D' {SMT.'RHTNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH ADVOCATE)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT' BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED ms THE 16"' DAY or JULY, 2003 f 7T"%E ,
:BEFORE: % if 7
THE HON'BLE MR. Jusngs h§.¥£*."':-=zfi*'.--:'§":'i'_i»: 'Of _
w. P. No. 46218 of zooais-RES; « E
BEIWEEN: D 1' E' 1
1 SR3. SHARANAPPA comma:
SPOSAYABANNA GOUNDi
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
MASHAL AT AND :=:os?._
AF-ZALPUR TALUK " E
GULBARGA DIST. V
2 sm. SHREEMANT :=E_-so vsTHAL_:LL.AL .
AGEDABOLWEESYEJARS " _
RICH.-NL11-4?1?3B'v .
NEARiDEAL M.
KHAN} AREA NEW EAGHMENDRE COLONY
VOVBRVAHMPUR (3'gJi,BARGA
. . ' P.ErmoNERs
(av SRI. JA_VEDEHUS.%A¥f$_ ' ADVOCATE)
ANt:*= ' '.
D' We CHEF PEESENAL MANAGER
v .. _ _ ;<:x;=e:~m.AKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
* _ rzrgzaapeaxmow, NORTHERN RANGE
" i~!,t1'..xSAf<¥£'sE SADANA MAIN ROAD
GULSARGA
V. E " RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION #8 FILED UNDER ARTiCLES 226 AND 227 OF
THEIEDACONSTITUEON OF INDM, PRAYING TO: QUASH THE CORRIGENDUM
= DATED 23.9.2003 V¥DE ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT M SO
FAR AS ET RELATES YO CLASS¥FiCAT¥ON OF VACANCIES EN RESPECT OF
-- -- [POST OF HELPER-B AND DE-RESERVING THE VACANCY EAR MARKED IN
FAVOUR OF EX-SERVICE MAN AND TREAT AS BELONGING TO GENERAL
E MERIT CATEGORY W¥TH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
.3.
Ti-HS WRIT PETITION COMJNG ON FOR HEARNG THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING?
:ORDER:
These petitioners, aesailing ‘me
corrigendum nofification dated
L issued by ‘H16 respondent ‘
classification of vacancies ‘ of’ >
and de–reserving ti1eV1_vecenc1ir”e.ermarked:infeiliour of ex-
eervice men and treeting to General Merit
category .jeii._ have presented
fiwis petitioners have sought for a
direction the to consider the candidature of
post of Helper-B in the Ex-Military
and to select flwem and eppoint ‘chem to
having due regard to their merits.
ii The grievance of die petifioners in the instant
petition is that, petitioners are claiming that they are
1′ ” ~*Ex-service men having been released from the active
military service. The respondent herein has notified
L
various posts is. 42 posts of Helper-B, 3 posts of AS! and
9 posts of AT] as per advertisement bearing No. 212003
vide Annexure-C. It is the case of the petitionereggthat,
under me Classification of vacancies, as
vacancies are notified for the post of Henpergeahgs has
Rules governing the recruitrnent, Le…’the~Kern*ataVk:a:_’__V$tate ‘
Road Transport Corporation__. (Cadre and
Regulations, 1982 re;eervatior§VV’jie1y_fe\(our’e’f«Eieservice man
and the members ef”their”fai§rij.i3r,-erexrided for and the
that the percentage of
number: apart for direct recruitment to
any Ciass”!lV_|:Vcr.(3lassV’i’£n? posts in the Corporation shall be
by. “brby such number as is equai to 10% of
‘V the -viesaheies and the percentage or number was
Aredtieed-shall be filled by dirmt rmruitment amongst the
V ~ 5:3:-servicemen and members of the families of persons
erhiie serving in the armed forces of the Union who have
either killed or permanently disabled. Furfiier grievance
of the petitioners is met, in View of the relevant provisions
A
as referred above, atieast, four posts ought .to«,phave
been reserved in favour of Ex-servicemen, ge-:1 _é’eo_ntr_a’:”y,
oniy one post has been reserved in….§vA’ajvoué{:: of :
servicemen in the notification. ‘
candidate for recruitment vto’~fi1e of
requisite qualification and also a
candidate for ‘E18 inspector and
Assistant the requisite
_fg’i:i_y::”quaiiiied and eligible to be
appointed as notified therein. Be
that respondent now pubiished e
notit”i.oetion’ ‘Jihiaye Kamataka daily news paper dated
the cut off percentage of the
for the various posts. In the said
tat Si.No.’i-4 die cut off percentage of persons
* to the post of Helper-B is notified and as couid
1’A’–!I:’:”e’AAseen, no person under the Ex-Military personnei has
it been seiected, eventhough die notification stipuiated that
one post is eer- marked for Ex–Miiitary personnei, and no
/4
.5.
