w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mahesh v/s The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by its Managing Director (Administration), Bengaluru & Others

    W.A. No. 920 of 2021 (S-RES) In W.P. No. 54484 of 2017 (S-RES)

    Decided On, 07 June 2022

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

    For the Appellant: B.S. Nagaraj, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Sriranga, Sr. Counsel, Sumana Naganand, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Writ appeal is filed U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.54484/2017 (S-Res) dated 13.07.2021. Allow the petition No.54484/2017 (S-Res) filed by the appellant herein on the file of the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, as prayed for.)

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. Mr.B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr.S.Sriranga, learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking quashment of revised list for selection to the post of Assistant, has been dismissed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal in a nutshell are that the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) invited applications on 08.09.2016 for filling up various posts including the post of Assistant. The appellant, in response to the aforesaid notification, submitted his application for the post of Assistant on 16.09.2016. Thereafter, written examination for the first batch was held on 11.07.2017 in which the appellant participated. Thereupon, a notification was issued on 14.07.2017 by which the objections were invited to the questions and key answers and such objections were to be submitted on or before 27.07.2017. After expiry of the cut off date i.e. 27.07.2017, the Corporation published the final key answers on 23.08.2017 as well as final list in the ratio of 1:2 in which the appellant was placed at Sl.No.20.

3. However, revised final list was published on 13.11.2017 on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates after the revision of answer to the questions and theappellant was shown at Sl.No.33. The appellant thereafter submitted a representation to consider his candidature by revaluating his answers. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the revised list which was issued by the Corporation. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 22.01.2018, directed that any appointment made to the post of Assistant shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Corporation published a provisional selection list on 16.03.2018. By way of amendment, the appellant also assailed the validity of the aforesaid list.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, two of the candidates who were selected as Assistant had voluntarily tendered their resignation from the post of Assistant. The appellant thereupon made a prayer before the learned Single Judge that he be accommodated for the aforesaid vacant post. The learned Single Judge granted an ad interim order on 22.04.2019 by which it was directed that no fresh appointment shall be made in view of the resignation tendered by the aforesaid two candidates. The learnedSingle Judge, however by an order dated 13.07.2021, dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not been assigned marks for question No.22 and a candidate namely Parmesha B. who was placed below the appellant in the revised selection list i.e. at Sl.No.34, was given appointment. It is also submitted that since a post has fallen vacant as one candidate namely Parmesha B. who was placed below the appellant in the revised selection list i.e. Sl.No.34, has resigned, therefore, the appellant is entitled to seek appointment on the post in question. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on order dated 27.02.2003 in W.P.No.27251/1998.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent while inviting the attention of this Court to the affidavit sworn in by the Director, Administration and Human Resources dated 01.08.2019, has submitted that the marks were assigned to the appellant in respect of question No.22.It is further submitted that the appellant as well as the candidate who was placed in Sl.No.34 of the revised select list, had obtained the same marks. However, the candidate mentioned in Sl.No.34 namely Parmesha B. was given preference in the matter of selection as he was elder in age. It is also submitted that the appellant's name was included in the revised list which remained in operation only for a period of one year and has expired. Therefore, the appellant has no statutory right to claim the appointment. It is also submitted that under Regulation 3(c)(iv) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotions Regulations, Employees (Probation) Regulations and Employees (Seniority) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short), the Corporation is required to notify the vacancies and the same cannot be filled up. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'VALLAMPATI SATHISH BABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS' 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 470.

7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The issue with regard to filling up any vacancy in case any candidate selected for appointment does not join, has to be determined with reference to the statutory rules. In the instant case, the recruitment was in accordance with the Regulations. Regulation 3(c)(iv) of the Regulations reads as under:

(iv) The Recruiting Authority shall in accordance with the provisions of (c)(iii) above also prepare a reserve list of names of candidates not included in the list prepared under (c)(iii) above in which the number of candidates to be included shall be 50% (fifty percent) of the number of vacancies notified, and may be operated within a period of one year from the date of approval of the main list or till the next recruitment whichever is earlier.

Thus, it is evident that the waiting list may be operated within a period of one year from the date of approval of main list or till the next recruitment, whichever is earlier. In the instant case, revised main list was published on 13.11.2017. The aforesaid revised main list was not stayed by this Court. Therefore, the waiting list could be operated up to13.11.2018. After expiry of one year from the date of publication of the revised main list, the appellant who was included in the waiting list, did not have any right to seek appointment.

8. The grievance of the petitioner that he has not been assigned marks in respect of question No.22 is concerned, suffice it to say that from the affidavit sworn in by the Director, Administration and Human Resources, it is evident that the appellant has been awarded marks in respect of question No.22. The appointment to the post which has fallen vacant subsequent to the completion of process, cannot be made de hors the procedure contained in the Regulations. Under none of the Regulations, the appellant is entitled to seek appointment after expiry of period of one year.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Therefore, the contention that the appellant should be appointed on the post of Assistant on account of the vacancy which has been caused subsequently, does not deserve acceptance. 9. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant as well as candidate who was included at Sl.No.34 namely Parmesha B., have obtained same marks in the examination and therefore, candidate at Sl.No.34 namely Parmesha B. was given appointment being elder in age. The fact that the appellant and aforesaid Parmesha B had secured similar marks has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
O R