N G PANDURANGAPPA Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent, by a Notification dated 5. 5. 2002, invited applications for recruitment to the posts of Typists and also other posts. The petitioner is concerned with the post of a Typist. According to the notification, six posts of typists were advertised for selection and appointment. The classification of these six posts, was as under:

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner would argue that though only six posts of typists were advertised, there was selection of 19 candidates and only one of whom is a Scheduled Caste, candidate which is inexplicable. The said 19 candidates have been appointed by separate orders. The counsel would submit that Government order providing for reservation in direct recruitment are applicable to the selection of candidates for appointment in the Karnataka Legislative assembly Secretariat and he would submit that in terms of the Government order dated 20. 6. 1995, out of 19 selected candidates, a minimum of three candidates belonging to the scheduled Castes should have been selected and the present selection of 19 candidates, of whom only one is a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste, is directly contrary to the provisions of the Government order and the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. He would submit that it was mandatory on the part of the first respondent to have followed the Government Order and has committed a breach of the same, which invites penalty in terms of the Karnataka Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity ). He would also point out that the advertisement clearly indicates that preference should be given to persons with the knowledge of shorthand. This was a qualification which merited consideration insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

(3.) PER contra, Shri. Ravi Varma Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri. K. H. Somashekar, for respondents Nos. 3 to 20, would first point out that in so far as the prayers in the writ petition are concerned, there is no prayer affecting the appointment orders of the respondents Nos. 3 to 20 and hence they are unnecessary parties to the writ petition, in so far as there is no challenge to their appointment. In any event, by way of abundant caution, the counsel for the said respondents would canvass the following contentions: primarily, the very notification indicates that the number of posts is subject to variation and this being indicated in the notification, selection of 19 candidates to 19 posts cannot be a means of grievance for the petitioner. In so far as reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates is concerned, even according to the petitioner, one candidate belonging to Scheduled caste has been appointed and though the petitioner has not stated it, one Scheduled Tribe has also been accommodated. He would primarily point out that the petitioner having chosen to participate by filing his application and attending the written examination, the present petition being filed one year after the process, to point out the infirmities in so far as the prescription of written test or the variation in the number of posts, and seeking to have the selection and appointment quashed, is not tenable, as held by the Supreme Court on principle.