SRI RAJEEVA G vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

PDF · subscribers
WP/25588/2014HC KarnatakaKAHC01021847201420 December 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the methodology for allocation in the Ramesh Ram case applies to All India Services and not State Government services. The Tribunal's view was found to be just and proper in applying the relevant notification's procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner applied for the post of First Division Assistant, claiming reservation under Category 2A, Kannada Medium, Rural. Despite his preferences, he was allocated to the District and Sessions Court, Bijapur, and his objections were rejected. He challenged the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order upholding this allocation.

What were the issues?

Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Ram regarding allocation methodology applies to State Government services. Whether the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal erred in upholding the petitioner's allocation to the District and Sessions Court, Bijapur.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

WRIT PETITION No.25588 of 2014 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN

SRI RAJEEVA G., S/O GURUPADA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, MUDDEBIHAL - 586 212.

PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.370, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, T. NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUKMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, BIJAPUR DISTRICT, BIJAPUR - 586 101.

4.

SRI NATESHA M., MAJOR, (FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN

TO PETITIONER), R/O WARD NO.19, PALLEGARA STREET, ANEKAL, ANEKAL TALUK,

BENGALURU - 562 106.

5.

SRI NAGARAJA M.G., MAJOR, (FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN

TO THE PETITIONER), R/O 42, MALESHANKARA, SIRIGERE POST, SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA - 577 211.

6.

SRI SANDEEP TEJASVI T.,

MAJOR, (FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN

TO THE PETITIONER), R/O NO.75, SRINIVASA, 1ST STREET, NEW INCOME TAX LAYOUT,

JYOTHI NAGARA, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072. ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-3; SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 (ABSENT)]

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN APPLICATION NO. 2702/2012 DATED 29.05.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The second respondent-Karnataka Public Service Commission invited applications by competitive examination to the post of First Division Assistants on 02.02.2011. The petitioner was one of the applicants who claimed reservation under Category 2A, Kannada Medium, Rural category. An examination was held. Petitioner was called upon to produce the originals. Thereafter, he

submitted his declaration indicating the order of preference to which he could be allocated after selection. The first preference was for the Karnataka Government Secretariat, Bengaluru; the second preference to the Department of Transport, Bengaluru; the third preference to the Department of Labour, Bengaluru; the fourth preference to the Karnataka Housing Board; the fifth preference to the Department of State Accounts and the forty-fourth preference to the District and Sessions Judge, Bijapur. Thereafter, the second respondent published a provisional selection list of candidates inviting objections and the petitioner was allocated to the District and Sessions Court, Bijapur. He filed objections. Thereafter, the final list has been published. Subsequently, an endorsement was issued indicating that the petitioner has been allocated to the District and Sessions Court, Bijapur. The request of the petitioner was rejected. An order of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 22.03.2012. Thereafter, he filed an application before the Karnataka Administrative

Tribunal, Bengaluru, seeking to quash the said endorsement. By the impugned order, his request was rejected.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. That the Tribunal has failed to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram and others reported in (2010)7 SCC 234 and also the order of the Tribunal in Application No.2082 of 2009 in the case of Smt. L. Sowbhagyamma. Hence, he submits that the order of the Tribunal being erroneous is required to be set aside.

3.

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 are served and unrepresented.

4.

On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. The Tribunal was of the view that the methodology suggested in the case of Ramesh Ram by the Supreme Court is the methodology so far as it pertains to the All India Services is concerned. That it does not apply to the services under the State Government. Learned counsel is unable to point out that the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ram has even dealt with the methodology so far as the State Service is concerned. The case of Smt. L. Sowbhagyamma was subsequent to the said order. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that earlier to the said decision, the methodology followed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission was in terms of the procedure as stipulated by the relevant notification.

5.

Consequently, we find no error committed by the Tribunal. The application of law with reference to Ramesh Ram as well as Smt. L. Sowbhagyamma is just and proper.

We find no ground to interfere. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Rule discharged.

SD/-

SD/- JUDGE

JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →