- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 644 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. J.S. SRIDHARA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY, NO.179, LAKSHMIPURA BADAVANE, JAVAGAL AT AND POST, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., [MESCOM] [GOVT. OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING] CORPORATE OFFICE, PARADIGM PLAZA, A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER [A AND HRD] MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., [MESCOM] CORPORATE OFFICE, PARADIGM PLAZA, A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575 001. 3. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER [ESTABLISHMENT], CORPORATE OFFICE, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 PARADIGM PLAZA, A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.GM[A]/AGM[P]/AO[P]/2001 DATED 26.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.GM[A]/AGM[P]/AO[P]/2001 dated 26.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 by which, his application for the post of Junior Assistant was rejected on the ground that he did not produce a certificate of pass in Pre-University Course (for short, 'PUC'). The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to reconsider his case for selection to the post of Junior Assistant under 2A-Rural Category in terms of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 the Circulars dated 27.01.2015 and 27.02.2018 issued by the State Government. 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 had published a notification dated 08.01.2016 inviting applications for various posts including 74 posts of Junior Assistants. Out of the said 74 posts, three posts were reserved for 2A-Rural Category. The qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant was a pass in PUC or an equivalent qualification. 3. The petitioner contends that he is a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering having secured 64.53% of marks. He applied against the notification for the post of Junior Assistant under 2A-Rural Category. The respondent No.2 published a merit list by applying the roster and thereafter, issued a call notice dated 06.09.2018 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 26.09.2018 for verification of original documents. The respondent No.2 published a waiting list of Junior Assistants on 11.09.2018 where the name of the petitioner was found at Sl. No.12. The petitioner contends that he appeared before the respondents on 26.09.2018 for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 verification of the documents and produced the original marks card of Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) and Diploma in Automobile Engineering and other documents. However, the respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 26.09.2018 stating that the petitioner is not eligible for selection to the post of Junior Assistant as he did not produce a pass certificate in PUC. The petitioner contends that the State Government had issued a Circular dated 27.01.2015 treating a pass in SSLC and three years Diploma course as equivalent to PUC. Subsequent clarification was also issued by the State Government on 27.02.2018 bringing certain other courses under the ambit of qualification equivalent to a pass in PUC. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 by ignoring the above Circulars had arbitrarily rejected his application on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging an endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 as well as for direction to the respondents to consider his application for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant under 2A-Rural Category in terms of the Circulars referred above. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that there were three posts of Junior Assistants which were reserved for 2A-Rural Category and that only two posts are filled while the name of the petitioner is shown in the waiting list and it is mentioned that the application of the petitioner is rejected as he did not produce the pass certificate in PUC. He contends that if the Government Circulars referred above are perused, then the qualification that the petitioner possessed was sufficient for being selected to the post of Junior Assistant. 5. The Writ Petition is opposed by the respondents, who contend that the recruitment in the respondent - Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, 'MESCOM') is regulated by separate Regulations and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the Circulars dated 27.01.2015 and 27.02.2018 issued by the State Government. They contend that these Circulars are not binding on the respondents unless the same have been adopted. It is contended that even as per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner did not possess the required qualification and therefore, he was not entitled to be selected. The list of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 selected candidates is also published. It is also contended that the equivalent qualification is pass in 12th standard exams conducted by Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) or Central Board Secondary Education (CBSE) Boards and therefore, pass in Diploma in Automobile Engineering or any other Diploma cannot be considered as qualification equivalent to a pass in PUC. Along with the statement of objections, Annexure ‘R2’ - Waiting list for Junior Assistant Posts issued by MESCOM is enclosed which shows that the name of the petitioner is mentioned at Sl. No.12. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the prescription of qualification is in the discretion of the respondents and therefore, the petitioner who did not possess the requisite qualification cannot compel the respondents to select him. He contends that the Circular dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure ‘F’) issued by the State Government was in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds and therefore, the same is not applicable to the petitioner. He also contends that the Circular dated 27.02.2018 (Annexure 'G') is issued by the State Government after the recruitment notification and therefore, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 the same cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to contend that the qualification that he possessed was equivalent to a pass in PUC. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others [(2019) 6 SCC 362] and the judgment of a Division Bench of Dharwad Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100238/2019 and connected appeals disposed off on 22.07.2019. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 24.03.2015 enclosing therewith a 'Final Selection List' of candidates for the posts of Junior Assistants and a 'Final Selection List of Waiting List Candidates' for the said post. A perusal of the 'Final Selection List' shows that as against three posts reserved for 2A-Rural Category, only two persons were recruited while the petitioner’s name appeared in the Final Selection List of Waiting List Candidates' at Sl. No.25. A perusal of the 'Final Selection List of Waiting List Candidates' shows that except the petitioner, there was no other person eligible in the 2A-Rural Category. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. A perusal of the notification issued by the respondent No.2 shows that for the post of a Junior Assistant, the requisite qualification was stated as follows: 2) CUÀvÀå «zÁåºÀðvÉ: ,,, 7 QjAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÀzÀ«¥ÀƪÀð «zÁåºÀðvÉ CxÀªÁ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉ CxÀªÁ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ ²PÀët ¥ÀjµÀvï¤AzÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ CPËAmÉ¤ì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DrnAUï CxÀªÁ CPËAmÉ¤ì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¹ÖAUï£À°è r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ ºÉÆA¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. The respondents have not issued any Circular indicating as to what is equivalent to a pass in PUC. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had passed the SSLC examination and had also passed three year Diploma in Automobile Engineering course. As per the Circular dated 27.01.2015 issued by the State Government prior to the recruitment notification dated 08.01.2016 issued by the respondents, the State Government had treated a pass in SSLC with a three year Diploma course as - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 equivalent to a pass in PUC. Likewise, the State Government had issued the Circular dated 27.02.2018 reiterating the earlier equivalence of pass in SSLC with a three year Diploma as equivalent to a pass in PUC. When the respondents have not indicated as to what qualification constitutes equivalence to a pass in PUC, they were bound to follow the Circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. If for the purpose of recruiting to a civil post under the State, a pass in SSLC with a three year diploma is equivalent to a pass in PUC, it is not known as to how the respondents could contend that it does not amount to an equivalent to a pass in PUC. Therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess equivalent qualification warrants interference. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents may not be of much assistance to the case of the respondents inasmuch as in both the judgments, there was no material to decide on the equivalence of qualification and therefore, it was held that the Court should not exercise discretion to determine as to what is equivalence. In the present case, there is a Government Circular which indicates as - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 to what is equivalent to a pass in Pre-University course and therefore, the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents are of no assistance to the respondents. 10. As regards the further relief sought for by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for selection to the post of Junior Assistant under 2A-Rural category, as stated earlier, there were only three posts of Junior Assistants which were reserved for 2A-Rural Category while 2 posts were filled, one post was not filled and the name of the petitioner appeared in the waiting list of candidates and therefore, there is no impediment for granting further relief sought for by the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement bearing No.GM[A]/AGM[P]/AO[P]/2001 dated 26.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 is quashed. The respondents are directed to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant under 2A-Rural Category. It is needless to mention that the seniority shall be reckoned as on the date of the Final Selection List of candidates for the posts of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12620 WP No. 644 of 2019 Junior Assistants published by the respondents. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to pay and other benefits from the date of his appointment. This order shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In order to ensure compliance of this order, office to list this petition on 26.06.2025. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40