Ex-Military personnel were selected for the post of
Assistant Traffic Inspector and for Assistant
Inspector. In pursuance of me said provisiienieliwi’ list,
petitioners have filed their objeotions wider:
and K. ln pursuance of the :ebje£ti.on4s..1iiAled”by–..’__tl’zsse ”
petitioners, respondent’ ‘ ‘now it V “another: ”
advertisement on 23_.9.20(}3…ili(l:.erein, itihesobueen notified
that reservation .tE:c+serviceman has
been converted voategory. The said
has been done solely
to seized’ the by the respondent and the
same is°’ill§gel’; bonafide and contrary to the
_reieve”nt ..__ResguVlétions of the respondent-Corporation.
petifioners are conseained to redress their
;gi*ieve;nce5″hy way of presenting this writ petition, assailing
r~ the of the impugned advertisement issued
published vide Annexure-L dated 23.9.2003 and
it seeking necessary relief as statw supra.
A
-6-
3. After careful perusal of the grounds urged by the
petitioners and other materials available on file, what has
been assailed in this writ petition is the edverttsemem
dated 23.9.2003 vide Annexure-L isstgedf
respondent, so far as it relatfw to_–~’eEeseitieat«iott
vacancies in respect of Post Heipet*-B’.and:”‘de4reeeteittg i’
the vacancy ear marked ifi_’iayour”of: and’
treating it as belonging to ,,c3tefr=ererMerrt«oatet3ory. It is
significant to note eel,teeetgeeeeltee rnade out by the
it “ptediv nor it is a ground for
imerferehee eye thielVG.o£itt:,: the advertisement team by the
respontzlent, it epeoifieiilly referred that, there was a mistake
‘§’t~htgf.f..:eer_iier notitieet’ion and it has been corrected by way of
i rerlgwtng,ifcerrtttertctum and it shouid be read as sl.No.t and 2
” ettd th_e.i;t§’1i$.i:hO notification as such has been issued modifying
the reservation. The contents of the advertisement is crystal
” iolear that, there was a mistake and that has been rectified by
i way of issuing another advertisement. The competent
authorities who have issued the notification, found some error
or mistake committed by them inadvertently, they are entitled
to ciarify the same by way of issuing corrigendum and it
should be read as clarifying the mistake committed earlier in
the notification. It is not a ground for questioning the
advertisement issued by respondent itseif, Mthegrtyefieeiirenang
the original notification. The petitioners cannetrfiermashtesnwe
writ petition and therefore, the “eetitren”..filed:A§y«.eetfii’onLere ‘ T.
is liable to be dismissed as mis conceived.
4. However, liberty has’-e’ee.n reeerved ivtievbetirlonere’
to redress their gr§eeence;”‘””if* fin inteniionaily and
deiiberateiy cterification contrary to the
Reg:.r!atiens;.f’*,;¢fere ~eppre_nriete authority, if so advised or
if need’a._riee. ‘
rewith errtnese eesewatsons, the writ petition filed by
. ” « of.
.A’.’vVF§iatna N. Shivayogimath is permitted to fiie
Avekaletrra-.fe’r respondent within two weeks from today.
.. tsnak
Sd/-.
Judge