- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9491 WP No. 40416 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 40416 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: VINUTHA K, W/O H SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NO.128, AJJIPURA-2, AJJIPURA, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 439. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHWATH C.M AND SRI B.K MOHAN, ADVOCATES [ABSENT]) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING, 7TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, NO.49, 5TH FLOOR, PARISARA BHAVANA, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. MAHESHA C, LAW ASSISTANT, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, NO.49, 5TH FLOOR, PARISARA BHAVANA, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9491 WP No. 40416 of 2015 4. PREMALATHA S, LAW ASSISTANT, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, NO.49, 5TH FLOOR, PARISARA BHAVANA, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J ESWARAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 [PH]; SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 [PH]; SRI NATARAJU T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 [PH] NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OFFICE MEMORANDUM PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE NO.PCB 04 ADA 11/25 DATED 03.04.2014 ANNEXURE-A 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 sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the office memorandum bearing No.PCB 04 ADA 11/25 dated 03.04.2014 issued by the respondent No.2, by which the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were appointed to the post of Law Assistants. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of direction to the respondent No.2 to include - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9491 WP No. 40416 of 2015 her for consideration for appointment as per the notification bearing No.PCB 04 ADA 11/4658 dated 12.02.2013. 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 had issued a notification dated 12.02.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of 'Law Assistant'. The petitioner, who belonged to Scheduled Caste and possessed a B.A. LLB Degree with 72.29% of marks applied against the said notification. The respondent No.2 issued a communication informing the petitioner that she was provisionally eligible for selection and was called upon to furnish all testimonials in original for verification. She contends that there was no interview and the selection was based only on verification of documents. She contends that after final scrutiny, the respondent No.2 secured a Police report and validation certificate from the authority concerned and published a provisional selection list and invited objections from the affected candidates. In the said list, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.3 although she had secured 72.29% marks as against the other two candidates, namely, respondent No.3 and respondent No.4, who had secured 41.46% and 39.03% respectively. The respondent No.2, however, granted - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9491 WP No. 40416 of 2015 weightage to respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 in the light of the Government order bearing No.FEE 2 EPC 2008, Bangalore dated 12.11.2009. As a result, the total marks awarded to respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 were 100% and 87.03% respectively and hence, they were placed at Sl. Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner was relegated to Sl. No.3. She contends that she did not have the benefit of weightage and therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 made a march over her. Thereafter, a final selection list was issued and respondent No.3 was selected under the 'General Merit Category' while respondent No.4 was selected under the GM/SC/Woman category, but the name of the petitioner was left out without assigning any reason. The petitioner submitted representations and made personal visits to the office of the respondent No.2. However, the impugned office memorandum was issued, whereby respondent Nos.3 and 4 were selected as Law Assistants. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9491 WP No. 40416 of 2015 submitted that the respondent No.4 has since retired from service and therefore, the writ petition in so far as respondent No.4 is concerned, has become infructuous. Even otherwise, he contends that even as per the facts pleaded in the writ petition, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were better placed in terms of merit than the petitioner and therefore, there was justification in selecting respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the posts of Law Assistant. He contends that the only grievance of the petitioner seems to be that no reason was mentioned as to why she was not selected. He contends that the very fact that the petitioner had secured less marks than the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was sufficient enough not to appoint her. He submits that there is no requirement of issuing a communication by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner indicating the reason for not selecting her. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also voiced the same contentions and he submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to compel the respondent No.2 to indicate the reason for not appointing her. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9491 WP No. 40416 of 2015 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record. 6. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were granted weightage for their past service in view of the Government order bearing No.FEE 2 EPC 2008, Bangalore, dated 12.11.2009 in terms of which the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were entitled to four percent of marks for each satisfactory completed year of service rounded up to next integer. As a result, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were granted the weightage and hence, they secured more marks and were better qualified than the petitioner. Therefore, there was justification in the respondent No.2 not selecting the petitioner. The petitioner has not pointed out to any requirement in law which required the respondent No.2 to communicate the reason for not selecting the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47