OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF MARCH v. ANJARIA

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001

2. THE KARNATAKA SAMSKRIT UNIVERSITY PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU – 560 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11249-DB WA No. 555 of 2023

3. SRI PAWAN KUMAR B. S/O KRISHNAPPA.B. WARD NO.1, SANTHEBAYALU CHINTHAVADGI, HOSAPETE TALUK BALLARI – 583 201 …RESPONDENTS (MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT No.1, SRI ABHINAV R. ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2 SRI G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVCOATE FOR CAVEATOR-RESPONDENT No.3) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No. 5543/2019 (CORRECTED ORDER ON 17.04.2023) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard learned advocate Mr. Raghavendra G. Gayatri for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Akbar Niloufer for respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr.R.Abhinav for respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr.G.B.Nandish Gowda for respondent No.3.

2. The challenge in this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is addressed to the judgment and - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11249-DB WA No. 555 of 2023 order dated 20.03.2023 of learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition of the appellant - petitioner came to be dismissed. What was prayed in the writ petition by the appellant - petitioner was to set aside the order of appointment of respondent No.3 who came to be appointed on the post of Telephone Operator.

3. The facts in the backdrop are, inter alia, that the petitioner and respondent No.3 both were the aspirants to be appointed on the post which was advertised as per Recruitment Notification dated 08.11.2017 by respondent No.2 – the Karnataka Samskrit University.

3.1 The Recruitment Notification dated 08.11.2017 prescribed the eligibility to the post of Telephone Operator. The qualification needed were that, (i) the candidate must have passed Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) examination or equivalent examination; (ii) the candidate should have studied Sanskrit language in SSLC; (iii) the candidate must have undergone training in PABX; (iv) it was provided that preference would be given to the physically challenged and (v) It was also the requirement that the candidate should have studied Sanskrit language in the SSLC examination. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11249-DB WA No. 555 of 2023

3.2. As regards the requirement of passing SSLC examination or equivalent examination, the Ministry of Education, Government of India has issued Notification dated 23.01.1964 providing for equivalence of Sanskrit examinations. The study in Kavya and Sahitya is treated to be equivalent to passing of the SSLC examination. The Notification dated 23.01.1964 figures on record of the petition having been produced along with the statement of objections filed by respondent No.2 – University.

3.3 The challenge to the appointment of respondent No.3 to the post was primarily and mainly based on the contention that the petitioner had passed equivalent examination. However, since he had not studied Sanskrit language in SSLC examination which he had not passed, the selectee could not be said to be holding the requisite qualifications.

4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that what was required was that the candidate should have studied Sanskrit language in SSLC. He submitted that non-passing of SSLC ought to be considered as a debility on part of respondent No.3 and on that score, he was not entitled to be selected. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11249-DB WA No. 555 of 2023

5. The submission is misconceived. Admittedly, the Kavya and Sahitya examination treated examination equivalent to SSLC. Therefore, passing of Kavya and Sahitya examination is equated with passing of SSLC examination. One is treated substitute for the other. When this equivalent qualification was possessed by respondent No.3, the question of his passing SSLC examination separately could not have arisen. Holding qualification of passing the Kavya and Sahitya examination has to be treated as passing the SSLC examination itself since both are treated to be equivalent as per the aforementioned Notification.

5.1 Furthermore, there is no dispute about the fact that in passing the Kavya and Sahitya examination respondent No.3 studied the Sanskrit language. It logically suggests respondent No.3 studied Sanskrit language the SSLC examination itself, since the equivalent examination was passed.

5.2 It is to be noticed that the recognition of equivalent examination which was Kavya and Sahitya examination was intended to give encouragement for studies in the Sanskrit language. It is on the said rationale and for the said purpose that - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11249-DB WA No. 555 of 2023 Kavya and Sahitya examination is treated as SSLC examination. Therefore, the candidate had necessarily studied Sanskrit in the said examination.

5.3 Respondent No.3 was found to be eligible on all these considerations terms of the eligibility prescribed Recruitment Notification. Learned Single Judge has rightly noticed the said aspect to reason as under in paragraph 9, “Perusal of the above qualification would indicate that a candidate must have passed S.S.L.C or equivalent examination and in this the Notification dated regard, as per 16.07.1973, the Kavya and Sahitya are equivalent to lower secondary and higher secondary examinations respectively. Third respondent has passed Kavya and Sahitya examinations and therefore, consideration of the marks obtained in S.S.L.C. examination cannot be a criteria to appoint Telephone Operator respondent – the second University. …”

5.4 It is further to be noticed that in the petition, the petitioner has not alleged any mala fide or bias action against the Selection Committee. As held in Jasvinder Singh vs State of J&K, [(2003) 2 SCC 132], in absence of any specific allegations of any mala - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11249-DB WA No. 555 of 2023 fides or bias, the challenge would necessarily fail when the selectee is found to have possessed the requisite qualification.

6. In the aforesaid view, respondent No.3 was qualified to be appointed for the post of Telephone Operator having passed the equivalent examination of Kavya and Sahitya in Sanskrit subject itself. The appointment of respondent No.3 could not be faulted from any standpoint.

6.1 The judgment and order of learned Single Judge is eminently just, proper and legal. No interference is warranted.

7. The present writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34