Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
M.I. Arun, J.
Basavaraj – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 101253 of 2023 (S-RES)
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Prashant S Kadadevar, Advocate, S. S. Naganand, Advocate
An application not made in the prescribed manner cannot be treated as an application at all, and there cannot be estoppel against the respondent in such cases.
Headnote:
Rural Category - Senior Chemist - Circular calling for application - [Circular calling for application, T. Jayakumar Vs. A. Gopu and another, State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. G. Hemalathaa] - A candidate has to apply to the post desired by him, in the manner prescribed. An application not made in the manner prescribed, cannot be treated as an application at all. Whether the defect is curable or not, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The same has to be decided based on the conditions prescribed by the employer. No doubt, the fact remains, that in the instant case, the petitioner is a rural candidate. But it is for him to apply under the said category with all relevant records in the manner prescribed in the application form. The conditions mentioned in the notification, makes it clear if complete details are not provided, the application is liable to be rejected. If the same is interfered by the Courts, it becomes very difficult for the employer to complete the process of recruitment in time, given the volume of the applications that may be received. Given the amount of applications received to several posts, believing the information in the application, the respondent initially has permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination. On verification, as the documents were found to be improper, his application is rejected. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Jayakumar's Case (supra), there cannot be estoppel against the respondent in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of a Senior Chemist with the respondent under Rural category. His candidature was rejected as he submitted records to show that he studied in a Rural area from Class-VIII to Class-X only, instead of Class-I to Class-X as required.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner failed to apply under the rural category with all relevant records in the manner prescribed in the application form. The court emphasized that an application not made in the prescribed manner cannot be treated as an application at all.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's application, which did not comply with the prescribed requirements, should be considered valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a candidate has to apply to the desired post in the prescribed manner, and an application not made as prescribed cannot be treated as an application at all. The decision was based on the conditions prescribed by the employer and the difficulty in completing the recruitment process if applications are interfered with by the courts.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
M.I. Arun, J. - The petitioner applied for the post of a Senior Chemist with the respondent under Rural category. It required the petitioner to submit documents showing that he studied Class-I to Class-X in a Rural area. On the ground that the petitioner had submitted records to show that he studied in a Rural area from Class-VIII to Class-X only, his candidature has been rejected, even though he qualified in the written examination for the interview. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.
2. In the course of arguments, petitioner submitted that, he is from a Rural area and not very tech savvy. That he had tried to upload all the relevant documents to show that he has studied in a Rural area from Class-I to Class-X, but unfortunately, the certificates to show that he studied in a Rural area from Class-I to Class-VII was not uploaded and he had no means to verify whether the said documents are uploaded or not. It is further submitted that, he has produced the copies of the relevant documents along with the writ petition and as he possess the required qualification, his case has to be sympathetically considered. It is further submitted that, after realizing that the relevant documents have not been uploaded, he tried to rectify the same by contacting the respondent, but the respondent authority did not entertain it.
3. Per contra, the advocate for the respondent submit that, the application could be submitted only online and it is the responsibility of the petitioner to verify properly as to what documents are scanned for the purpose of uploading and only thereafter, upload the documents. Once the application is uploaded, to prevent mal practice, the same cannot be altered and if the documents are not properly uploaded, the same is liable to be rejected. As there were lot of applications, the same were taken on face value and the candidates were permitted to appear in the written test and after the results were announced, the applications of the qualified candidates for the interview were scrutinized and as the application of the petitioner was incomplete, the same was rejected.
4. Attention of the Court is also drawn to certain clauses in the Circular calling for application, wherein it is mentioned as follows:
Meaning that, if the applications are incomplete or if clear documents or information is not given, the applications will be rejected.
5. It is further submitted that, the interview for the post, for which the petitioner has applied is already completed much prior to the filing of the writ petition.
6. The petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon a judgment of this Court in writ petition No.24847/2022, wherein, the candidate was a scheduled caste candidate and inadvertently, he mentioned in the application that he was a scheduled tribe candidate and though he later sought to correct it, the same was not corrected and his application came to be rejected and this Court, on the ground that once a person is a scheduled caste, a mere wrong entry in the application shall not render him otherwise and on that ground, the action of the respondents therein rejecting his application was set aside.
7. The respondent have argued that, the aforementioned decision is per incuriam, as the same does not take into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Jayakumar Vs. A. Gopu and another, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 403. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the said judgment reads as under:
'12. We are not aware any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in selection process but that alone does not mean that th
