SRI K ANIL KUMAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO W.A. NO.137/2011 & W.A. NOS. 5592-94/2011 (S-PRO) BETWEEN : 1 2 SRI K ANIL KUMAR S/O K MADHUSUDAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS JUNIOR ENGINEER,NO.2 SUB DIVISION, CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALORE & R/AT "SAI DHAMA", BEHIND KARNATAKA BANK, KONCHADY NAGAKANNAKE TEMPLE ROAD, MANGALORE- 575 008 SRI NARESH SHENOY P S/O LATE PUNDLIKA SHENOY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, NO.1 SUB DIVISION, CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALORE & R/AT PUNDALIKA KRUPA, PRAGATI COLONY, BEJAI, MANGALORE- 575 004 MANGALORE. … APPELLANTS (COMMON IN BOTH WAs) ( By Sri. M/S SUBBA RAO & CO, ADV. ) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2 3 4 - 2 - DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560 001 BANGALORE CITY. (COMMON IN BOTH WAs) CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSION LALBAGH, BANGALORE -575 008, BANGALORE CITY. (COMMON IN BOTH WAs) M. MAHADEVA SWAMY S/O MUTHU, 49 YEARS, ASST. EX. ENGINEER, PWD, MANGALORE – 575 008. DAMADAR K. SHETTY S/O SRI. KESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H. SUB DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, HONNAVAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS ( By SMT. M.C. AKKAMAHADEVI, AGA FOR R-1, SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV. FOR R-2, R-4 – SERVED, APPEAL AGAINST R-3 DISMISSED V.O. DATED 24.02.2012) These appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the portion of the order dated 16.11.2010 made in W.P. Nos.5840-41/2009 and W.P. Nos.9867-68/2010 and grant the appellants all the reliefs prayed in the writ petition. These writ appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, K.L.MANJUNATH J., delivered the following : - 3 - JUDGMENT The legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P. Nos.5840-41/2009 and 9867-68/2010 is called in question in these appeals.

The appellants were working as Junior Engineers in the services of the Corporation of the City of Mangalore. According to them, they are entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. Earlier, there were only two posts of Assistant Executive Engineers which were filled up by deputation and again three more posts were created. The Government passed an order that all those posts were also to be filled up on the basis of deputation. The Government order was questioned by the appellants herein on the ground that they are entitled for promotion and the order passed by the Government directing the Corporation of the City of Mangalore to fill up those posts from the deputed officers of the State Government and they also sought a direction to promote them as Assistant Executive Engineer forthwith.

Learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Government and directed the Corporation to fill up the posts by deputation. The Court also directed to consider the case of the appellants after framing of C and R Rules as C and R Rules have not been framed under the - 4 - Corporation Act. This order is called in question in these appeals.

The main contention of the appellants before us is that, when once the learned Single Judge has quashed the Government Order directing the Corporation to fill up the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers on deputation should have been given promotion to the appellants forthwith. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow these appeals.

We also heard Mr. K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the Corporation and the Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

Learned Counsel for the appellants is not disputing that C and R Rules were yet to be framed, now it is stated from the Bar that C and R Rules now framed as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Corporation of the City of Mangalore. It is for the Corporation to consider the case of the appellants for promotion. Therefore, we do not see any merits in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

In view of the submissions made by the Counsel for the Corporation that C and R Rules have been framed, we direct the Corporation to consider the case of the appellants for promotion in accordance with law within a period of two months from today. - 5 - There is delay of 2 (two) days in filing the above appeal. Being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants, the delay of 2 (two) days in filing the appeal is condoned. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. Rbv