Pandurang Dodamani vs The Management of KSRTC and President and Director Recruitment Committee KSRTC

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of his application for appointment to the post of Traffic Inspector in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation on the premise that his height measured 162.5 cms as against the prescription of 163 cms, has presented this petition. Since there was some dissatisfaction over the exact measurement of height of the petitioner, this Court on 6.8.2013, permitted the respondent-Corporation to measure the petitioner''s height on 12.8.2013 at 11.00 a.m. in the presence of the learned Counsel. In compliance with the said order, the height of the petitioner when check measured 162.50 cms and duly recorded with the signatures of the parties and their respective counsel, a copy of which is enclosed to the memo dated 13.8.2013.

There being no dispute that the prescription of the height for appointment to the post of Traffic Inspector is 163 cms as in Regulation 5 under the nomenclature "physical standards" in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, for short ''C & R Regulations'', petitioner having fallen short of the required height by 0.5 cms is disentitled to the said appointment and the respondent fully justified in rejecting his application.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes reference to Annexure- B to the C & R Regulations more appropriately to clause (3) relating to physical examination of the candidates required for the posts in the KSRTC Services and the method of recording the height of a candidate, in centimeters and "parts of centimeters to halves", to submit that measurement of 162.5 cms should be recorded as 163 cms, is unacceptable. The phrase "parts of centimeters to halves" does not and cannot mean that if a candidate is 162.5 cms tall should be recorded as 163 cms. The measurement of parts of centimeters to halves would mean in a case where it is 162.1 to 4 it must be read as 162.5 cms and if it is 162.6 to 9 it should be read as 163 cms. If regard is had to the methodology adopted by the respondent-Corporation in recording the height of the petitioner, as set out in clause (3) of Annexure- B supra, and since the petitioner is 162.5 cms, it is impermissible to round it off to 163 cms.

It is useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others, more appropriately paragraphs 28 to 30. 28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and complete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In our opinion, the High Court was in error in concluding that the respondent No. 3 had not treated the condition with regard to the submission of the certificate along with the application or before appearing in the preliminary examination, as mandatory. The aforesaid finding, in our opinion, is contrary to the record. In its resolution dated 21st May, 2010, the Commission has recorded the following conclusions:

Though Sri. S. Khan had mentioned in his letter dated 10.12.2009 that he was resubmitting the Identity Card with regard to Locomotor Disability he, in fact, had submitted the documentary proof of his Locomotor Disability for the first time to the office of the A.P.S.C. through his above letter dated 10.12.2009. However, after receiving the Identity Card the matter was placed before the full Commission to decide whether the Commission can act on an essential document not submitted earlier as per terms of advertisement but submitted after completion of entire process of selection.

The Commission while examining the matter in details observed that Shri. S. Khan was treated as General candidate all along in the examination process and was not treated as physically Handicapped with Locomotor Disability. Prior to taking decision on Shri. S. Khan it was also looked into by the Commission, whether any other candidate''s any essential document relating to right/benefits etc. not furnished with the application or at the time of interview but submitted after interview was accepted or not. From the record, it was found that prior to Shri. S Khan''s case, one Smt. Anima Baishya had submitted an application before the Chair person on 26.2.2009 claiming herself to be a S.C. candidate for the first time. But her claim for treating herself as a S.C. candidate was not entertained on the grounds that she applied as a General candidate and the caste certificate in support of her claim as S.C. candidate was furnished long after completion of examination process".

Neither C & R Regulations nor the invitation for applications to the post of Traffic Inspector provide for any relaxation in the matter of height of a candidate, hence the petition without merit is accordingly rejected.