Writ Petition No. 14339 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14339 OF 2013 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: SRI.M.B. BASAVARAJU, S/O BASAVANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, DALAYATH, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SERETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. G.C.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560 001, 2. THE HON'BLE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SECRETARIAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. SRI RANGANATH DESHPANDE, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, AGE-MAJOR, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUCIL SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 BANGALORE -560 001. (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA, AGA FOR R1 & 2. R3 SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROMOTION ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE O.M. DATED 21.1.2013 VIDE ANENXURE-G AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner has challenged an order of promotion bearing No.ka.vi.pa./A-1/60/Da.Vru.Ba/12, dated 21.01.2013 by which, the respondent No.3 was promoted. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representations submitted by him dated 31.01.2013, for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. 2. The petitioner and respondent No.3 were appointed as Dalayats in the Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat (henceforth referred to as ‘K.L.C.S.’) on 22.12.1999 and the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 petitioner was placed above the respondent No.3 in the order of seniority. Later, the respondent No.1 published the seniority list for the year 2000, where the petitioner was at serial No.50 and the respondent No.3 was at serial No.53. Thereafter, in the year 2012, the respondent No.1 had published the seniority list of the officers and officials of the K.L.C.S., where the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.15 and the name of the respondent No.3 was shown at serial No.17. The petitioner contends that as per the Karnataka Legislative Counsel Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003 (henceforth referred to as “C & R Rules, 2003”), the post of Junior Assistant could be filled up through direct recruitment and through promotion. For a person to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, he must have put in service of not less than 10 years and must possess S.S.L.C or equivalent qualification. He contends that he had completed his S.S.L.C. examination. He contends that an incumbent of the post of a
Legal Reasoning
Junior Assistant (Mr.Thippeswamy) died and therefore, his post fell vacant. The respondent No.3 who was placed below the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner therefore contends that he was overlooked in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 matter of granting promotion. He also alleges that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in order to accommodate the respondent No.3 had applied the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment and recruited the respondent No.3 to the post of Junior Assistant. Thereby, he contends that his seniority was overruled. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the promotion of the respondent No.3 to the post of Junior Assistant and he sought for direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider promoting him to the post of Junior Assistant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and contended that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, as soon as the position became vacant. He contends that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not take any step for direct recruitment to the said post and therefore, promoting the respondent No.3 to the post of Junior Assistant by applying the qualification applicable to direct recruitment was improper and fell foul of the C and R Rules, 2003. 4. (i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who contend that the post of the Junior Assistant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 could be filled up by direct recruitment and promotion from the cadre of group-D officials, in the ratio of 25%:75%. It is contended that the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment is a degree from a recognized University, while the qualification prescribed for promotion is S.S.L.C. plus 10 years of service in a group-D cadre. (ii) It is contended that the recruitment Rules were amended by a notification dated 04.07.2011, in terms of which, the post of Junior Assistant had to be filled up through direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of 50%:50%. In so far as, direct recruits are concerned, the candidates had to possess a degree from a recognized University while for promotion, the candidate had to put in service of not less than 3 years in the cadre of group-D. It is contended that in the year 2011-12, there were two vacancies, one which arose on account of the death of Mr.Thippeswamy and another in view of the promotion of Mr.K.Manjunath from Junior Assistant to Assistant on 10.04.2012. It is contended that by applying 2011 Rules in which 50% was reserved for promotion and 50% for direct recruitment, one Mr.K.A.Krishna Murthy was promoted as Junior Assistant from the cadre of group-D on 10.04.2012 and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 the vacancy which arose due to the death of Mr.Thippeswamy was filled up through direct recruitment by appointing the respondent No.3 as Junior Assistant. Therefore, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner that he must have been promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, is incorrect. (iii) They also contended that by reading Rules 4, 5 and 6, the Chairman of the Selection Committee had absolute discretion to fill up the post using the prescribed method and he exercising this discretion, had appointed respondent No.3, who possessed all the prescribed qualifications. He therefore contends that the petitioner is not entitled to be treated on par with respondent No.3. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No.3 was recruited directly as he possessed the requisite qualification. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.3 entered service as Dalayats on 22.12.1999. It is also not in dispute that by applying the Karnataka Civil Services Seniority Rules 1977, the seniority list was published in terms of which the petitioner was placed above the respondent No.3. It is the claim of the petitioner that though the respondent No.3 was placed below him, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. The C & R Rules, 2003 that were in force at that point in time, provided for the manner of appointment to the post of Junior Assistant and the same is extracted below: Sl. Category Pay No. Method of Qualification No. Of Post Scale of Recruitment Prescribed Post 19 Junior 3,000 23 a) Twenty For direct Assistant to Five percent by recruitment 5,450 direct recruitment. b) Seventy Five percent by promotion from the cadre of group-D officials. a) Must be holder of a degree from a recognised university; a) Preferen ce will be given to in- service group- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 D officials working in the K.L.C.S. who possess degree from a recognized university. For promotion: a) Must have pass S.S.L.C. or equitant examination. b) must have put in a service of not less than 10 years in the cadre of group-D. These rules underwent a change by virtue of an amendment to the Rules by notification dated 04.07.2011, in terms of which, the post of Junior Assistant had to be filled up through direct recruitment and through promotion in the ratio of 50%:50%. In so far as direct recruits were concerned, the applicants were bound to possess a degree from a recognized University with basic knowledge of computer while candidates - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 who sought for promotion, must have put in service of not less than 3 years in the cadre of group-D. 8. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have contended in the statement of objections that two posts fell vacant, one on account of the death of Mr.M.Thippeswamy and another on account of the promotion of Mr.K.Manjunath. In so far as, the vacancy that arose on account of promotion of Mr.K.Manjunath, Mr.K.A.Krishna Murthy who was a group-D employee was promoted on 10.04.2012. However, in so far as the vacancy that arose due to the death of Mr.M.Thippeswamy, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have recruited the respondent No.3 directly, taking into account the fact that the respondent No.3 possessed the requisite qualification. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were completely oblivious of the fact whether Mr.Thippeswamy was recruited directly or promoted. If the post which Mr.Thippeswamy held was a promotional post then the respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not have recruited a direct recruit. They must have allowed the post to be filled through promotion. It appears that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have recruited the respondent No.3 directly by taking into account the fact that he possessed the requisite qualification. However, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any steps for a direct recruitment such as publishing a notification, inviting eligible applicants etc., Therefore, it can safely be held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in order to favour the respondent No.3 had recruited him, though he was much junior than the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. 9. At this stage, the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record an official memorandum bearing No.ka.vi.pa./ A-1/ E.Ba.Sa/ 159/ 2013 dated 08.07.2013, in terms of which, the petitioner was promoted as a Junior Assistant with effect from 08.07.2013. In view of the fact that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted from the same date as respondent No.3 was promoted, the petitioner's promotion shall be retroactively applied from 21.01.2013, the date on which, the respondent No.3 was appointed as a Junior Assistant. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 21.01.2013 and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay, re-fixation, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9127 WP No. 14339 of 2013 etc., All Consequential benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38