Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 45505 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DEVADAS KAVA S/O LATE MAHABALA KAVA AGE: 56 YEARS FISHERIES FIELD MAN COLLEGE OF FISHERIES UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES KANAKANDY Digitally
signed by MANGALORE SUNITHA K S D K DISTRICT. Location: …PETITIONERHIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. VIKAS M., ADVOCATE) KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL & ANIMAL -2- HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-1.
2. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES REGISTRAR OFFICE GKVK BANGALORE-560 065 REPRSENTED BY REGISTRAR
3. DIRECTOR OF INSTRUCTIONS (FISHERIES) COLLEGE OF FISHERIES MANGALORE-575002 D K DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. L. VENKATA RAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (NOC) SRI. H.N. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 2.11.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE
EFFECT TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/REPORT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF FIELD ASSISTANT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI -3-
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following prayer:
(i) “To quash the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A and
(ii) direct the respondents to give effect to the selection committee recommendation/report insofar as petitioner is concerned as per Annexure-D and appoint the petitioner for the post of Field Assistant.”
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed
to a permanent post of Fisheries Fieldsman in the Fisheries University, Mangalore, which is a subsidiary of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Bidar on 01.04.2005. When this was the case, the University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore, -4- had issued a Notification dated 07.09.1995 inviting applications from in-service qualified employees working in the University of Agricultural Sciences for various posts.
4. The petitioner applied for the post of Field Assistant, having possessed the requisite qualifications and experience in terms of the notification issued for the post of Field Assistants/Field Supervisor.
5. The University short-listed the name of the petitioner and made him eligible for the interview for the post of Field Assistant, and accordingly, the petitioner attended the interview.
6. The petitioner's name was found in the provisional
selection list for the post of Field Assistant, and subsequently, it was placed before the Management meeting, and the Board approved the selection list, which included the petitioner's name. -5-
7. It is contented that, in all 195 in-service candidates
had applied for the post of Field Assistants with the necessary qualifications prescribed for the post of Field Assistant. The Board of Management recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Field Assistant. However, respondent No.2 University failed to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner and orders of appointment were issued only in respect of three candidates.
8. The petitioner submitted a representation dated
23.01.2002 to respondent No.2 to consider his grievance for the post of Field Assistant. Respondent No.2 did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
9. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.652 of
2003. The said petition came to be disposed of on 18.01.2005 and directed respondent No.2-University -6- to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law.
10. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court,
respondent No.2-University considered the representation of the petitioner and issued the endorsement dated 21.03.2005 vide Annexure 'R3' stating that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion either to the post of Laboratory Assistant or Field Assistant or Fisheries Supervisor.
11. The petitioner submitted another representation dated 05.05.2015 vide Annexure 'G' to respondent No.2 University to consider his request to the post of Filed Assistant with retrospective effect.
12. The said representation was considered and rejected by respondent No.2-University vide endorsement dated 02.11.2015 vide Annexure 'A'.
13. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed the instant writ petition. -7-
14. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections
admitting the invitation of applications from eligible in-service candidates for the post of Field Assistants and that the petitioner was one of the candidates, and he was interviewed on 18.11.1995. A Board meeting was held on 24.11.1995, and selected all nine candidates and recommended them for selection by the Selection Committee for the post of Field Assistants and the name of the petitioner was found in the selection list. The Experience Certificate produced by the petitioner discloses that he had worked only as a Fisheries Fieldsman. Hence, the appointment order was not issued to the petitioner, as he did not possess the requisite qualification as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules.
15. It is contented that the Advertisement dated
07.09.1995 discloses the required eligibility and qualification of the candidates for the post of Field Assistants. The requisite qualifications for the post -8-
of Field Assistants under the Direct Recruitment is S.S.L.C. pass with a 9-month training course offered by the Department of Agriculture Sciences, or, two years of service in the University as a Field/Laboratory Assistant. The qualification and experience required for the post of Field Assistants vide Annexure 'D' are extracted hereunder:
"Qualifications for the post of Field Assistants: S.S.L.C. with 9 months training course offered by the Department of Agriculture / 2 years service in the University as Field/Laboratory Assistant. " (Emphasis supplied)
16. It is pertinent to note that the qualification of the
petitioner was P.U.C. and he has worked as a Fisheries Fieldsman from 07.11.1984 till date, and not as Field/Laboratory Assistant. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner did not possess the required -9- qualification for the appointment of the post of Field Assistant under Direct Recruitment.
17. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.652 of
2003. This Court disposed of the writ petition on
18.01.2005 and directed respondent No.2 University to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law. The University considered the request of the petitioner and issued an endorsement stating that the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Field Assistant, as he did not fulfil the requisite qualifications. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
18. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 University. - 10 -
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent No.2 has failed to consider that the petitioner had applied for the post of the Field Assistant and the same was considered by respondent No.2 and called him for the interview. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the interview and the Board recommended him for the post of the Field Assistant. However, respondent No.2 University did not issue an order of appointment to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation. The said representation was not considered by respondent No.2 and the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.652 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the University to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post, in accordance with law.
20. He submits that respondent No.2-University did not issue an order of appointment to the petitioner and - 11 -
on the contrary, issued an endorsement stating that the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Field Assistant as he did not possess the requisite qualifications for the said post. He submits that the petitioner is having the requisite qualifications. Thus, the University has committed an error in not issuing
order of appointment to the petitioner. Hence, prays
to allow the writ petition.
21. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
University submits that as per the advertisement issued by respondent No.2-University, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications. Hence, the University has rightly issued an endorsement stating that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and experience for the post of the Field Assistant. The action of respondent No.2- University in issuing the impugned endorsement is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 12 -
22. Respondent No.1 adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2-University.
23. Heard, perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
24. It is undisputed that the petitioner had worked as a
Fisheries Fieldsman from 07.11.1984 to till date at the Fisheries College, Mangalore. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2-University has issued a notification inviting applications from in-service candidates for the post of Field Assistants with certain requisite qualifications and experience.
25. Pursuant to the Advertisement dated 07.09.1995,
the petitioner applied for the post of Field Assistant and the Selection Committee invited the petitioner for attending an interview. Pursuant to the invitation, the petitioner appeared for the interview.
26. It is the case of the petitioner that he had possessed all the requisite qualifications, and attended the - 13 -
interview, however, he had not received any order of appointment. Hence, he submitted a representation dated 23.01.2002 to respondent No.2 University for his promotion to the post of Field/Laboratory Assistant.
27. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.652 of
2003 to direct the respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of Field Assistant/Laboratory Assistant. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 18.01.2005 and directed the University to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
28. Respondent No.2-University considered the request of the petitioner and issued an endorsement dated 21.03.2005 vide Annexure 'R3' stating that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion to the post of - 14 - Field / Laboratory Assistant / Fisheries Supervisor, as he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria.
29. It is pertinent to note that the Selection Committee
has totally bypassed the essential qualification criteria prescribed for the post in the notification / advertisement dated 07.09.1995. The Selection Committee, even though they are the experts in the subject, erred in overlooking the fundamental issue of eligibility. The petitioner, who was an unsuccessful candidate, cannot challenge the selection process, as the petitioner is lacking essential qualification for the post of Field Assistant. It is impermissible for an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection process in such a situation, as there is no place for arbitrariness in selecting/appointing authority's action.
30. Judicial review of administrative action will be justified in the case of patent irregularities, like the - 15 -
present one. Recruitment Rules cannot be avoided and the selecting authority has no option but to act only in terms of the Rules of recruitment governing the post. The provisions of Recruitment Rules must be strictly adhered to, while making selection and appointment.
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Miss Shainda
Hasan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 48, held that the selection committee/appointing authority has no power to relax the qualification. The relevant portion is extracted below:
"5. The High Court has rightly held the relaxation granted by the Selection Committee to be arbitrary. In the absence of statutory rules providing power of relaxation, the advertisement must indicate that the Selection Committee/appointing authority has the power to relax the qualifications. Regarding “working knowledge of Urdu” - 16 -
we do not agree with the High Court that the said qualification is unjust. The college being a Muslim minority institution prescribing the said qualification for the post of Principal, is in conformity with the object of establishing the institution."
32. Similarly, in case of Dr.Prit Singh vs. S.K.Mangal and others, reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
" 13. We fail to understand as to how the Vice-Chancellor who himself was of the opinion that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Principal and who had refused to approve the said appointment, later approved the same appointment on November 13, 1987 with effect from October 16, 1987. It has rightly been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Vice-Chancellor approved the appointment after October 15, 1987 when the amendment was made in the prescribed qualifications for the post of Principal of a recognised College of Education. If he was not eligible for - 17 -
appointment in terms of the prescribed qualifications on the date he was appointed by the Managing Committee subject to the approval of the Vice- Chancellor, then later he cannot become eligible after the qualifications for the post were amended. As such we are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court, that on the date of the appointment the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications and as such his appointment had to be quashed."
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and another vs. State of Punjab
and others, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 138, held
that as on the last date of submission of the application, the candidate must possess all the required qualifications for the post. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein: "12. The appellant was directly appointed. In such a case, the qualification must be either:
(i) a Graduate/Intermediate second class or, - 18 -
(ii) Matric first class.
Admittedly, the appellant did not possess this qualification. That being so, the appointment is bad. The Commission recommended to the Government for relaxation of the qualification under Regulation 7 of the Regulations. The Government rejected that recommendation. Where, therefore, the appointment was clearly against Regulation 7, it was liable to be set aside. That being so, no question of estoppel would ever arise. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court."
34. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.05.2015 to respondent No.2-University to comply with the directions issued by this court in WP No.652 of 2003 vide order dated 18.01.2005.
35. Respondent No.2-University issued an endorsement dated 21.03.2005 stating that the petitioner is not eligible for the promotion to the post of Field Assistant / Laboratory Assistants under the Cadre - 19 -
and Recruitment Regulations of University of Agriculture Sciences, Bengaluru and further, it is stated that in the University, there is no post of Fisheries Supervisor, apart from the fact that the post of Field Assistant goes for direct recruitment.
36. The petitioner has not sought any relief regarding
promotion in the instant writ petition. From the perusal of the memorandum of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding non issuance of an appointment order pursuant to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee.
37. The petitioner is not eligible for the post of
Field/Laboratory Assistant as he did not possess any experience in the University as a Field/Laboratory Assistant. However, the Board of Management did not consider the said aspect and recommended the petitioner to the post of Field Assistant/Laboratory Assistant. - 20 -
38. Respondent No.2-University, after verifying the
eligibility criteria for the post of Field Assistant vide Notification dated 07.09.1995, has rightly taken a decision not to issue an appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Field/Laboratory Assistant on the ground that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of Field/Laboratory Assistant. The University has rightly issued an endorsement dated 02.11.2015 vide Annexure "A". Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
39. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15