High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri Puttaraju R S/O Ramegowda D vs Thje Vice Chairman & Managing … on 20 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shri Puttaraju R S/O Ramegowda D vs Thje Vice Chairman & Managing … on 20 August, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATEEEA AT' BANGALORE 

DATE}? THXS THE ZOTE §§§' OF AUGUST 2008

B 

THE Howsm nrgaausrxcza H.G. RAM)?-.'.S_.'£~£-~    

W.P$§>3;%3I.44(_)7/£03 [SS1 3? 1'

BETWEEN :

SH}?! PU'I"1'§1;E%iaJU R

3/0 RAMZ#:R
KSRTC, C§;NTRAL.,QI~'§*5I~CE::~.__  
K H 1QoAD,"3HANT3~:;NaG2a.R'_;~
BAN(3A_LORE'56{3 02*? " 

,2' *  _'1'HF;__'i3EI§EC'iT_OR (P 85' *
 'GHA1RMA:H,_sELECT1oN COMMITTEE
 ' }x.'ZSI<*I'.C," ::';E:1~;*rRA1--«_ GFFICES
*-K H RoA.£2v,.sH'£s;N'?HE=NAGaR
F5s*AN'€3ALO}?3?,--.S60 027  RESPONDENTS

(Bar SR] 3″: sA:§;JEEv, ADV.)

é _ *:{f:ms W5». FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 =22? 01:’ THE
“._!3QNS’T{TU’1″‘~E.ON OF’ INDLA FRAYING T0 DIRECT THE

._ “i2E::PUN’D.ENTs TO TREAT THE GRADUATION C§{;R”i’1F1CA’I”E AT
‘ ‘ANNEX.;?s. PRODUCED BY THE PETETZONER AS AN
*;”£C3EJ.iYA,LEN’F QUALIFICATIQN Am THEREAFTER CONSIDER

TH?) CASE OF’ THE PETVHONER FOR SELECTION FOR THE

ms’? SF’ TRAFFIC ENSPECTOR’ AND APPOINTMENT ORDER

W,P.NO.44i)?’§2()G8

conssidered educationczilu cguaiified for
reserved vacancy in Group ‘C’ post where the
prescribed auaiificazfion is Graduation, ”

(Uncierlining supplied)

3. As C(}’L’£l(i be soon from the aboVé”oé:”t*it_iC.ate, 5.5. _ ‘

conoiciered as oiigible qualification forV4’;1;:lpoir1tn§¢:1i’vto V

any resexvod vacancy in Group the

forces for which the 3.

gaduation. This    be
considered as    V class defies
conferred    by law. In my
opinion,  « ooflficate caxzxiot be

considerec}. _ as’ q13:alfifi.oéition equivaisnt to the
the post of Traffic Ingpectoz’

in f;”r:«._e:’ .o_élVe,1fi:3.$6,:i1*:::igt at A21nexure–B. This iénd of

v._L “‘go”1″aduat1on oortiiioato is also not deciared as an

” “T.-oqzfifiaient ..qut:a}itication by {he competent auiihoziity

Kagrrlataka State Road Transport

[Cadre And Recrtlitrnontj Regulations,

However, learned counsei appearing for tho

X’~/

WP. NO.44{3′?gj2GO8

petitianer referrad to two judgments of the Henfiaie
Supreme Court in State of Orissa v.
[1994 Supp [2] sec 55135 Mills Bauglas « A’
Union of India (Am 1996 SUPREIHE x
121 1113: opinion, the said judg’1;{1e:nt*#§:”31:’;:’_V_i.93′;V<3t
determine the controversy; q11.xV=.:sti_<§11.V
petitioner does not pG5ss_§:ssthe*. ;§ti:1ca'fLiona1
qualification as required at
Annsxtzre-B, fie post of
Traffic Inspectifif "iiifigal. I find no

legal 'in f1:xi§éLppli<:ation.

PetitioI&1VV'c1._i$H1i$S¢€1L_ " é "2
1' H' I Iu&g9