•
L
ci
5
)
t
0
(1
a
0
c
o
3
cr1
00
1
0
00-ct
(tCtØ
0
.
0
0
an
0-40
Cr
-c
0
-c
ni-I
s
-‘
•
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
00
r
00
$t
-b
(8
0()
0
2c
0
-c
a
a
.-.
t
o
1
3
a
t-I,-ç
z
-(
z
s-bo
0
C
0
z
C
0
z
mOo
‘I
OOt
30c
CO
a
03
(
a
0
-c
‘<
-i
C’
cc
s
0
a
N
Nfl
NO
a
Wn
00
30
o
nt
$
0
‘l
W
000
-c
‘
)
I’
0
•
Z
•a%N
03
N
•
W
Z
C
0
(tnt
-ç
0
ton
0
0
0
Z
)
i
Z
-c
c
0
•
‘-
a
C
a
‘
—“P
0
t
,j
0
0
m
-c
Cr
00
‘-‘00
Ice
err
$
0
0
..‘.O
z
Z
0
0
No
-ft
(F
z
(P
N
C
a
.
a
NO
0
-P
)
3
N
C
NO
a’
a
0
p.
0
-c
o
0
o
s
a
0
0
*
-4
3
0
-c
s
0
)
t
a.
r
a
I
(8
C
a
(8
•
i-.
•
0
0
t
0
-i
o
I
‘)
4t
r
r
0
-4
I-’
t
m
.4
•
N
a
0
•
a
(P0
C
-c
0
CI
eo
o
a
fr
s
0
-c
0
a
a
0
‘a
t
0
fr’
0
g %
-c
00
C
Z
•
a
0
a
a
C
0
-%
<
3t
0
0
C
‘-‘V
O-(
.7
a
0
Cr
1<
5
•10
0
c
‘-‘(P
z
m
-4
m
m
z
w
a
Q
3.
•
0
o’0
•
“0
0
4%
1-,
.4
‘a
mm
-4
‘.4
‘
t
I
P1
-(
-
flO
.
I”
0
p
-4
S
“In
0
Ox
-4
.4
I
m
z
-2-
This writ petition ii filed under Artirle 226 and
227 of the
Constitution
Annexure—A
dated 11. .3.98 and to direct the respondent to
praying
this
Court
coneider the case of the petitioner to one of
of
to
the
quash
posts
AsstSnginee under the General Merit category and to
appoint him.
This
petition
coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
Pursuant
to
the
advertisement
dated
9.6.97
(Annexure B) issued by the Karnataka ‘tate Road Transport
Corporation,
the
petitioner had made an application for
recruitment against the post of Assistant Engineer.
said application
was
filed
on
15.7.97
As
The
per the
notification the eligibility requirements were prescribed
as follows:
•(a) Must possess the degree in Civil
Engineering from a University established
law
by
in
India
or
equivalent
qualification;
(b) Experience of not less than three
years in Civil Engineering Department of
State Government Undertaking or in any
Undertaking of repute.’
-3-
2.
was
In the present case,
no doubt, the petitioner
the,educationa1 qualification and as per the
having
marks obtained by him
he was a better candidate than the
person qualified for interview but since he had failed to
satisfy
the
minimum
experience
eligibility
in
requirement
Civil
of
three
Engineering Department of
State Government undertaking or in any other
of
repute) he
years
was
undertaking
for the interview.
The clarification to the said effect
was
given
to
the
for
the
petitioner by endorsement Annexure-A.
3.
petitioner
along
Sri Gopal
states
Hegde,
that,
learned
admittedly the petitioner had,
with
the
application,
Annexures-G
and
H,
two
undertakings
September
1988
filed
two
certificates,
which shows that he had worked with
during
and
Counsel
the
periods
April
1988
then October 1988 to November
to
1990.
But since as per the certificates he had an experience of
only two and a
ineligible
years
therefore
he
was
declared
4
for,\
call for interview which was fixed in
the ratio of 1
the
half
:
petitioner
5.
After
filed
communication
a
certificate
of
on
Annexure—A
29. 12l997
obtained from one K.Duaiswami, Class I Contractor, which
is to the following effect:
JORKS,fT I Fi,QLE
This is to Certify that
Sri
Chandrashekhar
Araballi, B.E,(Civil) was
working as a Consulting Civil Engineer in
my firm during period December
1990
to
July 1992.
He was helping me in filing
tenders as well as in
the
execution
of
—4
various civil works.
He
was
goody
hardworking.
He deserves all
encouragement.
4
Respondents
have
capable
sorts of
refused
to
give
any
credence to the said certificate
on the ground that the
caine ha been filed belated
lj, h1 by that time
interview
letters haó. already been
issued to
the
candidates who were found to be
qualified both as per the
academic qualification and experie
nceS
5.
In
my
opinion
the
stand
taken
by
the
respondents
cannot be said to be in any way arb
itrary or
illegal since the petitioner ha fail
ed to
the
eligibility
the time of considrat ion
for interview by the Corporatio
n.
So far as subsequently
produced certificate is concerned,
to my mind
in the
present state of affairs such cer
tificates can always be
obtained with a little effort.
Neither
in
the
certificate nor
in the writ petition it has been stat
ed
that the petitioner had worked with
the said KDuraiswamy
and in what
round
6.
For the above reasons I do not
find any
to
interfere
with
the writ jurisdiction.
good
Writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/
JUDGE