S. BRUNDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of an advertisement as at Annexure-D published in a newspaper dated 26-10-2013, insofar as the post of Legal-cum-Probation Officers and asking for mandamus against the respondents to announce the result of petitioner in response to notification issued vide Annexure-A and for grant of consequential reliefs, this writ petition was filed. The petitioner is an Advocate. A notification dated 5-3-2012 vide Annexure-A was issued, inviting applications to fill up the posts created under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme. Petitioner applied on 19-5-2012, to the post of Legal-cum-Probation Officer. She was called for interview. However, result of recruitment process undertaken was not announced. Applications have been invited on 6-10-2013, to fill up the posts created under the said scheme, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Sri H.B. Chandrashekar, learned Advocate, contended that the respondents without announcing the result of the selection process undertaken pursuant to the notification as at Annexure-A, are unjustified in issuing the notification vide Annexure-D, which also shows modification with regard to the age of the candidates. He submitted that the respondents having called the petitioner for interview and the viva voce test having been conducted, it is impermissible in law to issue the notification vide Annexure-D. He submitted that in the notification as at Annexure-A, the age of the candidates shown was 30 to 45 years and the petitioner being aged about 41 years, would lose the right to employment, if the recruitment undertaken vide Annexure-A is not finalised. He submitted that there being decrease of the age limit in the notification issued vide Annexure-D, the petitioner being age barred, cannot file an application. He submitted that in the circumstances of the case, Annexure-D is liable to be quashed and the respondents being duty bound, be directed to announce the result of the interview conducted to the post to which the petitioner applied on 19-5-2012.

(3.) Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned AGA, on the other hand contended that merely on account of the fact that the petitioner was called for an interview and verification of documents submitted in response to the notification vide Annexure-A, was undertaken, she has no vested right for the post. He submitted that meetings having been held on 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th of April, 2012, proceedings vide Annexure-R2 was drawn and in the meeting held on 26-5-2012, it was decided to follow the instructions of the head office meetings vide Annexure-R2. He submitted that, since it was decided to utilise the services of Probationary Officers under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 considering their past service and work experience, a decision was taken not to conduct recruitment to the posts of Legal-cum-Probation Officers. He submitted that since none who applied in response to Annexure-A was recruited to the said post, the claim of the petitioner is without any merit. He submitted that in view of the decision taken by the respondent, as detailed in the counter filed, question of announcing of the result of the selection process conducted pursuant to Annexure-A does not arise. He submitted that the petitioner having no right to the notified post, writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.