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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37144

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
JYOTI M
SEEMA. K. P. – Appellant
Versus
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP 18071/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18071 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN: SEEMA K.P., WIFE OF RAVINDRA M.RAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 203, 'E' BLOCK, PRESTIGE ST. JHONS APARTMENT, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 029.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N

2. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Location: HIGH COURT OF CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

3. THE ESTABLISHMENT SECTION (EMPLOYEE), KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EMPLOYEE MANAGER.

4. RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

5. SRI. CHANDU K., AGE NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALYANA KARNATAKA SARIGE NIGAMA, KALABURGI - 585 101.

6. SRI. AMALINGAIAH P.HOSA POOJARY, AGE NOT KNOWN, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLING OFFICER, KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION, PUTTUR - 574 201.

7. SMT. ASHALATHA K., AGE NOT KNOWN, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLING OFFICER, BMTC, SOUTH DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

8. SMT. RAJEEVLOCHANA, AGE NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY LABOUR AND WELFARE OFFICER, BMTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

9. SMT. CHAITHRA K.S., AGE NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, BMTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

10. SRI. SURYAKANTHA S., AGE NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY CHIEF STAFF MANAGER, BMTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R1;

SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;

VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2024, NOTICE TO R5 TO R8 DISPENSED WITH;

R9 AND R10 ARE SERVED THROUGH HANDSOMMONS AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.11.2025, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajendra.K.R., AGA for respondent No.1 and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for respondents 2 to 4, have appeared in person.

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 09.07.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 9 and 10 are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

2. The short facts are these:

The Corporation published a recruitment notification for the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineer. In the notification, it was specifically mentioned as to the qualification that one must be a graduate in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering or an equivalent degree. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineer; she was one of the successful candidate in the objective test, and her name was reflected in the general merit women category. Further, the petitioner would also have been considered under the II-A category for women, if she were not considered a general merit candidate. Based on the results of the objective test, the petitioner was informed that her name was included in the select list of candidates eligible for appointment in pursuance of the notification and was further directed to appear before the Committee. The Petitioner appeared before the Committee, which was satisfied that the petitioner is physically fit for the post and also verified the original documents, which were also in order. Later, the petitioner learnt that her name was deleted from the select list finally published. The petitioner approached the second respondent, and she was informed that a clarification

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