Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R. Devdas, J.
Supriya V - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Department Of Water Supply And Sewage Board, Bengaluru - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8621 of 2020
Decided On : 02-11-2020
Vasanth Kumar H T, Advocate, B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate, M.C. Nagashree, Advocate
Interference in recruitment matters cannot be exercised on misplaced sympathy unless the petitioner establishes a legal right.
Headnote:
RPAD - Recruitment Notification - 26.09.2019 - [Karnataka Examination Authority Act, Section 4(1)(a); Recruitment Rules, Rule 5(2)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Karnataka Examination Authority Act and the Recruitment Rules, emphasizing the requirement for strict interpretation in recruitment matters to avoid allegations of bias and malice. The court highlighted that sympathy has no role to play in the interpretation of statutes and that interference cannot be exercised on misplaced sympathy unless the petitioner establishes a legal right. The court concluded that no interference was called for in the case and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), applied for selection based on a recruitment notification. The petitioner missed the document verification date due to non-receipt of intimation and sought another opportunity, which was initially granted by the court but later challenged by the respondent-Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right and that no interference was called for in the case. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Non-receipt of intimation for document verification, petitioner's request for another opportunity, and the respondent-Board's adherence to recruitment rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Strict interpretation in recruitment matters to avoid allegations of bias and malice, and the requirement for the petitioner to establish a legal right for court interference.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT
R. Devdas, J. - The petitioner who is an aspirant for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) had applied for selection in terms of the recruitment notification dated 24.08.2018. Based on the marks scored in the competitive examination conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority and reservations mentioned in the recruitment notification, candidates were considered in the ration of 1:3 for verification of their original documents. The respondent-Board published a notification dated 26.09.2019, web-hosted the notification specifying the place, date and instructions/special intimation to the candidates, in its official website. Intimation was sent to every candidate by registered post acknowledgment due.
2. It is also the contention of the respondent-Board that the notification dated 26.09.2019 was advertised in daily newspaper for information of the candidates. Various time-slots were given to the candidates for document verification. As per the said notification, the petitioner was required to appear before the Committee for document verification on 31.10.2019.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she did not receive the intimation for document verification. It is her contention that she came to know about the verification dated 26.09.2019 through her friend. On verification when she found that she was required to appear before the Committee on 31.10.2019 and that date had already gone by, she made a representation dated 19.02.2020 to the respondent-Board seeking one more opportunity for document verification. Since her representation was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4464/2020 before this Court for quashing the provisional main selection list published by the Board on 20.02.2020. This Court by order dated 17.03.2020 was of the opinion that failure on the part of the postman in discharging his duty by omitting to leave behind an intimation, should not deprive the petitioner an opportunity and the respondents of a competent candidate and therefore directed the respondent- Board to positively consider the petitioner s representation at Annexure F therein, within a period of three weeks from the date of the order.
4. The respondent-Board being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by this Court preferred an intra- Court appeal in W.A.No.332/2020. The Hon ble Division Bench by an interim order dated 10.06.2020 stayed the execution and operation of the order dated 17.03.2020. However, since in terms of the directions given by this Court one more representation was given by the petitioner on 10.06.2020 to the Board and the Board had issued an endorsement dated 17.06.2020 and the petitioner had already filed this writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 17.06.2020, the Hon ble Division Bench observed that this Court may deal with the Writ Petition without being influenced by the pendency of the writ appeal and the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.4464/2020.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner stood third amongst the women candidates and she had a fairly high chance of getting selected. It is only because of the non-receipt of the information which was sent by RPAD, that the petitioner could not appear before the Committee for document verification. It is submitted that for no fault of the petitioner could she be denied an opportunity to submit her documents for verification.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board draws the attention of this Court to certain facts, which according to him are relevant for consideration. Taking this Court through the statement of objections, it is submitted that nearly 60 intimation letters sent through RPAD have returned unserved, for various reasons. Similar grievances were also found with respect to women candidates who stood at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in the list. However, Ms.Hemalatha G., who stood at Sl.No.2 who did not receive the intimation, presented herself on the appointed date, since she went through
