A preferential qualification in recruitment acts only as a 'tilting factor' when candidate merit is otherwise equal and does not grant absolute precedence or reservation; furthermore, candidates are estopped from challenging a selection process after having participated in it unsuccessfully.

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The unsuccessful applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’), are before this Court questioning the order dated 25.01.2023 in Application Nos.2264-2276/2020, by which the petitioners challenge to Recruitment Notification dated 15.03.2017 insofar as inviting applications to fill up 34 posts of Chief Officer Grade II and also to quash Final Selection List dated 04.06.2020 of Chief Officer Grade II is rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that:

The respondent No.3 under Notification dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure-A28) invited applications to fill-up various posts including that of Chief Officer Grade II in the second respondent – Department under Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules 2006 and 2015 Amendment Rules. The petitioners who possess Degree of a University established by law in India and Diploma in Local Self-Government (LSG) submitted applications for the post of Chief Officer Grade II and participated in the selection process. The Final Selection List was published on 04.06.2020, whereunder, the petitioners and respondent Nos. 38-48 were not selected and against their non-selection, they approached the Tribunal in the above stated applications contending that though the Recruitment Rules would give preference to candidates who possess Diploma in LSG, no such preference has been provided in the selection process and that the common competitive examination conducted for 11 different posts is unreasonable and opposed to Rules. The Tribunal under the impugned order, dismissed the petitioners’ applications holding that preference to Diploma in LSG candidates would not mean absolute precedence or reservation when selection is through merit, determined through competitive examination. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioners having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful could not have subsequently challenged the selection process. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri. A V Gangadharappa for petitioners and Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri. K M Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri. K Narasimha Murthy, learned advocate for private respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. Learned counsel Sri. A V Gangadharappa would submit that the prescribed qualification in terms of Recruitment Rules to the post of Chief Officer Grade II is a Degree of University established by law in India and candidates possessing Diploma in LSG would be preferred. It is his specific contention that though the prescribed qualification requires preferential qualification of Diploma in LSG, no preference is provided to the petitioners who possessed Diploma in LSG. Learned counsel Sri. A V Gangadharappa would submit that the selection has taken place solely based on the marks obtained in the competitive written examination ignoring the preferential qualification of Diploma in LSG. Learned counsel Sri A V Gangadharappa would submit that when the Cadre and Recruitment Rules insofar as Chief Officer Grade II is concerned, provides preference to Diploma in LSG and if that preference is not provided and selection is made only on the basis of marks obtained in the competitive written examination, the Recruitment Rule itself would be rendered redundant. It is the submission that the selection of candidates under Fi