S K PUNITH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed by applicants 3 and 13 in Application No. 3277 of 2010 connected with Application Nos. 3302 to 3313 of 2010 and 3445 to 3446 of 2010 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), being aggrieved by the order dated 15-9-2010, wherein the Tribunal has declined to grant the prayer to quash the notification bearing No. CAH/Est-2/CR-271/2009-10, dated 9-4-2010 (Annexure-A2 to the application) and has disposed of the applications with certain observations.

(2.) The Petitioners herein along with the other applicants filed applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), being aggrieved by the notification dated 9-4-2010, wherein applications were invited from the eligible candidates in the prescribed format for recruitment to 287 posts of Veterinary officer' in the department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, pursuant to the order of the Government. Since there was large number of vacancies in the post of 'Veterinary Officer', it was thought that a special recruitment should be made to fill up 487 posts of 'veterinary officers' in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services and wherefore, special rules called Karnataka Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (Recruitment of Veterinary Officers) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter called 'the Special Rules') were promulgated enabling to fill up 487 direct recruitment vacancies in categories of posts of Veterinary Officers in the Commissioner ate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services as specified in the schedule and the proviso to the Special Rules states that nothing in these rules shall apply to more than one recruitment. It is the case of the Petitioners that the notification dated 9-4-2010 was issued calling for applications for 287 Veterinary Officers posts and not 487 posts, in respect of which the Special Rules were made. The applicants made applications in response to the said notification and were not successful in the recruitment. Thereafter, they filed applications challenging the notification contending that when Special Rules have been made for recruitment of 487 vacancies, the notification could not have been issued for filling up only 287 posts and applications ought to have been called for all the 487 posts, so that they would have also been selected and as per the proviso, Special Rules will apply only to one recruitment. Therefore, they are prejudiced by the notification dated 9-4-2010 and sought for quashing of the same.

(3.) The application was resisted by the Respondent-State Government contending that after the promulgation of the Special Rules, though decision has been taken for direct recruitment of 487 posts of Veterinary Officers by Direct Recruitment, a decision was taken by the Government that they should be filled up in two phases of 287 posts and 200 posts respectively. Accordingly, notification has been issued for recruitment in respect of 287 posts only and the other 200 posts would also be notified and the said notification would also be under the Special Rules. The proviso to the Special Rules would not in any way affect the said recruitment of 200 posts as the Special Rules would be applicable to the recruitment of all the 487 vacancies. The applicants have participated in the recruitment process and have been unsuccessful and it is not open to them now to challenge the notification.