- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 2709 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UDYOG SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUHAMMAD SHAMIL, ADV. (THROUGH VC)) AND: 1. SRI. SHRIDHARA M.C. S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS EX-SERVICEMEN, BELLENAHALLI CHILKUR POST, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 216. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ROAD TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER ROAD TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT SHANTHINAGAR, BMTC BUILDING BENGALURU-560050. 4. SRI MOHAN KUMAR P G H. NO.3842, KAVERI NILAYA NEW DARGA ROAD Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 GOKULA EXTENSION, HUNSUR MYSURU - 571 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.M. THIRTHAPPA, ADV. FOR C/R1 SRI SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 & R3 SRI M.G. SRINATHA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN A.NO-1442/2023 AND B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE FINAL ORDER DATED 13.10.2023 IN A.NO-1422/2023 PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE SAID A.NO-1442/2023 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner – Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2023 in Application No.1442/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the respondent No.1’s application was allowed with a direction to the petitioner-KPSC to include respondent No.1 in the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 appropriate position in the select list of Motor Vehicle Inspectors and consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.1, an Ex-Service personnel applied for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in pursuance to the notification dated 04.02.2016. Respondent No.1 claimed reservation under the Ex-Servicemen category. The qualification prescribed for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors is in terms of the above stated notification reads as follows: “1) Minimum general educational qualification of a pass in X standard; and 2) Must be holder of a Diploma in Automobile Engineering of three years duration or a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering of three years duration awarded by the State Board of Technical Education or a degree in Automobile Engineering from a recognized University or a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized University; and 3) Working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both Light Motor - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine.” In terms of the above, a candidate must possess the qualification of Diploma in Automobile Engineering of three years duration or a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering of three years duration awarded by the State Board of Technical Education or a degree in Automobile Engineering from a recognized university or a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized University with working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both Light Motor Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine. 3. Respondent No.1 applied for the post and participated in the selection process. The petitioner-KPSC published the list of rejected candidates for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors – 2016. Under that, the name of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 respondent No.1 is shown at Sl.No.449 with remarks “AS PER RTO REPORT NO EXPERIENCE”. 4. Questioning the final select list dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure-A13) insofar as respondent No.1’s non-selection and seeking for a mandamus to consider the case of respondent No.1 for selection to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors, respondent No.1 was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal under impugned order, allowed the application and directed the petitioner-KPSC to include the name of respondent No.1 for selection to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors with cost of Rs.10,000/- and making certain observation on the KPSC that there is serious attempt to mislead the Tribunal on the appreciation of facts. Questioning the impugned order, petitioner-KPSC who was respondent before the Tribunal is before this Court in this writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Muhammad Shamil for petitioner through video conference, learned counsel Sri.K.M.Thirthappa for respondent No.1, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Shivareddy for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel Sri.M.G.Srinatha Gowda for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Learned counsel Sri.Muhammad Shamil for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal while allowing the application has made unnecessary observations against the petitioner-KPSC and he submits that the KPSC never made any attempt to mislead the Tribunal. However on the other hand, KPSC has made attempt to bring proper facts before the Tribunal. 7. Further, learned counsel would submit that the respondent No.1 would not possess requisite experience qualification and as such, he was not eligible for consideration for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to Annexure-E – Diploma certification of respondent No.1 and submits that the Diploma certificate was issued to respondent No.1 on 24.12.1999 whereas the respondent No.1’s experience certificate shows that prior to he receiving Diploma joined as Auto Mechanic and his experience is from 03.08.1999 to 25.08.2000. Further, he submits that respondent No.1 has not gained experience of one year subsequent to acquiring educational qualification of Diploma. In that regard, learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHESHRAO JANGLUJI BAGDE VS. BHAIYYA S/O GOVINDRAO KARALE AND OTHERS1 Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.M.Thirthappa for respondent No.1 would submit that respondent No.1 is an Ex-servicemen and he possesses the qualification of Diploma in Automobile Engineering from the Board of 1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 367 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 Technical Examination, Department of Technical Education. Further, he submits that respondent No.1 completed his Diploma course in May 1999 and thereafter received Diploma certification only on 24.12.1999. He further submits that after completing his Diploma course, he joined as Auto Mechanic from 03.08.1999 and completed his one year experience on 25.08.2000 from ‘Sri Jagadamba Automobiles, Hassan’. Thus, he would submit that on completion of Diploma course, respondent No.1 has one year experience which would suffice the requirement of the notification dated 04.02.2016. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, Whether interference is warranted with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 10. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative and further we observe that the observation made by the Tribunal against the KPSC needs to be expunged in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the following reasons: The qualification prescribed for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors as extracted above is, Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Diploma in Mechanical Engineering of three years duration awarded by the State Board of Technical Education or degree in Automobile Engineering from a recognized university or a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized University with working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both Light Motor Vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine. 11. Admittedly, the Diploma certificate placed on record as Annexure-E would indicate that respondent No.1 completed his Diploma course in May-1999 and he - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 received the Diploma certificate on 24.12.1999. On completion of Diploma Course i.e., in May, 1999, he joined as Auto Mechanic on 03.08.1999 and worked till 25.08.2000 at ‘Sri Jagadamba Automobiles, Hassan’, in terms of Annexure-F dated 25.02.2016. The experience gained by respondent No.1 as Auto Mechanic from 03.08.1999 to 25.08.2000 shall have to be treated as experience gained subsequent to completion of his course as Diploma in Automobile Engineering. The experience gained in terms of experience certificate dated 25.02.2016 by respondent No.1 would suffice the requirement as required under Notification dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure- A1). Since the experience gained by respondent is after completion of Diploma Course, the same cannot be termed as ‘experience gained before acquiring the essential qualification’. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-KPSC in SHESHRAO JANGLUJI BAGDE (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2327-DB WP No. 2709 of 2024 12. The Tribunal has made certain observations against the petitioner-KPSC that, the KPSC at the time of hearing, attempted to mislead the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the KPSC. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the observations made against the KPSC are uncalled for and imposition of cost also un-called for. The KPSC according to us was defending the case by bringing to the notice of the Tribunal certain facts. In the said circumstances, the adverse observations made against the KPSC and cost imposed are set aside. 13. With the above, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC/CT:bms