SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
MR. MAHESH – Appellant
Versus
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD – Respondent
WP 54484/2017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.54484/2017 (S-RES)

BETWEEN

MR. MAHESH

AGE 24 YEARS

S/O MR.KUMAR

MYDANAHALLY VILLAGE,

HUSENPURA POST

BILIEKRE HOBLI

HUNSUR TALUK

MYSURU DISTRICT 3 571 103

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B.S.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

AND

1.

THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION LTD.,

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

(ADMINISTRATION)

ID NO.(CIN):U40109KA1999GC025521

KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,

BENGALURU 3 560 009.

2.

THE DIRECTOR

(ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCE)

CORPORATE OFFICE, KPTCL

KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD

BENGALURU 3 560 009.

3.

CHAMUNDESWARI ELECTRICITY

2

SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED

REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

(A&HR) CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.29,

VIJAY NAGARA, II STAGE, HINKAL,

MYSURU - 570 017.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

NOTIFICATION DTD13.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 HEREIN IN SO

FAR AS PUBLISHING THE REVISED 1:2 LIST FOR THE POST OF

ASSISTANT

THE

COPY

OF

THE

SAID

IS

SUBMITTED

AT

ANNEXURE-A.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for consideration

of the following prayers:

a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other

appropriate writ or order quashing the Notification

dated 13.11.2017, issued by the Respondent No.2

herein

in

Ref.No.KPTCL/B16/40360/2016-17,

insofar as publishing the Revised 1:2 list for the

post of Assistant. The copy of the said list is

submitted at Annexure 3 A.

b.

Issue

a

Writ of Mandamus directing

the

Respondent No.2 to consider the representation

3

dated 15.11.2017 of the Petitioner at Annexure 3

G.

c. Pass such other order/s as this Hon9ble Court

deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the

case, in the interest of justice and equity.

d. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other

appropriate Writ to quash the 1:1 Provisional

Selection

List

dated

27.01.2018

issued

by

Respondent No.2 in KPTCL/B16/40360/2016- 17

at Annexure 3 N and 1:1 Final Selection List dated

07.03.2018 issued by the General Manager [A &

HR], Corporate Office, Chamundeswari Electricity

Supply

Corporation

Limited,

Mysuru

in

CESC/GM[A

&

HR]/DGM/AGM/2017-

18/CYS:1505 at Annexure - P.=

2. Heard Sri B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri S. Sriranga, learned counsel appearing for

all the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition

as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

The

respondents

-

Karnataka

Power

Transmission

Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 8the KPTCL9 for

4

short) issued an employment notification on 08.09.2016, calling

for applications from eligible candidates for various posts, one of

which was the post of Assistant, to which the petitioner claiming

to be eligible for consideration in response to the said

notification, applied.

4. Pursuant to the selection process, a list of Final Key

Answers was drawn and published on 23.08.2017, with regard

to the scores obtained by the candidates in the Online Aptitude

Test conducted. Since the name of the petitioner did not figure

in the revised final select list dated 13.11.2017, the petitioner

gave representation challenging the key answers notified with

particular reference to question Nos.22 and 33. His further

claim is that, wherever the key answers were wrong, they were

all accepted, which resulted in certain marks being awarded to

some of the questions to which the key answers were declared

wrong. Therefore, the petitioner calls in question the procedure

adopted by the KPTCL insofar as it pertains to display of key

5

answers to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top