Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
WRIT PETITION NO.20187 OF 2005 (S-RES)
D.D. 30.07.2007
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Parameshwarappa … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Karnataka & Ors. … Respondents
Recruitment :
Whether rejection of rural reservation claimed for not producing the certificate in requisite form
within the time prescribed is correct? - YES
Petitioner a candidate for the post of Environmental Engineer had claimed reservation under 2A/
Rural – Petitioner failed to produce rural certificate in the prescribed form within the time prescribed
– Hence his claim of rural reservation rejected – The applicant who secured 179 marks challenged the
selection of 5 th respondent selected under 2A/Rural category with 163 marks – Tribunal dismissed the
writ petition.
Held:
Karnataka PSC
That if the petitioner has not placed the requisite supporting material before the 4 th respondent
within the prescribed time and 4 th respondent has proceeded on the fact that the petitioner has not
produced the requisite form in support of his claim as rural candidate, then it cannot be said that 4 th
respondent has indulged in act of arbitrary action.
ORDER
Writ petition is filed by a person who had applied to the post of Environmental Engineer in terms of
a notification dated 16.09.2005 issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission, produced at
Annexure-D. Version of the petitioner is that he had been ranked higher than 5th respondent as the
merit list indicated; that the petitioner had scored 179 marks as against 163 marks scored by the 5th respondent; that they had applied as Rural Candidates under the category of Rule 2-A. Another
notification dated 13.09.2004 vide Annexure R.5 (a) to the statement of objections is filed on behalf
of 5th respondent.
2. Submission of Sri. Ramachandra A.Mali, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner
had in fact produced necessary proof of the fact that he is a person belonging to the category of Rural
Candidate. Not withstanding this fact, 4th respondent has recommended appointment of the 5th respondent; that 5th respondent had secured lower marks than the petitioner; action of the 4th respondent
is arbitrary, the merit of the petitioner is overlooked; hence this petition for quashing the appointment
of 5 th respondent and for direction to make a proper recommendation.