Writ Petition Nos. 2775 to 2777 of 2012 (S-KAT) connected with Writ Petition No. 3109 of 2012 (S-KAT). Case: Mahadev Teggi and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Another. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition Nos. 2775 to 2777 of 2012 (S-KAT) connected with Writ Petition No. 3109 of 2012 (S-KAT) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri C.M. Nagabhushan for M/s. Goutham and Rajeshwar, Advs. and For Respondents: Smt. Revathi Adinath Narde, High Court Govt. Pleader and Sri P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv. |
| Judges | Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala and K. Govindarajulu, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 226; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 115 |
| Citation | 2012 (4) KarLJ 62 |
| Judgement Date | March 13, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J.
-
These writ petitions are directed against common order dated 6-1-2012 dismissing all the applications in Nos. 4962 to 5055 of 2010 and connected cases, on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (in short, 'KAT') at Bangalore. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petitions may be stated as under:
The petitioners are applicants before the KAT. The petitioners along with others had approached the KAT for the following reliefs:
(i) to declare Note 4 of Clause A in Section I of Second Schedule to the Recruitment Rules providing the selection of candidates for the main examination in order of merit on the basis of performance in the preliminary examination as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and
(ii) to direct the respondents to select the candidates for the main examination by adopting a methodology by which candidates including applicants choosing different optional subjects are given a fair and equal chance of selection to the main examination.
-
Contention of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) is that no case is made out to interdict the process stipulated by rules and rewrite the Rules. Further, the concept of scaling and proportional representation, as of now are not provided by the rules.
-
In view of the pleadings and arguments addressed by the learned Counsels for the parties, KAT had formulated the following points for its consideration:
(i) Whether the present method of selecting candidates for the main examination on the basis of marks obtained in preliminary examination can be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it is not as fool proof as scaling or moderation method?
(ii) Whether award of full marks to questions key answers of which were found to be not appropriate, amounted to discrimination?
(iii) Whether para 7.1 of the impugned notification dated 27-1-2010 need reading it down as providing for consideration of all candidates who obtain minimum marks, for the main examination?
(iv) What order?
-
The KAT, for the reasons stated in the impugned common order, has answered Point Nos. (i) and (ii) in the affirmative and Point No. (iii) stating that it does not require that the Rule to be interpreted in a different way and dismissed all the applications. This is impugned in this batch of writ petitions by few of the applicants.
-
Sri CM...
To continue reading
Request your trial