Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 30986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION No. 12323/2022 BETWEEN:
SRI.KATALINGESHWARA .K S/O.KATAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O.HIREKABBIGERE GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
CHITRADURGA-577 541.
…PETITIONER [BY SRI HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA TEXTILE, HANDLOOM AND MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESNTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MINORITIES
20 & 21ST FLOOR, V.V.TOWER DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SRI. GANESH MADEV HARIKANT S/O. MADEV HARIKANT AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O.#35, KIMANI, KUMTA BARGIGAZANI, UTTARA KANNADA-581 330.
5. SRI LOKESHAPPA S/O.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O.NO.105, NEAR WATER TANK SURANAIKANAHALLI POST DODDA KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD BELURU, HASSAN-573 125.
... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR DESAI.AGA FOR R1 & R2.
SRI K.M.PRAKASH FOR R3, R4 & R5- SERVED]
--------
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO-4840/2021 DATED 22.04.2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL SELECTION LIST DATED 19.08.2021 BEARING No. E(1) 92/2021-22/PSC PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A18, ONLY IN SO FAR AS SELECTION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER C1/PH-LV AND 5TH RESPONDENT UNDER GM/CAT1/PH-LV, ARE CONCERNED ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 09.02.2023, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER', THIS DAY VENKATESH NAIK T., J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.04.2022 whereby, the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') has been pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner in Application No 4840/2021 for setting aside the final selection list dated 19.8.2021, prepared and published by respondent No.3- Karnataka State Public Service Commission (for short 'the KPSC').
2. The brief facts of the case of petitioner is as under:
The petitioner is a graduate in Bachelor of Arts(B.A) and Bachelor of Education(B.Ed.,). On 19.11.2018, respondent No.1 issued notification through respondent No.3 - KPSC inviting application for appointment of Kannada Language Teacher and other posts. The petitioner applied for the post of Kannada Language Teacher through online, by claiming reservation under Category-1 and physically challenged person. The petitioner has two physical disabilities viz., Locomotor disability of 65% and also suffering with Low Vision and hence, he is partially blind, having permanent disability of 45%.
3. After receipt of the admission ticket, the petitioner appeared for written examination on 18.12.2019 and cleared the examination, but his name was not found place in the select list prepared by Respondent No.3 in the ratio of 1:2 for documents verification. However, the name of one Sri. Manjunath C is shown in the provisional select list, though he had secured less marks than the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed his objection to Respondent No.3-KPSC.
4. After couple of days, Respondent No.3 published the provisional select list, but, name of petitioner did not find place either in Category-1 or in the quota prescribed for physically challenged person. Hence, the petitioner filed application before the Tribunal but the Tribunal declined to grant any relief. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the Tribunal is highly illegal and erroneous one. The petitioner is having 65% of Locomotor disability and 45% Low Vision and hence he suffers permanently disability to that extent and as such, he having secured 97 marks, which works out to be 53.50%, he was eligible and entitled to be selected to the post of Kannada Teacher under the reservation of Category-1 with Physically Handicapped person as against respondent No.4 who has secured 52 marks and 26%.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, even if the candidature of the petitioner is to be considered under GM category-1 with Low Vision, his marks being admittedly more than that of respondent No.5, who has secured 93.500 marks or 46.75%, which is admittedly less than that of the petitioner and hence, the case of the petitioner requires to be considered in either of the category but the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 - KPSC would submit that the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the KPSC has followed all procedures contemplated under law.
7. In the light of the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, we have examined the documents placed on record and the grounds urged in the petition. The only ground urged in the petition is that, respondent No.3-KPSC has failed to appreciate the contention of petitioner that, the petitioner is having 65% Locomotor disability and 45% low vision and hence, he having secured 101.75% marks which works to 50.875%, is eligible to be selected to the post of Kannada Teacher under Category-
1/Physically Handicapped person as against respondent No.4, who is having 52 marks which works out to 26%. Furthermore, if the candidature of the petitioner is to be considered under the GM Category-1, with low vision, his marks being admittedly more than that of respondent No.5, who has secured 93.500 marks or 46.75%, which is admittedly less than that of petitione
