Karnataka High Court Imposes Costs Of ₹25,000 Each On 35 Petitioners For Stalling Recruitment To Post Of Veterinary Officer

The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 each on 35 petitioners (collectively Rs 8.75 lakh) for stalling the recruitment process initiated for the post of Veterinary Officer.

A division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K while dismissing the petitions filed by Sunil G and others said “In our considered opinion, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of these petitioners in stalling the recruitment process which was called for as a matter of an emergency situation. Hence, we impose the cost of Rs.25,000 per petitioner which shall be payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.”

It was stated that the Government of Karnataka by an order dated 25.05.2022 framed the Karnataka Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (Recruitment of Veterinary Officers) (Special) Rules, 2022.

It was argued that pursuant to this, applications for the Group-A post of Veterinary Officers were notified and some of the aspirants (holders of Masters's Degree in Veterinary Science (MVSc) approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal challenging the notification contending that it did not accord the status of preferred qualification to MVSc degree holders.

The Tribunal quashed the Special Rules 2022 and a communication was consequently addressed by the KPSC for the recruitment of veterinary Doctors as per General Recruitment Rules.

Following this, the petitioners filed a plea before the High Court which was withdrawn with liberty to file a Review Petition before the Tribunal on 19.04.2023. Accordingly, the Review Petition was preferred and the same came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. This order was challenged before the court.

The petitioners argued that when the High Court had already appreciated the above rule and allowed the petitioners to file a review, the Tribunal would not have opined that it is functus officio, once it has delivered the judgment. They contended that the Tribunal also erred in holding that these third parties would have impleaded themselves during the hearing of the original application as they had 'constructive knowledge' of the pendency of the same throughout the proceedings till disposal.

Further, the petitioners stated that they were also aggrieved persons as they were the beneficiaries of Special Rules, 2022, and the Tribunal holding it to be ultra vires the Constitution took away the right of these petitioners from getting recruited to the post for which they were very much eligible for.

On merits, it was said the Special Rules, 2022 was regarding the recruitment of Veterinary Health Officers and had no financial implications as to dragging the Transaction of Business Rules supra, to the case on hand.

Further, it was stated that when there is only one University in the State of Karnataka imparting the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, it is mandatory under Rules 5 of the Special Rules, 2022 that every candidate shall pass the test of Kannada language to apply for the post of Veterinary Health Officers.

It was argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that if direct recruitment is called for in the manner argued by the respondents, then it would open the gateway for participants not only within the State but also to the candidates from other parts of India.

The petitioners also argued that Special Rules, 2022 was brought into force keeping in view the administrative exigencies, more particularly the immediate requirement of 400 Veterinary Officers, and the Tribunal erred in finding that same is ultra vires even though it is settled law that, actual administrative exigencies and its domain are within the knowledge of State Executives.

The respondents supported the order of the tribunal claiming that the manner in which evaluation is conducted varies from batch to batch, year to year, and also some time from semester to semester. It was stated that such a scenario, allowing implementation of Special Rules, 2022, not only hampers the Constitutional mandates but also takes away the right of the petitioners to apply for the post that is now tabled for in the recruitment process.

Findings: 

The bench noted that there were differences among the assessments of the students who have studied for bachelor's degrees vide the batch of the year 2008 and also 2016. Similarly, both the batches had differences in the assessment system the 2016 batch had a yearly assessment system, whereas the 2008 batch had been assessed twice in a year as per the semester assessment system and the duration of the course also varied from 5 years to 5 years 6 months to subsequent batch students.

It was stated that even though there were differences in curriculums, subjects that are relevant would prove vital in judging the efficiency of the aspirants when compared to the subsequent batch and that the subsequent batch has been exposed to practical challenges more than the previous batch, which came from obtaining the required experience.

“We find that there are dissimilarities between the manner in which the evaluation has been conducted between these private respondents and petitioners. Be that as it may, keeping aside the factual aspects, if this Court weighs into the comparison between the students of different batches on their final outcomes in their respective batches in general," the Court said.

The court stated that while competitive examinations were essential to recruit personnel in public employment, it must be ensured that the righteous and deserving candidate was selected for the right post.

However, it observed that in the present case, the petitioners were third-parties, who were attempting to stall the recruitment process which had been undertaken due to an urgency.

It held that when the validity of the notification had already been decided by the tribunal, the petitioners were attempting to stall the process without any basis or locus standi.

“Strong competition is the essence of public employment thereby allowing the state to select the best for public employment. Absence of competition means nothing but a disservice action,” it concluded.

Accordingly, it dismissed the petitions with the imposition of costs.

Appearance: Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal for Jayanth Dev Kumar for the petitioners.

Senior Advocate Lakshminarayana S for Advocate Anusha K L for respondent Nos. 6 to 55. Additional Advocate General Pratima Honnapur for AGA V. Shivareddy for the State.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119

Case Title: Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 16408 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order