- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:533 WP No. 107611 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 107611 OF 2014 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SATISH G S/O. GOPALAPPA AGE: 26 YEARS, KALLUR VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.L.BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NORTH WEST KARNATAAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI. 3. CHAIRMAN -SELECTION AUTHORITY NORTH WEST KARNATAAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1, SRI. MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 25.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDNET NO.3 SELECTION COMMITTEE, VIDE REGISTRATION NO.ATI 402509 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2026.01.22 15:27:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:533 WP No. 107611 of 2014 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the communication dated 25.07.2014, issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3-North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (“the Corporation” for short) rejecting his candidature for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, and seeking a consequential direction to appoint him by treating his Job Oriented Course (JOC)/PUC (Dip-In-VOC) qualification as equivalent to pre-university course PUC. Brief facts: 2. The respondent-Corporation issued a recruitment notification dated 01.02.2013, inviting application for 40 posts of Assistant Traffic Inspector, including one post reserved for Category-IIIA. The notification prescribed the minimum educational qualification as PUC in first class without reference to any equivalent qualification. The petitioner applied claiming eligibility under Category IIIA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:533 WP No. 107611 of 2014 possessing a Job Oriented Pre-University Diploma (JOC/PUC/Dip-In-VOC). 3. Though he participated in the election process his candidature was rejected by communication dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure-A) on the ground that he did not possess the prescribed PUC qualification. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that PUC (Dip-in-VOC/JOC) is equivalent to PUC relying on the earlier decision of the Court tendered in W.P.Nos.29048- 29055/2002 and connected cases. It is contended that the secured marks above the cut-off and the category IIIA post remained vacant and therefore denial of appointment is unjust. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner is not eligible under the recruitment notification. It is submitted that pursuant to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:533 WP No. 107611 of 2014 Government notification dated 23.08.2011, the expression “equivalent qualification” was consciously deleted and therefore only candidates who have passed PUC are eligible. The recruitment notification dated 01.02.2013 is subsequent to the amendment and is binding on all applicants. It is further contended that the petitioner admittedly has not passed PUC and his qualification being JOC, he is ineligible. 6. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 7. The recruitment notification dated 01.02.2013 clearly mandates passing of PUC in first class as the essential qualification. After the Government notification dated 23.08.2011, the concept of equivalent qualification stands expressly excluded. The petitioner admittedly does not possess PUC qualification and his JOC qualification cannot be treated as PUC under the governing rules. Mere participation in a selection process or exigency of vacancy - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:533 WP No. 107611 of 2014 does not confer a right of appointment on an ineligible candidate. 8. The eligibility must be examined strictly in terms of the recruitment notification and the Courts cannot rewrite qualification criteria. Once the rule making authority has consciously deleted “equivalent qualification”, JOC holders cannot claim parity with PUC candidates. 9. For the foregoing reason, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62