- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22298 WP No. 13181 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13181 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SHREEDHARA H S S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A HAGALAVADI VILLAGE & POST GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH D DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD CORPORATE OFFICE KAVERI BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR). 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER(ELECT) BESCOM, O & M CIRCLE TUMKUR-572222. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM TURUVEKERE TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22298 WP No. 13181 of 2019 APPOINT THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF JUNIOR LINEMAN IN BESCOM AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HAERING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner for the post of Junior Lineman in BESCOM.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent No.1 issued a notification on 05.08.2016 vide Annexure-D, inviting applications for appointment to various posts, including the posts of Junior Lineman in KPTCL and BESCOM. Pursuant to that notification, the petitioner submitted the application. The petitioner satisfied the educational qualification required under the notification. According to the notification, the candidate has to pass in the Endurance Test. Out of five tests, he has to pass in two tests and Pole Climbing is a must for passing. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22298 WP No. 13181 of 2019 3. The further case of the petitioner is that he has passed in Pole Climbing and also in 800 mtrs. Running. Inspite of that, his case has been rejected on the ground that he has not passed in Endurance Test. Therefore, he approached this Court seeking a direction to appoint him for the post of Junior Lineman. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that as per the Notification, petitioner has passed in SSLC and satisfied the requirement of educational qualification. As far as Endurance Test is concerned, he has passed in Pole Climbing. In respect of 800 mtrs. Running is concerned, as per the Notification, he has to complete it in 3 minutes but he has completed it in 3.03 minutes. Therefore, his case has not been considered. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22298 WP No. 13181 of 2019 6. The first respondent issued a notification on 05.08.2016 inviting applications for appointment of various posts, including the Junior Lineman in KPTCL and BESCOM. The qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Lineman is a pass in SSLC. In so far as Endurance Test is concerned, out of five tests he has to pass two tests and the pole climbing is a must for passing. 7. The specific case of the respondents is that the petitioner has passed in Pole Climbing Endurance Test, but in 800 mtrs. Running is concerned, he has to complete the same in 3 minutes but he completed it in 3.03 minutes and he has also failed in other two tests, one is 100 mtrs. and another shot-put. For transparency, they have revealed the timings through video screening. On the basis of the video screening by the Committee results will be declared. As per the video screening report, the petitioner has completed 800 mtrs in 3.03 minutes. To that effect, the respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections. The relevant portion is extracted below: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22298 WP No. 13181 of 2019 “7. It is submitted that, as per the Video Screening Committee Report, the petitioner has taken 3 minutes and 3 seconds to complete 800 metres Running event and the same has been stated in the Report at Annexure-D and therefore, contrary averments made in this para that the petitioner has taken the CD of video clippings and in that CD, it is clearly mentioned that, the petitioner has finished the 800 Meters Running in 3 Minutes as per the Employment Notification, are all false. ……….. 11. ……….. 11. Regarding Paras 14 to 20 of the grounds raised in the writ petition are untenable, since as per the Employment Notification the selection process will be based on the performance in the Endurance Test and percentage of marks secured in the SSLC/10th standard examination, but the petitioner has not been qualified in the Endurance Test and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for selection as he has not met qualifying requirements in three vents of endurance test as explained above and therefore, the contrary averments as to the ulterior motive, are all false, since the Endurance Test and Recruitment process as regards posts notified in the BESCOM was carried out in accordance with law as per the Employment - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22298 WP No. 13181 of 2019 Notification and in the Endurance Test, the petitioner has not qualified in three events as narrated above, since the petitioner has taken 3 minutes and 3 seconds to complete 800 Meters running event as per Video Recording as against 3 minutes and as such disqualification of the petitioner is as per the terms and conditions laid down in Employment Notification and the same is in order and the recruitment process has been completed in all respects and appointment orders already issued and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any of the prayer and as such writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.” 8. From the above, it is very clear that the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions mentioned in the Notification. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondents. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41