SHAMBULINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing with the consent of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents, it is heard finally.

(2.) The legality and correctness of order dated 07.11.2017 passed in Application No.6419/2017 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for the sake of convenience) is assailed by the applicant before the Tribunal.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner had filed an application pursuant to a Notif ication regarding recruitment of Range Forest Officer dated 12.09.2012. Online applications were invited for recruitment of sixty-two Range Forest Officers from eligible candidates possessing B.Sc. (Forestry) Science and Engineering Graduation. Petitioner being a B.Sc. Degree holder in Forestry filed his application through online claiming reservation in Category-IIA/KMS (Kannada Medium School). On scrutiny of his application, his name was published in the provisional select list dated 28.07.2014. The name of petitioner was shown at Sl.No.72 and he had secured 149 marks. But, when the final selection list was published on 01.08/09.2014, his name was not found. Further, Official Memorandum dated 08.05.2014 was issued. That out of sixty-two posts, sixty-one posts had been filled. According to the petitioner, out of sixty-two posts, only fifty-six candidates reported for duty and six candidates for various reasons did not report for duty. In fact, according to learned counsel for petitioner, out of sixty-one candidates, fifty-six candidates were eligible and five candidates were declared ineligible. That one of the five candidates declared ineligible was Kumari Divya T.N. belonging to Category-IIA/ woman. It was found that she belongs to Category-IIIA. In the circumstances, after obtaining approval from the Government, by order dated 08.05.2015 one Jayavardhan Talawar was appointed under Category-I (Rural). Therefore, the post for Category-IIA/woman remained unfilled. In the circumstances, petitioner contending to be the next eligible candidate in terms of merit, made a representation stating that he be considered and appointed in the post reserved for Category- IIA/woman as Kumari Divya T.N. could not be accommodated in the said post that she found that she belong to Category-IIIA. Petitioner submitted his representations dated 12.04.2016 and 02.05.2017. In response to that Communication dated 24.06.2017 was issued by stating that as per Rule 9(2) and (3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for the sake of convenience), petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as against the vacancy which had arisen on account of Kumari Divya T.N. since the name of petitioner was not found either in the main select list or waiting list. The said Communication dated 24.06.2017 (Annexure-A13) was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the case of the respective parties has rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this petition.