Facts
The respondents advertised one Driver post in the Excise Department for a local candidate from the Hyderabad-Karnataka (now Kalyana Karnataka) region.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The petitioner and respondent No. 5 applied and took the driving examination.
Source reference: pp. 3–4A provisional selection list named respondent No. 5, whom the petitioner challenged, claiming that his school marks were higher.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The petitioner relied on a marks card in grade format and a later document recording his marks as a percentage.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal rejected his application after comparing the candidates’ marks and considering a report from the Deputy Director of Public Instruction (DDPI).
Source reference: pp. 6–7The petitioner then challenged the Tribunal’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
Source reference: pp. 6–7Issues
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding respondent No. 5’s selection when the petitioner contended that his school marks were higher
Source reference: pp. 4–5, 6–82. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal’s order on the ground that it failed to consider the petitioner’s additional marks document
Source reference: pp. 4–5, 8Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the Tribunal’s decision
Source reference: p. 2The judgment identifies no specific recruitment-rule provision or precedent as the basis for its decision. It proceeds on the record before the Tribunal, including the candidates’ marks documents and the DDPI’s report on the school records
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The Court noted that the Tribunal compared the candidates’ marks and found that respondent No. 5 had scored 693 out of 900 (77%), while the petitioner had scored 675 out of 900 (75%).
Source reference: pp. 7–8It also noted that the DDPI, an authorised education officer, had submitted a report that the selection authority accepted before finalising the results.
Source reference: pp. 7–8On this record, the Court found that respondent No. 5 had scored higher and was qualified for the post; it therefore found no error in the Tribunal’s decision and declined to interfere
Source reference: pp. 7–8Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the Tribunal’s order rejecting the petitioner’s application undisturbed.
Any pending applications were also disposed of
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
HANAMTHRAYAvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
