R B VRISHABHARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined service as a Typist in the Department of Commercial Taxes on 30-10-1976. He appeared in the Stenography/shorthand examination conducted by the Karnataka secondary Education Examination Board (Commerce Examinations) in the month of may, 1983. The results of the said examination were announced in the month of July, 1983. Before the announcement of the results of the examination held in May, 1983, some of the juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the post of Stenographer on 30-6-1983. The said juniors were promoted in preference to the petitioner on the ground that they had already passed the Stenography/shorthand examination which was an essential qualification for the post of Stenographer in the Department of Commercial Taxes. On the basis of the earlier promotions of the Juniors of the petitioner, they were ranked above the petitioner in the seniority list of Stenographers. Aggrieved by the higher ranking of the juniors in the seniority list of Stenographers, the petitioner filed Application No. 4064/2001 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that since he had appeared in Stenographer examination conducted in May, 1983, his juniors could not have been preferred for promotion on the ground that they had already acquired the qualification of Stenography/short-hand examination. According to the petitioner, the petitioner should be deemed to have been qualified on the last date of the Stenography/ short-hand examination instead of the date of announcement of the results of the examination. If the last date of the examination is taken as the relevant date, the petitioner was qualified on 30-6-1983 when his juniors were promoted to the cadre of Stenographer. Hence it was contended by the petitioner before the tribunal that the seniority list should be quashed and the respondents should be directed to assign the petitioner proper ranking in the seniority list taking into account the last date of the examination as the date of acquisition of qualification by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the tribunal which dismissed the Application on 22-3-2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review Application No. 43/2005 before the karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the said Review Petition also was rejected by the tribunal as per Annexure-'e' order dated 15-12-2006. Aggrieved by Annexure-'e' order, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to quash the orders dated 22-3-2005 and 15-12-2006 passed by the Karnataka Administrative tribunal.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the pleadings in the Writ Petition and the materials placed on record, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition.

(3.) THE basic question that arises for consideration is whether the last date of the examination or the date of announcement of the results of the examination should be taken as the date of acquisition of qualification by a candidate appearing in the examination. Unless otherwise provided under any specific rule, only the date of announcement of the result of the examination can be taken as the date of acquisition of qualification by the candidate who appeared in the examination. As rightly held by a learned Single Judge of this court in N. Ravishankar v. State of Karnataka (ILR 1987 Kar 847), it is the declaration of the results of the examination that the examinees have passed the examination, that enables them to claim that they have passed the examination. Only the date of announcement of the result of the examination can be treated as the date of acquisition of qualification unless otherwise provided in any specific rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admitted that there is no such Rule. The petitioner has not pointed out any Rule applicable to the employees of the Department of Commercial Taxes which stipulates that the last date of examination should be or can be treated as the date of acquisition of the qualification. In the absence of such a Rule, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that on the date of promotion of his juniors, he was qualified for promotion to the post of Stenographer or that he should be deemed to have qualified for such promotion. Hence the Tribunal was perfectly right and fully justified in passing the impugned orders.