Sri Sreeramppa Vs. The Karnataka Public Service Commission and others
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6857 of 1989.
Petitioner: Sri Sreeramppa
Respondent: The Karnataka Public Service Commission and others
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6857 of 1989.
Judges: T.K.THOMMEN & R.M.SAHAI,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 30, 1990
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Appointment – Petitioner not producing the marks sheet at the time of interview but produced the same subsequently – Marks obtained sufficient to qualify him for selection – Respondent directed to accommodate the petitioner in an existing or future vacancy.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The petitioner had produced his marks sheet at the time of the interview. That he had not produced it earlier, when he ought to have done, is a fact. If the case of the petitioner is reconsidered on the basis of his total marks, including the marks which he obtained for his additional qualification, his counsel submits that the petitioner can be easily appointed in one of the existing vacancies.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner is fully qualified for selection on the basis of his total marks. Counsel for the respondents – Karnataka Public Service Commission is not in a position to submit at this stage whether there is any existing vacancy in which the petitioner can be appointed.
3. The petitioner, in our view, must be accommodated in an existing vacancy, or, if there is no existing vacancy, then in a future vacancy. We assume, in the absence of any contrary assertion, that his total marks are sufficient to qualify him for appointment. We make it clear that the appointment of the petitioner shall not affect any appointment already made, or affect the seniority of any person already appointed.
4. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
1. The petitioner had produced his marks sheet at the time of the interview. That he had not produced it earlier, when he ought to have done, is a fact. If the case of the petitioner is reconsidered on the basis of his total marks, including the marks which he obtained for his additional qualification, his counsel submits that the petitioner can be easily appointed in one of the existing vacancies.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner is fully qualified for selection on the basis of his total marks. Counsel for the respondents – Karnataka Public Service Commission is not in a position to submit at this stage whether there is any existing vacancy in which the petitioner can be appointed.
3. The petitioner, in our view, must be accommodated in an existing vacancy, or, if there is no existing vacancy, then in a future vacancy. We assume, in the absence of any contrary assertion, that his total marks are sufficient to qualify him for appointment. We make it clear that the appointment of the petitioner shall not affect any appointment already made, or affect the seniority of any person already appointed.
4. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
