IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

W.P.No.147296/2020 (S-RES)

Between:

Shri A. Nagaraj S/o. Shri Veeraiah A.,

Age 31 years, Occ: Private Service,

R/o.: Karchiganuru Village, Chanakanuru Post,

Tq.: Siruguppa, Dist.: Ballari-583121.

… Petitioner

(By Shri T.M. Nadaf, Advocate)

And:

1.

The Government of Karnataka,

Department of Rural Development

and Panchayath Raj,

Rep. by its Prl. Secretary,

Vikas Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,

Bengaluru-560 001.

2.

The Chief Executive Officer,

Zilla Panchayath, Ballari,

Ballari-583101.

3.

The Executive Officer,

Office of Taluka Panchayat, Siruguppa,

Tq.: Siruguppa, Dist.: Ballari-583 121.

4.

The Grama Panchayath, Bagguru,

Rep. by its Panchayath Development Officer,

Bagguru Village, Tq.: Siruguppa,

Dist.: Ballari-583121.

: 2 :

5.

Shri J. Basava S/o.Sri. Adeppa Gouda,

Age 29 years, Occ: Appointed as Bill

Collector, Bagguru Gram Panchayath,

R/o.: Karchganuru Village,

Chanakanuru Post, Tq.: Siruguppa,

Dist.: Ballari-583121.

… Respondents

(By Shri V.S. Kulkarni, AGA for R1;

Shri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, Advocate for R2-R4;

Shri H.R. Deshpande, Advocate for R5)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India praying to call for the records in proceeding

Nos.Zi Pam Ba.Si5/Gra.Pan/1/Siruguppa/2020-21, from the office of

respondent No.2 and etc.,

This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made

the following:

ORDER

1.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of

appointment being issued in favour of 5^th respondent on the

ground that he does not possess the qualification prescribed in the

recruitment notification.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per

Annexure-H, the recruitment notification, in order to be eligible for

the post of Bill Collector, the applicants were required to have

passed the Pre-University Course and also have the certification in

Computer Science for a period of six months. Learned counsel

submits that the 5^th respondent did not posses the PUC certificate

and on the other hand, he only had a Job Oriented Course

: 3 :

certificate. He submitted that the Job Oriented Course certificate

cannot be considered to be equivalent to 2^nd PUC.

3.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 contended that

the Job Oriented Pre University Diploma could be considered as

equivalent to 2^nd PUC in view of the Government Order, which

provided for equivalence.

4.

It is not in dispute that the recruitment notification do not

specify that an applicant who possess 2^nd PUC Course or in other

words equivalent Could apply for the said post. . The notification

on the other hand stipulated that the only people who had passed

2^nd PUC could apply. This would have the effect of ensuring that

the people who possess the equivalent qualification would be given

an impression that they were ineligible to apply and this would

severely prejudice their rights and permit them from applying to

the said post.

5.

In my view, without going to the question as to whether the

5^th respondent possessed a certificate equivalent to 2^nd PUC pass

or not, it would be necessary to quash Annexure-H and direct the

respondent Nos.2 to 4 to issue a fresh recruitment Notification

permitting not only the people who have passed the 2^nd PUC but

: 4 :

also the people who possess the equivalent qualification. This

course, in my view would sub-serve the ends of justice. As a

consequence, the appointment of the 5^th respondent is being set

aside on the ground that he did not possess the requisite

qualification of 2^nd PUC.

6.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order

at Annexure-Q insofar as the 5^th respondent is concerned is set

aside. Liberty is reserved to