H SURESH Vs. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Karnataka Public Service Commission issued annexure-A notification dated 18-4-2007 inviting applications for direct recruitment to 53 posts of Assistant Directors of Horticulture. The petitioner who is presently working as Assistant Horticulture Officer in the Department of Horticulture submitted his application through proper channel. However, his application was not forwarded to the Public service Commission on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. This information was conveyed to the Director of Horticulture by the Government through annexure-C letter dated 25-5-2007. Aggrieved by the refusal to forward his application to the Public Service Commission, the petitioner filed Application No. 3109 of 2007-Annexure-D in the Karnataka Administrative tribunal praying for an interim order of stay of the impugned communication and interim direction to the Government to forward the application to the Public Service Commission. After considering the prayer for interim relief, the Administrative Tribunal by order dated 25-6-2007 rejected the prayer for interim relief. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Annexure-E order dated 25-6-2007 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting the applicant's prayer for interim relief made in Application no. 3109 of 2007.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered the materials placed on record. We have also perused the relevant Government file which was placed before us by the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) IT is seen from Annexure-C communication dated 25-5-2007 that a total number of 32 applications were submitted by in-service candidates working in the Department of Horticulture applying for the posts of Assistant horticulture Officers and Assistant Director of Horticulture. Out of the 32 applications, three applications including that of the petitioner were returned to the Director of Horticulture as disciplinary proceedings are pending against them. The file discloses that the director of Horticulture himself had brought to the notice of the Government that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the above mentioned three in-service candidates and that after taking into account the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against them, the Government took a conscious decision not to forward their applications to the Public service Commission and to return the applications to the Director of Horticulture. Hence the question that arose for consideration is whether the Government was right and justified in refusing to forward the petitioner's application to the Public Service Commission.