IN THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT

BANGALORE
DATED:THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY′ 2018

PRESENT
THE HON′ BLE Mr G SHANTHAPPA′ ]UDICIAL MEMBER

AND
THE HON′ BLE MR V P BALIGAR′ ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

APPLICAT10N NUMBER 3933 0F 2007

Smt Manjula Dilip Kumarl kal′
D/o Dileep Kumar Ilkaし
Acled about 25 years′
Drawing Teacher′
Government MOdel Schooし
Hangal′ Dist:Haveri …APPLICANT

(3y sri Nagaraj P s Advocate For M/s B 8 Bajentri

Associates′ Advocates for applicant)

VERSuS
l Karnataka Public service cOmmissiOn′
Represented by its Secretary′
‐ 3angalore
2 The Deputy Director of Public
lnstructions′ Haveri′
Dist Haveri

3 The Block Education ofFicer′

Hangal′ Dist:Haveri

4 Savitha Doddamani′
D/o L G Doddamani
R/o Near PoHce station′
Srihatti′ Gada9 District
 2

5. Sri. A.A. Khazi,

Assistant Director, Primary Education,
O/o the Commissioner of Public
Instructions, Nrupathu nga Road,
Bangalore-560 001. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. B.S. Budhihal, Govt. Pleaderfor R2 & R3;
Sri. T. Narayanaswamy, Advocate for R1;
Sri. Ashok S. Menaslnkai, Advocate For R4;
M/s Anil Associates, Advocate for R5)
*****

This Application is filed under Section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with a prayer to quash
the order issued by the 3'd respondent dated Nil vide
Annexure-A3 and to declare the action of the 1't respondent
in not selecting the applicant to the post of Lecturer in
sociology in the department of Pre-university Education as
illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law,

This Application coming on for Hearinq, this day,

Sri. V.P. Baligar, Hon'ble Administrative Member
made the following:

ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the

learned Counsel for 1"' respondent, learned Government

Pleader for the 2'd and i'd respondents and the Learned

counsel for 4th and 5th rdspondents.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicant fairly submits

that the applicant in her application to the Karnataka Public

Service Commission (KPSC) for the post of Lecturer in

 ＾
５
Sociology had not got the signature of the Appointing
Authority along with the seal as prescribed in the
application. However, he submits that though the applicant

had sought permission to apply for the said post, the BEO

- 3d respondent had rejected her claim giving an

endorsement on her representation dated 08.09.2006 vide

Annexure-A2. Since the B.E.O had rejected her request for

permission to apply to KPSC, she could not submit the

service details/Service Certificate to the KPSC and inturn

the KPSC rejected her application as per Annexure-A4. He

further argues that if the applicant's application had been

forwarded by the 3'd respondent, the applicant would have

been selected as Lecturer in Sociology and hence prays that

the endorsement of the 3'd respondent may be set-aside

and the KPSC may be directed to select her as Lecturer in

Sociology by quashing the rejection of her candidature vide

Annexure-A4.
ｂ  ｄ

3.
ｒ

Per contra, the learned Counsel KPSC submits

     ｄ
ｉ

that the applicant while applying itsetf not root her

  ｉ
ｄ
ｄ

application through proper channel and not obtain the

{
 4

permission of the Appointing Authority, as could be seen

from her application dated 12.09.2006 at Annexure-Al.

Since the Appointing Authority had rejected her application

and had not forwarded the same to the KpSC, her

candidature was rejected, which is in accordance with law.

He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

BEDENGA TALUKDAR vs. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN &

ORS [(2010) 72 SCC 85]. Therefore, he prays that the
application may be dismissed as devoid of merit.

4. The learned Government pleader for the 2nd and 3.d

respondents submits that the applicant should have

questioned the endorsement of the BEO before the higher

authorities and got the permission to apply for the post

called by the KPSC. But the applicant kept quiet till the last
date was over and did not. question the endorsement issued

by the BEO in time. Therefore, he contends that the

application does not have 5ny merit and there is no infirmity

in the rejection of her apptication by the KPSC.

 ′０
ヽ

5. Admittedty, the applicant did not appty through

proper channel after obtaining the certificate of the
Appointing Authority as prescribed by the KPSC. It is
evident from Annexure-A1 in which the certificate to be
furnished by the State/Central Government servants has

been left blank by the applicant. We do agree with the

submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant
that the impugned endorsement of the BEO vide Annexure_
43 is unfair and.unjust. However, the applicant should have
challenged the endorsement issued by the B.E.O. that the
applicant could not be permitted as she was still on
probation, before the competent authority and before the

last date of submission of application.

6. It is very unfortunate that the 3rd respondent being

the Appointing Authority gave a wrong endorsement to the

applicant denying her the opportunity to participate in the

selection procesi of KPSC. However, the relief cannot be

given at this stage as the applicant did not approach this

Tribunal or the Competent Authority before the last date of

submission of the application. Having failed to challenge
 6

the endorsement of the BEO in time, the applicant has

suffered the damage. However, we are compelled to express

our dissatisfaction over the endorsement given by the 3'd

respondent. We hope that in future, the Appointing

Authorities do not deny the opportunity of career
advancement to the aspiring employees and issue the

documents/Certificates weil in time as prescribed by the

recruitment authorities. The Registry may send a copy of

this order to the Commissioner of Public Instructions for

issuing suitable instructions to appointing authorities under

his control.

7. With the above observations, the application is

rejected.

BR」 /‐