JUDGMENT
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 03.02.2006 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 2650 of 2005. The petitioners are respondents-1 to 3 in the application which was filed by the 1st respondent herein.
2. The applicant before the Tribunal had applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) in the General Merit (Rural) and General Merit (Kannada Medium) categories. When his name was not included in the select list, he filed the Application before the Tribunal praying to quash the selection of respondents-4 to 6 in the Application and for a direction to respondents-1 to 3 to consider his application for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) either under General Merit (Rural) or Category 3A (Rural Quota). The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to be considered under General Merit (Rural) and that he was wrongly found ineligible to be considered under General Merit (Rural), Accordingly, the Application was allowed and the official respondents were directed to verify the certificates produced by the applicant and to consider his claim for appointment first under General Merit Category and subsequently under Category 3A and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the official respondents have filed this writ petition.
3. Having heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners and having considered the materials placed on record, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) was entitled to be considered under General Merit (Rural) or in General Merit (Kannada Medium) on the ground that the 1st respondent had studied from 5th Standard to 7th Standard at the Deepu Convent School situated at Turuvekere Town, Tunivekere Taluk, Tumkur District The petitioners contend that he was not entitled to be considered under General Merit (Rural). According to the petitioners, Turuvekere Town is not a rural area. However, it is not disputed that Turuvekere became a Town Panchayat area only in the year 1996 and that prior to 1996, Turuvckere was a rural area. Admittedly, the 1st respondent studied in Deepu Convent School prior to 1996 when Turuvekere was a rural area. Merely because Turuvekere subsequently became a Town Panchayat area in the year 1996, the 1st respondent cannot be denied the benefit of being considered under General Merit (Rural) as the school in which he studied was in a rural area when he was studying in the school.
4. In taking such a view, we arc supported by a Division Bench judgment dated 22.03.2005 in writ appeal No. 4456 of 2004, wherein it was held as follows: –
The status of the school and whether it was located in a village or not is to be seen at the time when the respondent studied in the school and not on the date of receipt of the applications. If the school was located in a rural area when the respondent studied he would be eligible as a rural candidate notwithstanding that the village had later been declared a Town Panchayat
5. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the 1st respondent was entitled to be considered for selection and appointment as Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) under General Merit (Rural). Hence the order of the Tribunal does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the selected candidates have been appointed and have been given training as Police Sub-Inspectors and that if the 1st respondent has to be appointed, one of those already selected in the General Merit (Rural) will have to be relieved from service. However, it is not disputed that the respondents-5 and 6 were parties to Application No. 2650 of 2005 and that there was an interim order passed by the Tribunal that any appointment made during the pendency of the Application would be subject to the final decision in the Application. Therefore, even though any selected candidate has to be relieved from service consequent on the selection and appointment of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent cannot be denied the fruit of litigation and the benefit of appointment which he is otherwise entitled to. If the Government wants to avoid hardship to any candidate already appointed, it is open to the Government to create a supernumerary post for accommodating such candidate, if so advised.
7. Learned Government Advocate then submitted that in view of the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners had not implemented the direction in the impugned order within the time stipulated. He prays that the time for compliance with the order may be extended. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the request Hence the time for complying with the direction in the impugned order will stand extended up to 31.12.2006.
8. Subject to the above observations and the extension of time for compliance, this writ petition is dismissed.