- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.25117 OF 2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: SRI. N.SUBRAMANI S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, ABBAIAH LAYOUT, KODICHIKKANAHALLI, IIMB POST, NEAR MAHAVEERA PALMS APARTMENT, BANGALORE - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 011. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEUROSCIENCES (NIMHANS) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE MILK DAIRY, BANGALORE – 560 029. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 3. THE REGISTRAR NIMHANS, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE MILK DAIRY, BANGALORE – 560 029. 4. SRI. SOMASHEKHAR. R MAJOR, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, WORKING AS DRIVER, NIMHANS, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE MILK DAIRY, BANGALORE – 560 029. 5. SRI. MEGHANATHA RAO. D MAJOR, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, WORKING AS DRIVER, NIMHANS, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE MILK DAIRY, BANGALORE – 560 029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPA.J, CGC FOR R1; SRI. K.PRABHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. M.NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 PASSED IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.223/2020 BY THE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH (ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T M NADAF) An unsuccessful candidate in the notification dated 21.01.2017, issued by respondent No.2 – National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS) for appointment of seven posts of Drivers, under ‘unreserved category’, is before this Court, assailing the order dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.170/00223/2020, in this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: a) “Call for records pertaining to the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure-A): b) Set aside the impugned Order dated 18.08.2023 passed in Original Application No.223/2020 by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (Annexure-A), in the interest of justice and equity; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 c) Pass any other order including the cost of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Succinctly, stated facts as per the petitioner are as under: The respondent No.2 – NIMHANS floated a recruitment notification for appointment of drivers in its hospital vide notification dated 31.12.2004, which has resulted in issuance of a provisional list depicting the names of Sri.Madana Kumar.S, Sri.Nanda Kumar.B., Sri.C.Nagendra, and Sri.V. Ramesha as selected. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 - NIMHANS, misreading the content and intent of the letter dated 29.12.2015 issued by DOPT cancelled the whole selection process, which was the subject matter in O.A.No.906/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal filed by Sri.Madana Kumar and others stated supra, seeking for a direction to appoint them to the post of Drivers in terms of the notification supra. The Tribunal by its order dated 02.11.2018 disposed of the original application and issued a direction to the second - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 respondent – NIMHANS to consider the claim of the applicants therein and in the eventuality they are found eligible; to consider them for appointment under the selection done in terms of the notification dated 31.12.2014. 3. In the interregnum, the respondent No.2 floated another notification dated 21.01.2017 for appointment of seven posts of drivers under the ‘unserved category’. The petitioner being one among the aspirants applied for the post, as he was possessing the suitable qualifications referred to in the notification. As per the notification, the educational qualification fixed was SSLC. In terms of the order passed by the Tribunal stated supra, applicants therein were also included and called for test held on scheduled date. 4. As per the notification, a written test / skill test was held on 10.10.2019. The petitioner/applicant attended the written, as well as skill test. Petitioner further alleges that, the results of the notification were not published by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 the second respondent, which made him to file an application under the RTI Act seeking certain information. It is his case that, as per the information furnished, the petitioner came to know that the four out of seven posts have been filled, leaving the three posts as unfilled. Among the four posts, two candidates Sri.Nanda Kumar and Sri.Nagendra.C were the candidates selected provisionally under 2014 notification. It is his contention that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein were selected for extraneous consideration, though they lack educational qualification. Aggrieved by the appointment of respondent Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.170/00223/2020, seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring the selection and appointment of respondents No.4 and 5 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious and violative of articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other with order or direction, directing respondents No.2 and 3 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Driver in terms of the notification bearing No. NIMH/PER(6)/RECT/ADVT- 2016-17 dated 21/01/2017 vide Annexure-A2 if he found qualified and eligible in the selection process, to meet the ends of justice; c) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of Justice and Equity.” 5. The petitioner’s stand before the Tribunal was, though the respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not possess the requisite educational qualification, however the official respondents have appointed them only to favour them. It was his contention before the Tribunal that respondent No.4 has not passed SSLC and the certificate produced by respondent No.5 is fabricated one. In response to the allegations made in the application, the official respondents i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted their reply statement, wherein they admitted the fact of earlier notification of the year 2014 and also the cancellation of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 recruitment process in terms of the DOPT letter dated 29.12.2015, so far as it was relating to the post of Drivers. 