SANTOSH G. GORANAL Vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT) AND SURYAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , claiming to be a physically handicapped person responded to the notification inviting applications to fill up the post of Revenue Assistant in the respondent -Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, by filing an application for the post reserved for physically handicapped. Petitioner's name though found in the provisional list, nevertheless was not found in the final select list following which petitioner was issued with an endorsement dated 06.06.2008 - -Annexure -G pointing out that the candidates having secured 56.83% and 56.22% were selected against posts reserved for category 2A - General and 2A -Kannada medium respectively and since petitioner obtained 54.32% which was much less than the percentage of marks obtained by the other candidates, was not entitled to be selected. Hence, this petition, calling in question Annexure -G -endorsement; for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner to the post of Revenue Assistant (Graduates) under category 2A -Kannada medium and; for a writ of mandamus to supply information as sought by the petitioner in the application dated 24.06.2008 - -Annexure -H under the Right to Information Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings, there can be no more doubt that petitioner secured 54.32% marks, while the selected candidates secured 56.83% and 56.22% and were entitled to be selected against posts reserved for 2A -General and 2A -Kannada medium, respectively. Even otherwise petitioner did not apply for the post reserved for 2A Kannada medium.

(2.) IN that view of the matter, there can be no challenge to the rejection of the petitioner's application for appointment to the post of Revenue Assistant reserved for 2A -Kannada medium. Challenge to Annexure -G rejected. Sequentially petitioner is not entitled to the relief of writ of mandamus directing respondents to appoint him to the said post. As regard the relief for a direction to the respondent to furnish the relevant materials sought for under the Right to Information Act, it is needless to state that the said Act is a self contained code hence petitioner must eke out his remedies under the said Act and not seek a writ of mandamus. Petition is accordingly rejected. Misc. W. No. 80839/2010 for production of documents is unnecessary and is rejected.