AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, dated 23.10.2010 passed in Application Nos. 1658-1665/2010, is called in question in these writ petitions.
The petitioners have also sought for quashing the final selection list issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-G, dated 18.2.2010 selecting respondents 3 to 7 for the posts of Library Assistants.
Pursuant to the notification dated 2.11.2007, issued by the first respondent inviting applications to fill up the posts of Library Assistants, the petitioners as well as respondents 3 to 7 submitted their applications for the posts of Library Assistants. Certain other persons had also applied. The qualification prescribed under the Notification dated 2.11.2007 inviting the applications was SSLC plus the certificate in Library Science awarded by the Library Department, Government Training school, Bangalore or equivalent qualification. It also prescribed the experience of one year in a Library recognized by the Government. The Government by its order dated 7.8.2007 passed an order declaring Job Oriented Course with Library Science issued by the Department of Libraries as equivalent to the certificate of Library Science issued by the Department of Libraries. The petitioners were having the qualification of SSLC plus the certificate in Library Science awarded by the Library Department, Government Training School, Bangalore, whereas respondents 3 to 7 were having qualification of SSLC plus the certificate of Job Oriented Course with Library Science issued by the State Government. Since the certificate of Job Oriented Course held by respondents 3 to 7 was treated as the equivalent to the certificate in Library Science awarded by the Library Department, Government Training School and since respondents 3 to 7 were more meritorious, they were selected and appointed to the posts of Library Assistants by virtue of the final selection list dated 18.2.2010. The selection of respondents 3 to 7 was questioned by the petitioners herein before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 1658-1665/2010 which came to be dismissed on 23.10.2010. The said order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 1658-1665/2010 was questioned by the petitioners herein before this Court in W.P. Nos. 188-191/2011 (S-KAT). The said writ petitions came to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners herein to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing review applications, if they so choose. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dismissing the writ petitions as withdrawn, the petitioners herein approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore once again by filing Review Application Nos. 3 to 6/2012. The said review applications are also dismissed on 23.1.2012.
The petitioners instead of challenging the order dated 23.1.2012, passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Review Application Nos. 3 to 6/2012, have chosen to file these writ petitions questioning the very order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application Nos. 1688-1665/2010, once again though the said order dated 23.10.2010 was earlier confirmed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 188-191/2011.
Firstly, the writ petitions are not maintainable, because the order which is under challenge in these writ petitions is dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in application Nos. 1658-1665/2010 was already confirmed by this Court. We have already clarified supra that the said order dated 23.10.2010, passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 1658 to 1665/2010 was confirmed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 188-191/2011 inasmuch as those writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. However, while dismissing these writ petitions, this Court has observed that it is open for the writ petitioners to file the review petition, if they so choose before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, these writ petitions in the present form questioning the very order dated 23.10.2010 are not maintainable.
It is relevant to note that the petitioners herein had approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing the review application Nos. 3 to 6/2012 which was also came to be dismissed by the order dated 23.01.2012. The said order dated 23.01.2012 was not questioned and the same has attained finality. Therefore, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners on the said ground.
Be that as it may, even on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, notification and the final selection list. The records reveal that the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Library Assistant was S.S.L.C. + certificate in Library Science awarded by the Government Library Training School, Bengaluru or equivalent qualification with experience of not less than one year in a Library recognized by the Government. The notification was issued on 02.11.2007 inviting applications for the post of Library Assistants. Even prior to the notification dated 02.11.2007, the State Government by exercising the powers under Section 2(1)(h) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1997 declared on 07.08.2007 that the job oriented course with certificate for Library Science is equivalent to the certificate in Library Science awarded by the Library Department, Government Training School, Bengaluru. Thus, it is clear that the Job Oriented Course certificate with Library Science is equivalent qualification to the certificate awarded by the Library Department, Government Training School, Bengaluru. As respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were having the certificates of S.S.L.C. + Job Oriented Course and one year experience, they have also applied for the post of Library Assistants pursuant to the notification issued by this Department on 02.11.2007. Since equivalence was declared much prior to the notification dated 02.11.2007, there was no hurdle for respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to apply for the post of Library Assistant. Since the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were more meritorious than the petitioners, they were selected. However, the petitioners who were having certificates in Library Science awarded by the Library Department, Government Training School, Bengaluru apart from other qualification were not selected since they were less meritorious. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Applications filed by the petitioners herein.
We do not find any ground to interfere in selecting respondent Nos. 3 to 7 for the post of Library Assistants. However, it is the contention of Sri. S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents'' Job Oriented Course certificate is higher qualification as compared to the certificate in Library Science awarded by the Government Library School, Bengaluru and hence the respondents should have been selected for the higher post and not to the lower post of Library Assistants. Such contention cannot be accepted, since the experts in the field i.e., the Department has declared that the Job Oriented Course for Library Science is equivalent to certificate in Library awarded by the Government Library School, Bengaluru. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have been rightly selected for the post of Library Assistants since they were more meritorious.
Hence, writ petitions fail and accordingly, the same stand dismissed.