High Court Karnataka High Court

Srinivas G vs The General Manager on 1 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Srinivas G vs The General Manager on 1 April, 2008
Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1"" DAY OF APRIL, 2003

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN      " F" "  %

yv_g1T PETIIION go. 1s676gz¢:o7j'gTs-R1s_»_),,af , % M  1 1

nnnnnnnnnnnn :-

Sn'. SRINIVAS G
AGED ABOUT 39 YE
s/o GANGULAPPA
Rio REDDYGANAPALLI

CHAKAVELU POST A
BAGEPALLITALUK   V .  1  

KOLAR DIST  %       A V  PETITIONER

AUG
I'I.l\IJ

1 THE GENERAL'MANAGER '
(ADMN.&HRD)   
IQXRNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
._C(39R1?QR_AI'ION"L.T1\!IITED

 , CORPGRATE OFFICE

A . 'KAVERI BHAVAN

V -.BANG.'»%.LC!P;E.-S?~

v;:11V_nL*IN.'=C} uuug. 1 urn.

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSNIIS SION
 CUR?_(7RA1TON L'lT\/ITTED

 .. x 'T CORPORATE OFFICE

' _ V  BHAVAN

 BANGALORE-9.  RESPONDENTS

.’,Itn’I.1′.|.(‘l ‘ ‘l”hTI”b’I’.’ “I”f’\’I’)

1.

IN)

WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 6 AND
227 “F “”1-1″E C”NS’iTi”u’TIGN OF IIVEIA ‘v’vTIH A PRAYER TO

I-

1.-L_,
C7′

QT”-‘”3 “V”-W “‘WA.L SVLEC .01″! NO 1 L”.’CATION ISSUED BY THE

\-I-IIIIJI. LIJJJ 111V’ 14

RESPONDENTS DT.26.9.200§ AS PER ANNEX-G. AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETTTION COMING ON FOR ORDERS

DAY, THE C URT TI”-Ti FOLLOVVING;

Q.R.D_E..R

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a”

nature of certiorari to quash the final selection :;_*

26.09.2007 as found at Annexure G to the writ petition. A

2. The respondents issued notification on
30.10.2006 inviting applications fill up 1400
vacancies of Mazdoors;:«inV:_’responsei to’ the respondents
received in all submitted by the

petitioner. ‘_I”rie”‘e’ii,g.il.3″rf1ityVfrj’:::”‘ isiapass in S.S.L.C. examination.

basis of 75% vS.S.L.C.’.and.2’5% marks obtained in endurtnr-e t*st.

– V_AccordinigIyVtite respond-m.ts__ processed the appiications received by them

it-rind Vicailed fot*.tendtt:ance test at the ratio of 1:10 from the eligible

aptilieationsiV’oni.”_’the”p;basis of merit. By takitlg into consideration the

percentage. of secured in the S.S.L.C. examination and in the

it it ‘endurance test. the respondents selected 1400 candidates. Since the

petitibneriwas not selected he is before this court in this writ petition.

3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ

papers.

‘\ .\_,
K7″

\./

4. In the application submitted by the petitioner he has stated that

out of 625 maximum marks he has secured 340. In this application

petitioner further specifies that after excluding the marks obtained – .,

subject. his percentage stands at 60.95. This data it

petitioner in his application is in accordance withliis ‘S.«S.L.’C. ._

It is not the case of the petitioner that in respect_loi’ other’se1ectet?_:h_.lA

candida.es the .-w..nde-nts ..,v- inc!I.1_ed the”;.n;arl:s obt__ained by tn’

produced the selection iist of i?t0t’i; — oaizdiiiates” n r at
obtained and the percentafge,__secur:ed”as by each
candidate. Thereforg. Em or .e1ro§<,é0mmittcd by the
respondents the to the post of

Mazdoors.

5. It is alsolldnotl thefcase- of’the petitioner that a candidate who

secured less marks than was selected by the respondents.

” stated above. I find no justifiable gound to

interfere lravitltthe iznpugned order of selection made by the respondents.

_ V ‘iiltecordingly, the writ petition is hereby rejected.