6. The official respondents contended that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.906/2016, they considered the candidature of applicants in the said application in the present recruitment process. It was further urged by the official respondents that a selection committee consisting of seven members including an external expert from the Regional Transport Authority, Karnataka, was formed and the committee had selected four candidates for the post of drivers on their merits on the basis of the marks obtained in the written tests, the skill test as well. As per the committee report the petitioner was able to secure 7 marks out of 20 in the written test and so far as the skill test is concerned, i.e., the driving test conducted by the Competent Authority - RTO Karnataka, clocked 7.01 minutes as against 3 minutes set. Considering the merits of the candidates, the committee submitted its report - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 selecting four candidates stated supra. It is further urged that, the petitioner having failed in the selection process, now cannot lay a challenge to the selection process by way of application before the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the materials on record dismissed the original application, holding it to be meritless as the candidates who are selected for the post including the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are more meritorious than the petitioner. The reasoning of the Tribunal starts from paragraph No.8, of its order, which we reproduce as under: ”8. In view of the dispute raised by the applicant in as much as the eligibility of the respondents No. 4 and 5 regarding Passing of SSLC (10th standard), this Tribunal had directed the learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 2 and 3 to furnish the copies of the 10th standard/SSLC marks card of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted. Accordingly, learned counsel Shri K Prabhakar Rao representing Respondents No. 2 and 3 has furnished Tribunal the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 original SSLC marks cards of the Respondents No. 4 and 5. We have perused the same. The said marks card, in our considered opinion, fulfils the eligibility criteria as far as the educational qualification of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 to get appointment for the post of Driver in terms of the recruitment notification dated 21.01.2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2. Keeping the photocopies of the same for record purposes, we have requested the Registry to return the original documents to the learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3. As such, the main ground of challenge that the Respondents No. 4 and 5 did not possess the required educational qualification of SSLC deserves to be rejected. 9. Annexure R1 - Copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee consisting of 7 members indicates about the number of posts advertised - 07 (UR), number of candidates called for interview - 09, number of candidates attended the interview - 08. The details of the marks obtained by the candidates is shown as under: NATIONAL INSTITUE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, INSTITUE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, BENGALURU 29 NO. NIMH/PER(6) RECT/ADVT-4)FAC/2019-20 Dt: 17.05.2019 RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST OF DRIVER (ORDINARY GRADE) HELD ON 10.10.2019. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 Sl. No. CANDIDATE NAME Marks Obtained 1. SRI JEEVAN P 05/20 (FIVE) 2. SRI MEGHANATH RAO D 17/20 (SEVENTEEN) 3. SRI NANDA KUMAR B 14/20 (FOURTEEN) 4. SRI NAGENDRA C 12/20 (TWELVE) 5. SRI PUSHPARAJ A ABSENT 6. SRI RAKESH MALUIYA 07/20 (SEVEN) 7. SRI V. RAMESHA 06/20 (SIX) 8. SRI SOMASHEKAR R 17/20 (SEVENTEEN) 9. SRI SUBRAMANI N 07/20 (SEVEN) Out of the 9 candidates, names of the 4 candidates have been recommended. It is apparent that the selected candidates have scored more marks than the applicant. 10. It is trite that selection process cannot be challenged after participation therein, after its completion upon failure to get selected/appointed (vide Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Surender Singh and Ors. reported in (2019) 8 SCC Page 67). Owever, in view of the specific allegation made against the Respondents No. 4 and 5 for not possessing SSLC qualification, we had directed the official respondents to place their marks cards and the same being placed before us as discussed in the preceding paragraph no. 8, the challenge made to the selection process by the applicant, an unsuccessful candidate, is liable to be rejected. OA is bereft of merit. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 11. Resultantly, OA stands Dismissed. No order as to Costs.” 8. Calling in question the order of dismissal passed by the Tribunal dated 18.08.2023, the petitioner is before this Court. 9. We have heard Sri.Prithveesh M.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Deepa. J, learned CGC for respondent No.1, Sri.K.Prahabkar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri.M.Narayana Bhat, for respondent Nos.4 and 5, perused the record. 10. Sri.Prithveesh, learned counsel opens his arguments by stating the entire selection process is vitiated for the reason the respondent No.2 merged both the recruitment/selection process of 2014, as well as 2017 whereby serious prejudice and injustice has been caused to the petitioner, since the candidates who applied in 2014 are selected hence the petitioner lost his chance from being selected to the post of the Driver. It is his further - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 submission that there were no cut off marks prescribed by the respondent No.2 in the notification and only four against seven posts have been filled, leaving three posts unfilled. He further urges that as per the details of marks obtained by the candidates (vide Annexure-R1 extracted at page No.9 of the order) shows that the petitioner still has a chance of being appointed on the marks secured by him. 11. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned order and submits that the petitioner having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful, cannot lay a challenge to the selection process in view of the settled position of law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court. He seeks the dismissal of the petition. 12. At the outset, we may state the submissions made by Sri.Prithveesh are in a complete deviation from the contentions urged before the Tribunal. To satisfy ourselves, we have put it to the learned counsel as to - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 whether the contentions urged before us have been taken before the Tribunal. Sri.Prithveesh fairly admits that except the contentions as borne out from the order of the Tribunal, the contentions now urged were not advanced before the Tribunal. Given the facts, nothing more survives in this petition, as the contentions taken have been answered by the Tribunal, in detail, in view of the settled position of law that an unsuccessful candidate, post-selection process cannot question the selection process. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the pleas made on behalf of the petitioner in respect of lack of education qualification against respondent Nos.4 and 5, by securing the record, through the official respondents and satisfying itself, that the selection process conducted by the respondent No.2 was in fair and just manner as contemplated in law. Surely a person who secured 7 marks out of 20 and clocked 7.01 minutes as against 3 minutes set for skill test is not fit to be a Driver. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12731-DB WP No. 25117 of 2023 13. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal which calls for any interference. In the circumstances, the petition fails as devoid of merit. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition filed calling in question the order dated 18.08.2023 in O.A. No.170/00223/2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, vide Annexure-A is Dismissed as meritless; ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35