Commissioner upheld the cancellation of recruitment process due to non-compliance with reservation policies, confirming legal protocol under Rule 12(6).

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement dated 09.07.2021 vide Annexure-A, issued by the first respondent – Commissioner, wherein the selection process pursuant to the notification vide Annexure-E has been cancelled.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the first respondent issued a notification calling applications from the eligible candidates to the post of Watchman. Pursuant to the notification vide Annexure-E, the petitioner had applied for the post of watchman along with other persons. The petitioner’s name has been recommended for appointment as Watchman by the Executive Officer of the temple i.e. the second respondent. The same has been forwarded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner. The Commissioner, by the impugned order vide Annexure-A has cancelled the recruitment process. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community. As per Rule 12(6) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules , 2002 (for short, ‘2002 Rules’), once the proposal has been sent to the Commissioner, the Commissioner, after examining the selection list has to either approve, modify or reject the selection list. For rejection, he has to give a reason. Without giving any reason, the impugned endorsement has been issued.

(ii) Secondly, by the time a fresh notification is issued, the petitioner will be age barred. Because of the fault of the respondents, she cannot be denied the opportunity to file an application since she is already working as a typist on contract basis in the same institution. Therefore, he sought for allowing the petition.

4. Per contra, the learned AGA for the State raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, the impugned endorsement has been issued with a reason. Even though there are 3 posts, no roster has been fixed. Therefore, the first respondent, by exercising the power under Rule 12(6) of 2002 Rules has rightly passed the impugned endorsement.

(ii) Secondly, as per Rule 6A of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, ‘General Recruitment Rules’), the age limit for scheduled caste persons to apply for the post is 40 years. The petitioner is still aged about 38 years. If fresh notification is issued, he can also apply if he satisfies all other conditions. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

6. By Annexure E dated 18.10.2019, the second respondent has issued a notification, calling applications for filling up posts of three watchman to the second respondent - Temple. The petitioner is one of the applicants. After verifying the records, petitioner’s name has been recommended by the second respondent – Assistant Commissioner. In turn, the Assistant Commissioner has recommended the name of the petitioner along with others to the Commissioner vide Annexure-L dated 04.01.2020. The First respondent – Commissioner by exercising the power under 12(6) of 2002 Rules, rejected the selection list on the ground that, before issuing the notification, the reservation policy has not been followed and no post has been reserved. Under Rule 12(6) of 2002 Rules, the Commissioner can reject the select list after giving a valid reason. In the case in hand, the Commissioner has given a reason for rejection of the list that no reservation policy has been