RUKHIYA BEGUM Vs. KPSC AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is challenging the order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the first Respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER states that she is the Head Mistress of Al -Ameen Urdu School at Gulbarga. She was issued with a show -cause notice dated 16.6.2003 in the matter mal -practice committed by the Petitioner and one Mr. Mohammed Rajasab Wadiker in the Departmental Examination conducted during December, 2002. According to the Petitioner, she could not reply to the show -cause notice as the same was lost while travelling. In the light of no reply Respondents passed the order dated 12.11.2003 ordering that the grant -in -aid is not be released in favour of the Petitioner.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY Petitioner is holding a responsible post in a school run by a private management. It is seen from the show -cause notice that the Petitioner along with one Sri Mohammed Rajasab Wadiker appeared for Accounts Higher and General Law Departmental Examinations held during of December, 2002, with mala fide intentions though she was not required and entitled to be an examinee as she is employed in a non -government institution. The answer sheet bundle was opened and thereafter the Respondents have unraveled various discrepancies as narrated in the show -cause notice. After noticing the various discrepancies the Respondents have directed the Petitioner to show cause as to why the education department should not be requested to stop the grant -in -aid. The show -cause notice is dated 16.6.2003. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the show -cause notice has not been received by her. Her contention is that the show -cause notice was lost. If that is so, nothing prevented her from seeking a duplicate copy of the show -cause notice. Respondents having waited for more than five months have chosen to pass an order dated 13.11.2003 confirming the order of stoppage of grant in the light of no reply. In normal circumstances, any prudent person would have sought for an opportunity in the matter. Nothing was done. After six months this petition is filed. The reason of losing the show -cause notice in the bus does not impress the Court with regard to the bona fides on the part of the Petitioner. This clearly drives me to a conclusion that the Petitioner probably could not meet the charge in the light of clear materials available in the matter. Having failed to submit her reply, it is not open to the Petitioner now to challenge Annexure -A. Moreover it cannot be said that the Petitioner cannot be held responsible in the matter. Petitioner probably wanted to help Mr. Mohammed Rajasab Wadiker and it is for this reason has chosen to write the answer paper and this in my view is serious and requires to be deprecated. Any leniency in such matters would not only ruin the sanctity of the departmental examinations conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission and but also would result in a premium for a person who does not deserve promotion. Promotions are given based on examinations conducted by the KPSC. Admittedly, Mr. Mohammed Rajasab Wadiker is a Head Constable and this examination was meant for him. It is also interesting to note that the Petitioner nowhere says that Mr. Mohammed Rajasab Wadiker is a stranger. On the other hand, she tries to explain to this Court without submitting a proper reply in the matter. Circumstances of this case would show that the Respondents are right in passing this impugned order. I do not find any justifiable grounds to reconsider the decision taken by the Respondent after thorough enquiry and in the absence of any reply and also in the absence of any acceptable explanation in the writ petition. Annexure -A is confirmed.