AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 936/2009 dated 20.04.2012 is called in question in this writ petition.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner- herein i.e. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short ''the Commission'') to consider the respondent''s candidature as the one under Scheduled Caste Rural/Kannada Medium Student for selection to the post of Lecturer in Economics, against the notification dated 24.12.2007.
On 24.12.2007, notification was issued by the petitioner/Commission, inviting applications in respect of 2550 posts of Lecturers for Government First Grade Colleges. Among the total posts of 2550, the number of posts meant for Lecturers in Economics were 205. Among such 205 posts of Economics Lecturers, 30 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes. In Horizontal reservation, 8 posts of Scheduled Castes were reserved for Rural and two posts were reserved for Kannada Medium candidates. The respondent No. 1 herein applied for the post of Economics Lecturer under Scheduled Castes quota seeking further horizontal reservation in rural as well as Kannada Medium Student category. The petitioner-Commission did not select the 1st respondent to the post of Lecturer inasmuch as he was considered as Scheduled Caste (General Candidate) with no horizontal reservation and as he had scored less number of marks than cut-off scored prescribed the Commission for the schedule castes category.
It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 had scored 72 percentage as against the cut-off 75% of marks for selection under Scheduled Caste category. It is also not in dispute that respondent No. 1 claimed reservation under Scheduled Caste rural/Scheduled Caste Kannada Medium School category. Section 2(2) of the Karnataka reservation of appointment of posts (in the Civil Services of the State) for rural candidates Act, 2002 defines the word ''Rural Candidate'' as under:
(2) "Rural Candidate" means a candidate, who has studied.--
(i) from first standard to tenth standard where the qualifying examination prescribed for a post of S.S.L.C. or higher; or
(ii) from first standard to qualifying examination where the qualifying examination prescribed for a post is lower than S.S.L.C.,
In a school situated in any area other than a larger urban area, smaller urban area or transitional area specified under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
It is also relevant to note Rule 9(1)(C) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, deals with Kannada Medium Schools Students and the same reads thus:
"(1c) Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, in all direct recruitment, five percent of vacancies set apart for that method in each of the categories of General Merit, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and in each of the Categories among other Backward Classes shall, subject to any general instructions that may be issued by the Government regarding the manner of appointment, be filled from among candidates who have studied in Kannada Medium from first standard to tenth standard where the qualifying examination prescribed for a post is S.S.L.C. or higher, or from first standard to qualifying examination where the qualifying examination prescribed for a post is lower than S.S.L.C."
From the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that in order to claim reservation in Rural Category or in Kannada Medium Student Category, the candidate should have studied 1st standard to 10th standard in Rural area and in Kannada Medium School as the case may be, wherever the prescribed qualification is S.S.L.C. or higher. In the matter on hand, admittedly, the qualification prescribed was a post M.A. in Economics with minimum of 55% of marks. Thus, it is clear that in order to claim reservation as Rural Candidate or as Kannada Medium School Candidate, the candidate should have studied 1st standard to 10th standard in rural area or in Kannada Medium as the case may be.
The respondent herein has studied in the following manner:
"1) From 1st to 4th standard: in Government Higher Primary School at Ramohalli (Annexure-A12)
2) 7th Standard: respondent No. 1 did not study 7th standard in any school but however, he appeared for examination directly for 7th standard in Higher Primary School at Doodihalli.
3) 8th Standard: in K.R. Thambakada Boys High School, Hirekerur (Annexure-A10)
4) 9th and 10th Standard: in Sri. Rangnatha Swamy High School, Gullehalli (Annexure-A13)"
From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that, 1st respondent has not studied 5th and 6th standard at all in any place, muchless in rural area and in Kannada Medium School. So also, he has not studied the 7th standard with regular schooling in any of the schools. But he has directly appeared for 7th standard examination in Higher Primary School Centre at Doodihalli. Hence, it is clear that respondent No. 1 has not at all studied in 5th and 6th standard and has not taken regular schooling in 7th standard. Accordingly, it is clear that respondent No. 1 has not got the prescribed qualification to claim the benefit of reservation in rural category as well as the Kannada Medium School category inasmuch as, he has not studied from 1st standard to 10th standard in Rural area as well as in Kannada Medium schools. His regular schooling was only for 7 years within the period of 10 years, though he has passed the 10th examination. Since the aforementioned provisions which deal with rural candidates as well as reservation to Kannada Medium School Candidates are not satisfied by the 1st respondent, he is not entitled to get the benefit of the reservation as Scheduled Caste Rural and Kannada Medium candidate. In view of the same, the petitioner-Commission has rightly treated the 1st respondent under Scheduled Caste Category candidate without giving him the further horizontal reservation benefit. Since the 1st respondent had scored less number of percentage than the cut-off percentage fixed by the Commission for scheduled caste category candidates, the respondent was not selected.
We find that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal while coming to the conclusion are not just and proper. Since the respondent No. 1 had claimed the benefit of reservation, in our considered opinion, was not justified in taking lenient view in favour of the respondent No. 1 for giving the benefit of reservation though he was not entitled for the same in law.
Accordingly, writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, in Application No. 936/2009 stands quashed.