Youth seeking jobs should be vigilant while filling forms: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Quoting the popular poem by Benjamin Franklin; “For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost,” the High Court of Karnataka cautioned youngsters to be very vigilant while filling up job forms.

Santosh S, a 26-year-old from Ramanagara, approached the HC after he had inadvertently uploaded the marks cards of all four semesters instead of just the fourth semester for the recruitment of Junior Technical Electronic Mechanic by the Bengaluru Co-operative Milk Producers Cooperative Union.

The Union had on November 8, 2022, excluded him from the selection process. He had challenged it in the HC and a single judge bench on May 29, 2023, rejected it.

He then filed an appeal which was heard by the division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit.

“We have been noticing several cases coming before the Courts. It is high time that the young minds should be impressed to be more vigilant and careful while submitting all the requisite records to the Recruiting Authorities in time,” the bench said in its judgement.

Dismissing the argument of the advocate that it was an insignificant mistake, the HC said, “The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that non-production of copies of Marks Cards of the subject semesters is insignificant and his client can do the needful even now, does not merit our acceptance. What needs to be done in time, cannot be permitted to be done later. That is why, the instructions in vernacular were issued to the candidates,” the HC said.

Noting that the instructions given to candidates in the recruitment notification were also in Kannada, the HC said, “It is not the case of the appellant that he did not know of the above Instructions. Nowadays, a candidate in the employment market must be more vigilant and responsible. Otherwise, one risks being excluded from the zone of consideration for recruitment.”

Rejecting the appeal, the bench said, “Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the papers, we decline our interference in the matter being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge.” (WA 784/2023)