Rama Reddy vs Managing Director, BMTC and Others

Subhash B. Adi, J.—Petitioners'' in these writ petitions have called in question their non-selection to the post of Establishment Supervisor, Store Keeper, Traffic Inspector, respectively, by notification/advertisement dated 13.07.2009. The respondent-Corporation had called for applications for selection of candidates for several posts including the posts of Establishment Supervisor, Store Keeper and Traffic Inspector. These three posts were available for the in-service candidates also. In the provisional list prepared by the Corporation, names of these petitioners'' were included. However, in the final selection list impugned in the writ petitions, their names were not found and they were treated as not selected. As such, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

In W.P. No. 17594/2010, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the final selection lists dated 15.05.2010 produced at Annexures ''J'' and ''K'' insofar as they relate to selection of respondents 3 and 4 for the posts of Establishment Supervisor and Traffic Inspector respectively, and also for direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Establishment Supervisor or Traffic Inspector.

In W.P. No. 16608/2010, Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the final selection list dated 15.05.2010 produced at Annexure ''J'' insofar as selection of respondent No. 3 is concerned and has also sought for direction to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him on the basis of the marks obtained in the competitive examination to the post of Store keeper. Further, has sought for quashing of clause in (iii) to the extent it refers to Clause 18A(v) of the KSRTC (C and D) Regulations, 1971.

Petitioner in W.P. No. 16609/2010 has also sought for quashing of the final selection list dated 15.05.2010 produced at Annexure ''G'' insofar as selection of respondent No. 3 is concerned and for a direction to appoint him to the post of Accounts Officer on the basis of the marks obtained in the competitive examination.

The Corporation has filed objections inter alia stating that clause 7 of the notification issued for recruitment of the candidates for various posts, for the in-service candidates, requires that the candidate should not have suffered any punishment under Regulation 18(A)(iii) to (viii) for a period of five years prior to the issuance of recruitment notification. Petitioner in W.P. No. 17594/2010 had suffered 22 orders of punishment and amongst 22 orders, he had suffered one order of punishment, wherein his salary was withheld. That order of punishment withholding salary was within five years next before the date of advertisement for recruitment and the same disentitles the petitioner for appointment in view of clause 7 of the advertisement. Similarly, petitioners in W.P. Nos. 16608 and 16609 of 2010 have also suffered an order of punishment and as such, their candidature was not finalized.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners'' submitted that, the petitioner in W.P. No. 17594/2010 was issued with an endorsement as per Annexure ''C'' dated 10.08.2009, wherein no objection certificate was issued for him to file an application, which shows that no departmental enquiry or order of punishment was passed against the said petitioner.

However, in the Additional statement of objections filed by respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 16609/2010 explanation is offered as to how Annexure ''H'', no objection certificate was issued and the Corporation has initiated disciplinary enquiry against the case worker and concerned persons, who were instrumental in issuing the said certificate. Having regard to the same, the certificate at Annexure ''H'' cannot be given any importance.

Further, the records also reveal that the order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner in W.P. No. 17594/2010 inter alia withholding his salary. Withholding of salary by way of punishment debars an in-service candidate for selection to the post of Establishment Supervisor.

Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 16608 and 16609 of 2010 have also suffered an order of punishment within five years next before the date of advertisement. However, both these petitioners have called in question the condition itself. Selection to the post of Establishment Supervisor/Traffic Inspector from amongst in-service candidates was to ensure that meritorious candidates free from allegation of misconduct is appointed by way of selection. Clause 7 of the advertisement stipulates that the in-service candidates, who had suffered the punishment in terms of clause 18(A)(iii) to (viii) within a period of five years prior to the issuance of recruitment notification are not eligible for appointment. In these cases, petitioners'' have suffered the punishment and if the authority has decided to prescribe such condition as one of the qualification i.e., the candidates should not have suffered punishment in terms of clause 18A(iii) to (viii) of the Regulations, it cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable and it is the wisdom of the Corporation to prescribe necessary qualifications in best interest of the Corporation to prevent the in-service candidates, who has suffered an order of punishment within five years next before advertisement from being selected. I do not find there is any arbitrariness in prescribing such qualification.

The final selection lists are prepared after considering these records and after having found that the petitioners'' had suffered the orders of punishment, which debars their selection in terms of the advertisement. The Corporation, though initially included the names of the petitioners'' in the provisional list, but in the final list, has not selected them in view of the punishment orders. As such, if the petitioners are not qualified, they cannot claim that since their names have been included in the provisional list, they should have been selected. Hence, I find no error in the impugned final selection lists prepared by the Corporation.

Accordingly, the petitions fail and are dismissed.