1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF AUGUST 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN W.P.NO.29574/2015(S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. IRANNA KESARALLI S/O. SHIVANANDAPPA KESARALLI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O MADHAVA NILAYA A BLOCK, 5 TH CROSS GANDHI NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577201.... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.SRIKANTH PATIL, FOR SRI. S. P. KULKARNI, ADVS.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M. S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. VICE-CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA FOLKLORE UNIVERSITY GOTAGODI, NH-4 SHIGGAON TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 197 3. SRI. KUCHELA SECOND DIVSION ASSISTANT KARNATAKA FOLKLORE UNIVERSITY GOTAGODI, NH-4 SHIGGAON TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581 197.... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAFFIUNNISA, HCGP FOR R1.)
2 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AMENDED NOTIFICATION DATED.9.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF D GRADE ASSISTANTS IN THE KARNATAKA FOLKLORE UNIVERSITY/THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 INSTITUTION HEREIN, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, JUSTICE & EQUITY AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW (ANNX-C) ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 9.4.2015, and has challenged the rejection of his application for the post of D Grade Assistants in the Karnataka Folklore University. 2. Briefly, the facts of case are that in the said notification, four D Grade Assistants posts were advertised by the second respondent. According to the said notification, an application fee of Rs.500/- were to be deposited along with an application. Since the petitioner was qualified for the said post, the petitioner submitted his application along with the demand draft for a sum of Rs.500/-. After scrutiny of his application he was invited for interview on
3 13.11.2014. However even before the process of interview was completed, the second respondent issued a second notification dated 9.4.2015 thereby amending and modifying earlier notification dated 5.5.2014. Under the said second notification, applicants were invited to submit fresh applications. It was clearly stated in the second notification that even those candidates who had applied under the first notification, dated 5.5.2014, they are required to submit their applications afresh. The last date for submission of the application was 2.5.2015. But when the petitioner submitted his fresh application on 2.5.2015 to the respondent, the third respondent refused to accept his application inter alia on the ground that the said application is not accompanied with a fresh demand draft of Rs.500/-. The petitioner tried to explain to the respondents that he had already paid the application fee while submitting his first application under the first notification. Therefore there was no need for him to submit a second application along with fresh demand draft. He had
4 also enclosed a copy of the demand draft dated 22.2.2014 which was attached with his first application. However, all his pleas fell to deaf ears and his application was rejected. Hence this present petition before this Court. 3. Mr.K.Srikanth Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the notification dated 9.4.2015 is silent on the point, whether those applicants who had applied under the earlier notification were required to submit a fresh demand draft of Rs.500/- or not. Secondly, even if the petitioner and others were expected to submit a fresh demand draft, such a condition is unreasonable. Thirdly, the respondent are not justified in calling off the selection process which began under the first notification and in insisting that fresh application along with fresh demand draft should be submitted by the candidates. Fourthly, that the reservation done in the second notification crosses the upper limit of 50%. Out of the four posts, while one post is reserved for
5 local cadre, one post is reserved for scheduled caste, and one more post is reserved for scheduled tribe. Thus out of four posts, three posts are reserved, and only a single post is available for the general merit candidates. Hence, the reservation is to the tune of 75%. Thus the notification deserves to be set aside by this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned notifications. 5. It is, indeed, trite to state that it is within the discretion of an employer whether to take a selection process to its logical conclusion or to call it off, or to abandoning the selection process. A candidate who applies for appointment in a selection process merely has an inchoate right for consideration of appointment. Till he is appointed to a service, he cannot claim a right of appointment. During the process of selection he merely has a right of consideration and nothing more. Therefore the respondent is justified in abandoning the first
6 selection process which commenced with the notification dated 5.5.2014. The respondents are equally justifying in recommencing the of selection process by notification dated 9.4.2015. 6. Once the selection process has been initiated all over again, the conditions for the selection have necessarily to be fulfilled by the prospective candidates. A perusal of the notification dated 9.4.2015, clearly reveals that item No.V, it is clearly stated that general candidates shall pay is Rs.500/- and scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates shall pay Rs.250/- through demand draft towards application fees to be purchased in favour of the Finance Officer, Karnataka Janapada University only from SBM payable at SBM Shiggaon Branch and submit along with applicant s address to THE Vice - Chancellor, Karnataka Janapada University, Gotagodi, Shiggaon Taluk, Haveri District enclosing the certified copies of original marks cards of the educational qualification prescribed for the particular post and
7 experience certificate (will not be return application fee). 7. Thus it is clear that item No.5 does not contain any clause which would exempt the candidates who had applied under the earlier notification dated 5.5.2014 from again depositing the application fees. 8. More over even under the general information and instructions it has clearly been laid down that incomplete applications received without demand draft, will be rejected. Thus it was amply clear to the petitioner that at the time of submitting an application he was required to submit application along with demand draft of Rs.500/-. Hence he cannot claim that since he had already paid a demand draft under the first notification dated 5.5.2014, therefore he cannot be required to repay the same application under second notification dated 9.4.2015.
8 9. The requirement of having to pay application fee all over again cannot be termed out to be an unreasonable requirement. There is no bar in law that having once paid the application fee, the respondents are debarred from asking for an application fee for the second occasion. Secondly, the application fee has been charged so as to facilitate the respondent - university in processing the applications received under the said notification. After all, the University has to generate its own capital to deal with large number of applications which are received by it, to process the same, and to carry out the selection process which culminates into an appointment. Therefore the respondent - University is certainly justified in requiring that the application fee should be paid all over again under the second notification dated 9.4.2015. Since the petitioner had failed to submit a demand draft along with his fresh application, the respondent University is justified in rejecting his application. For the petitioner had failed to fulfill the requirement mentioned under item No.V
9 of the notification dated 9.4.2015, and also as clearly indicated in item No.2 under the head General Information and Instructions. In case the petitioner does not follow the instructions mentioned in the application, the respondents cannot be faulted for rejecting his application. 10. Since this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner s application has been rejected on a legally valid ground, the question of considering the legal validity of the reservation mentioned in the notification dated 9.4.2015 is merely of an academic interest. Therefore this Court refrains from entering into the said controversy. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE RS/*