Cyriac Joseph, C.J.

1. The Karnataka Public Service Commission issued Annexure-A notification dated 18.04.2007 inviting applications for direct recruitment to 53 posts of Assistant Directors of Horticulture. The petitioner who is presently working as Assistant Horticulture Officer in the Department of Horticulture submitted his application through proper channel. However, his application was not forwarded to the Public Service Commission on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. This information was conveyed to the Director of Horticulture by the Government through Annexure-C letter dated 25.05.2007. Aggrieved by the refusal to forward his application to the Public Service Commission, the petitioner filed Application No. 3109 of 2007-Annexure-D in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal praying for an interim order of stay of the impugned communication and interim direction to the Government to forward the application to the Public Service Commission. After considering the prayer for interim relief, the Administrative Tribunal by order dated 25.06.2007 rejected the prayer for interim relief. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Annexure-E order dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting the applicants prayer for interim relief made in Application No. 3109 of 2007.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have considered the materials placed on record. We have also perused the relevant Government file which was placed before us by the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is seen from Annexure-C communication dated 25.05.2007 that a total number of 32 applications were submitted by in-service candidates working in the Department of Horticulture applying for the posts of Assistant Horticulture Officers and Assistant Director of Horticulture. Out of the 32 applications, three applications including that of the petitioner were returned to the Director of Horticulture as disciplinary proceedings are pending against them. The file discloses that the Director of Horticulture himself had brought to the notice of the Government that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the above mentioned three in-service candidates and that after taking into account the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against them, the Government took a conscious decision not to forward their applications to the Public Service Commission and to return the applications to the Director of Horticulture. Hence the question that arose for consideration is whether the Government was right and justified in refusing to forward the petitioners application to the Public Service commission.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 and contended that under the provisions of the said Rule, the Government was bound to forward the application to the Public Service Commission. For convenience Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 is extracted hereunder:

11. Procedure in respect of applications by Government servants: A Government Servant applying for an appointment to any service or post shall submit his application through the Authority competent to appoint him to the post which he holds at the time of making the application. Such authority shall decide whether the Government servant shall be permitted to apply and such permission shall ordinarily be granted unless the authority considers that the grant of such permission will not be in public interest or will not be consistent with any specific agreement entered into by the applicant with the Government.

Provided that this rule shall not be applicable to a Government servant employed in any department of the Government as a Local Candidate as long as he is treated as such.

It can be seen from a perusal of Rule 11 that in all cases where Government Servants apply for an appointment to any service or post under the Government, the Government is not bound to forward the application to the Public Service Commission. The rule stipulates that the authority competent to appoint a Government servant to the post which he holds at the time of making application shall decide whether the Government servant shall he permitted to apply. Such permission shall ordinarily be granted unless the authority considers that the grant of such permission will not be in public interest or will not be consistent with any specific agreement entered into by the applicant with the Government. Thus if the appointing authority considers that the grant of permission will not be in public interest, it is competent to refuse permission to apply. In such a case, the Government servant has no enforceable right to compel the appointing authority to grant permission. It is seen from the file and Annexure-C communication that in the case of the petitioner, the Government decided to refuse permission in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him. It is obvious that in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the Government considered that the grant of permission will not be in public interest. Therefore, the refusal of permission to the petitioner to apply for the post and the refusal of the Government to forward his application to the Public Service Commission were in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.

6. The provision in Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, enabling the appointing authority to deny permission in public interest, has been made with a specific purpose. Such denial may be in public interest for several reasons. A Government servant against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated should be available for continuance and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against him. Hence it is necessary in public interest to retain him in the particular service. Similarly it is in public interest that a Government servant who is already under a cloud and is facing disciplinary proceedings is not allowed to apply for another post in Government service. There could be other reasons also. The object of the Rule will be defeated if the Government is compelled to grant permission to a Government servant against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending. Therefore, we are of the view that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court cannot compel the Government to grant permission to a Government servant facing disciplinary proceedings to apply for any other post in Government service.

7. It is contended by the petitioner that the charges against him are trivial and therefore, it will be unjust to deny him the opportunity to apply for the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture. A copy of the charge-sheet has been produced as Annexure-A3. After perusing the charges levelled against the petitioner, we are not inclined to take the view that the charges are trivial. Hence it is unnecessary to consider in this case whether the Government can be compelled to grant permission in a case where the charges are trivial.

8. There is also no scope for an argument in this case that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated deliberately to deny an opportunity to the petitioner to apply for the post. Notification inviting applications was issued on 18.04,2007. The Show Cause Notice under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 had been issued to the petitioner on 09.08.2006. Hence it cannot be even alleged that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated with mala fides to prevent the petitioner from applying for the post of Assistant Director.

For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.