the State Government and second respondent-Corporation submit that the petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the same. Further it is contended that prescription of qualification is a policy decision of the Government, unless it is shown to be arbitrary, it cannot be interfered with. The qualification is relaxed in respect of the in-service candidates as they would have gained experience while working in the corporation and to utilize their experience, the Corporation with a purpose has relaxed the qualification for in-service candidates. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeals. 8. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the appeal papers as well as the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge would not suffer from perversity or erroneousness so as to call for interference. 9. The learned Single Judge has passed a detailed reasoned order. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working in the second respondent-Corporation and they applied for the Class-II posts under Advertisement dated 06/12/2012 meant for in-service candidates of the Corporation. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules which prescribes qualification for the posts which are to be filled by direct recruitment prescribes qualification of Post Graduation for Class-II posts. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working in the second respondent-Corporation and they applied for the Class-II posts under Advertisement dated 06/12/2012 meant for in-service candidates of the Corporation. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules which prescribes qualification for the posts which are to be filled by direct recruitment prescribes qualification of Post Graduation for Class-II posts. But, for in-service candidates, post meant under direct recruitment to an extent of 20%, the Cadre and Recruitment Rules provides relaxation in educational qualification and prescribes graduation for in-service candidates. The prescription of qualification is a policy decision and it is entirely the privilege of the Appointing Authority. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case in the case of P.U.JOSHI AND OTHERS v/s ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS, (2003) 2 SCC 632 at paragraph 10 has held as follows: "10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/ posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." 11. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Corporation has prescribed the qualification for direct recruitment and for direct recruitment of in-service candidates separately which cannot be construed as arbitrary. The Corporation has conducted the recruitment process in accordance with the existing Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertains to the field of policy, which is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. 12. It is observed that the petitioners have participated in the process of selection and having not been selected, they have approached this Court challenging the recruitment notification. Having participated in the selection process without any protest, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the Advertisement calling applications and also the selection process. The decision in the case of DHANANJAY MALIK AND OTHERS v/s STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS, (2008) 4 SCC 171 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 8 and 9 has held as follows: "8. In Madan Lal V. State of Jammu and Kashmir, this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. 9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done." 13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeals and accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.