NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. M. VENKATESHALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 passed in W.P. No. 5163/01. The appellant is the respondent in the writ petition. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition.

(2.) THE respondent's name was sponsored by the Bellary Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Helper -B in the K.S.R.T.C., Bellary Division. Hence the 2nd respondent (Divisional controller, Bellary Division) forwarded an application to the respondent herein along with his letter dated 28.3.1996 and informed that he may apply for the said post within a month. The respondent was also informed that he would have to appear before the recruitment authority on 6.11.1996 with the completely filled up application and the documents mentioned in the letter dated 28.3.1996. The documents mentioned in the letter dated 28.3.1996 included among others, an application completely filled up in all respects and ITI/ITC (NAC/NTC) marks cards wherein it should have been mentioned that the candidates have passed in all papers. According to the respondent, he submitted the completely filled up application along with the documents and appeared for the interview on 6.11.1996. However, he was not selected. Therefore, he filed W.P. No. 8696/97 praying for a direction to appoint him as Helper -B in the services of the Corporation. He also prayed for a declaration that the appointment of one Thimma Reddy (4th respondent) was illegal. The contention in the said writ petition was that the petitioner therein had secured 68.5% marks whereas the 4th respondent had secured only 67.38% and therefore, the petitioner should have been preferred for appointment. To substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he had scored 68.15%, he had produced Annexures -B, C and D, marks cards in respect of ITI and Annexure -F, marks card in respect of NAC. The respondent Corporation did not file any objection in the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the Corporation stated that in the event of the petitioner securing higher marks than the 4th respondent, his case could be considered subject to verification. Hence the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge on 22.3.2000 directing the respondent Corporation to verify the marks obtained by the petitioner and also marks obtained by the 4th respondent. It was also directed that after varification, if the respondent Corporation found that the petitioner had factually obtained 68.15% marks, the Corporation should consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him to the post of Helper -B. in the order dated 8.11.2000, the respondent has stated that along with his application, the petitioner had enclosed NTC and NAC marks cards, but the NTC marks cards shoved that he had scored 28 marks in subject No. 3 and against subject Nos. 1, 2 and 4, it was written 'EX'. Since the marks in subject Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not shown, in the marks card, the corporation treated the marks -card as incomplete. It is also stated in the order dated 8.11.2000 that the Scrutiny Committee had recorded the following remark on 6.11.1996: NTC marks card incomplete. Hence taken only NAC into consideration It is also stated that on an examination of NAC marks card, the petitioner had scored 412 marks out of 650 and the . percentage worked out to 63,38%. It is also stated that the petitioner had not enclosed the necessary NTC marks card to calculate the percentage of his marks as 68.15. Since the NTC marks card was incomplete and since the petitioner secured only 63.38% as per the NAC marks card and since the 4th respondent had secured 67.38% marks, the Corporation informed the petitioner that he cannot be considered for appointment as Helper -B.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the Corporation has not taken into account the marks obtained by the petitioner in NTC on the ground that the marks sheet was incomplete. It is also not disputed that if the marks shown in Annexures -B, C and D are taken into account, the petitioner will secure 68.15%. The reason for not taking NTC marks into consideration is that Annexures -B, C and D were not produced at the time of submitting the application. The contention of the petitioner is that ha had produced Annexures -B, C and D also along with the application. Therefore essentially the dispute is whether the petitioner had in fact produced Annexures -B, C and D along with the application submitted by him before the corporation. Apart from Annexure -L, acknowledgement dated 6.11.1996, the petitioner has no document to prove that Annexures -B, C and D were produced along with the application, Annexure -L only refers to ITI/NAC passed certificate. The corporation also does not dispute that the petitioner had submitted Annexure -D which shows that he had obtained 28 marks in subject No. 3 and for subject Nos. 1, 2 and 4, it was written 'EX'. According to the Corporation, Annexures -B and C were not produced and Annexure -L cannot prove that Annexures -B and C were produced along with the application. In support of the contention of the Corporation that ITI certificate produced by the petitioner was incomplete, the Corporation produced a photocopy of the scrutiny sheet wherein it was recorded on 6.11.1996 as follows: NTC marks card incomplete. Hence taken only NAC into consideration The same noting is quoted in Annexure -P order. A photocopy of the relevant page of the scrutiny sheet was produced along with the statement of objections filed by the corporation in the writ petition, in the circumstances ordinarily, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Corporation that the petitioner had not produced Annexures -B and C along with the application and that in the absence of marks of subject Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the Corporation had to treat NTC marks of the petitioner as incomplete. However, the learned single Judge has pointed out that if the Corporation had any dispute about the production of Annexures -B and C along with the application, the Corporation could have taken such objection in the earlier writ petition. Having failed to do so, the Corporation cannot take the stand that they had not been produced along with the application. It is the above circumstance that persuaded the learned single Judge to direct the corporation to take into account Annexures -B, C and D and to reconsider the matter.