V.R. VISHWANATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent - Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission') issued a Notification on 3.11.2011 inviting applications for 362 Gazetted Probationers Posts. Last date of receipt of applications was 12.12.2011. 1,38,807 applications were received in response to the said notification. Preliminary examination was conducted on 22.4.2012. List of eligible candidates for main examination was published on 6.6.2012. 7,188 candidates became eligible for the main examination, to whom the applications were sent from 12.6.2012 to 15.6.2012. The last date fixed for receipt of filled application from the candidates was 30.6.2012. Main examination was scheduled to be held between 25.8.2012 to 14.9.2012. Main examination schedule was published in the website of the Commission on 9.7.2012. The examination process was stayed on 2.8.2012 in W.P. No. 10223/2012. The said order was vacated on 16.11.2012. The main examination was re-scheduled and has been processed to be held on 15.12.2012 to 6.1.2013. The time table of the main examination was uploaded in the website of the Commission on 17.11.2012 (Annexure -A). The petitioners who have successfully passed the KAS preliminary examination and having applied to the other posts available in other departments, having submitted a representation dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure-L), to re-schedule or postpone the examination announced vide Annexure -A, have filed these writ petitions to quash the time table uploaded in the website of the Commission on 17.11.2012 (Annexure-A) and to direct the Commission to consider the representation as at Annexure - L.

(2.) Sri K. N. Puttegowda, learned advocate, in support of the writ petitions contended that the petitioners had applied for other posts available in other departments and now the dates already announced for these examinations clash with the time table - Annexure-A announced by the Commission and though a representation was submitted explaining the difficulties of the petitioners and large number of similarly affected candidates, the Commission has not considered the representation as at Annexure -L and has put the petitioners in a fix. He submitted that the impugned action of 2nd respondent - Commission is arbitrary and illegal and hence, interference is warranted.

(3.) Sri P. S. Rajagopal, learned Senior advocate, appearing for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, by inviting my attention to the provisions under Ss. 15 and 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, firstly contended that, there is no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. Reliance was placed on an order in the case of S. M. Pattanaik Vs. Secretary to Government of India, 1986 ILR(Kar) 3954. Secondly, the prayer for rescheduling/postponement of the examination is unreasonable, since, more than 6,700 eligible candidates would face hardship. He submitted that the admission tickets and other examination materials have already been printed and the admission tickets are ready to dispatch and that necessary arrangement to conduct the examination has been undertaken. He submitted that, for convenience of the petitioners, large number of eligible applicants cannot be made to suffer. He submitted that, if, the request of the petitioners were to be accommodated, number of other eligible candidates who would be taking one or the other examination/s at a given point of time would encounter similar problems and it will be impossible to publish a time table, wherein, no other examinations by the Government Departments or the Universities would be conducting. He submitted that the Commission having held deliberations has found it impossible to accede to the request for postponement of the notified examination, since the postponement, if any, would bring in multiple problems.