Karnataka High Court
A V Krishna vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Chief ... on 25 May, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
or
wee te A er
WUC s Wer Et EO ENUTRS NA ee e PRP
CRA Dari we eee
ADAIR RA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAi ORE |
DATED THIS THE 25™ DAY OF MAY 1009 we
PRESENT _
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. a sey |
Ato oe |
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE v.G. SAQHAHIT
WRIT PETITION Nos.6594 19.6602 0F £009 (3-KAT)
And
WRIT PETITION Nos. 11478 ike) 11500 OF 2008 {S- KAT}
serwenk ~ 7
1. AW. Krishra, .
aged about 40 years,
s/o A, Veeragowda,
Sri Byravashwara Krupa,
Il Stage, ce
Pandavapura Tow
os Mandya District.
2 AP, Doddacnannegowda,
-agead abact #2 years,
S/o late M. Puttamadegowda,
No.536/1, Karasavadi Road,
~ Vinayaka Badavane,
_. Near Chandradarshan
_ Kalyan Mantap,
Mandya ~ 571 415.
3. D.S. Siddaiah,
aged about 44 years,
S/o Siddaish, Spandana Architect,
SLY Building, VV Road,
Mandya 571 415.
4. V.). Puttaswamy,
aged about 45 years,
S/o Javaregowda,
Y. Yarahaliy, Yeliyur Post,
Mandya Taluk and District. a
S. Prasanna Kumar V.R.
aged about 43 years,
S/o late T. Ramegowda,
No. 296, Store Street,
Hunsur, Mysore District.
6. S. Adinarayana,
aged about 4/ years,
S/o V. Sanjeeva Getty,
No. 23, TV Stage. TK. Layout, ~~
Mysore 570 B23. Pe
4, ©, Kumar, a
aged about: 42 years, _
S/o Channegowda, --
Housing Board Cotony, 7
Arakere, ce
Srirengapatna Taluk,
Mandya District,
BAC Siddegowda,
. aged about 45 years,
S/o late Chowde Gowda,
A. Hullatere, Bevinahally Post,
Maridya Taluk and District.
. 9..M. Ramesh,
_ aged about 44 years,
S/o Marigowda,
. C/o Nagasetty,
3'? Cross, Marigowda Layout,
behind Andhra Mess,
near Subbapna Godown,
Mandya.
awe
CUR ARUN Oo A OW AINA AR OS AA OW AAAI AA PEE UG
Se a Ee BREE Se SE PP DT
19. V.N. Srinivasa,
aged about 41 years,
S/o Narasimhaiah,
No.2746, 4° Cross,
Ganeilinagar,
Mandya 571 401.
11. V. Srinivasa,
aged about 44 years,
S/o B. Venkatappa,
Gopealapura (P), a
Mandya Taiuk and Distrint. .
12. Ravikumara, .
aqded about 41 years,
S/o Chowdegowda,
Hosshund! Village,
Mandakal Post, 9
Mysore Taluk and District.
13. M. N. Vedarnurtis y, _
aged about 41 years. ©.
S/o R. Narasimha Satty,.
No.&, Basaveswara Main Road,
Fart Mohalla,
_ Mysora-577 004,
- 14, M. Krichne Kumar,
aged about 35 years,
S/o Veeraiah, Hittanahalli Kappal,
Kireqavalu hobii,
Malavaili Taluk,
Mandya District.
"(BY SRI S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.,
AND
1. The State of Karnataka,
represented by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1.
PETITIONERS.
}
Eft waer
SMM WE RARINAGARA Dm GWU RI VP RARKNAIARA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH coul
2. The State of Karnataka,
rep., by the Secretary to Government,
Water Resources Department,
M.S, Building, Bangalore-1.
3. Enginear-in-chief and
Ex-officio Special Secretary,
Irrigation Department, :
UKP Almatti,
Bijapur District - S86 201.
4. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigar ama,
by its Managing Director,
Upper Krishna Project,
Alrnatti, Byapur Oistr! ict - - 585. 201.
5. The Director; .
State Employ mant Exchange
{Professional anc. Frecutive) -
No.22, Hosur Road,
Bangulors S60 029...
6. The Chief Engineer,
Upser Krishna Project,
Bheemarayanagudi, .
Gulbarga District 585 101.
3%. Karnatake Public Service
"Commission,
Rap., by its Secretary,
Park Mouse Road,
~ ~Bangebre-1.
"(Ry SRI B. VEERAPPA, AGA., )
RESPONDENTS.
These writ petitions are filad praying to:-quash the common order dt. 24.10.2008 passed in application no. 3686/2007 and application nos. 8066-8087/2006 by the A Se Oe ES er PR Ne a EO ee PF PR NE te ee Karnateka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, so fares the netitioners are concerned- annexure-A. These Writ Petitions coming up for Preliminary Hearing on this day, Sabhahit J., made the following: ae These Writ Petitions are. fled by the applicants in Application Nos 3888/2007 ahd 8068 to 8087 of 2006 on the file of the karnataka - administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to a6 ; the Tribwwal'), Sangatore, being aqurieved by the order dated 24.10.2008, wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the applications. 2 The writ petitioners herein filed application Nos. 3888/2007 and BOGE to 8087 of 2006. Applicants in oN Application No. 3686/2007 sought for: a declaration that 'the notification dated 10.07.2007 passed by the fourth respondent - Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short, 'KPSC'') i illegal and improper in so far as it relates to the post of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers in Tre or MmAninimaR Fn LYUKT UP RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COLE } the second respondent- Department and for quashing of the said notification; issue of a writ of mandamus rectng 7 pasts of Assistant Engineers and junior Engineers. based ¢ Gn their seniority maintained by Professional Employment Exchange in the second respondent . - Department and for grant of all service and 'monetary. benefits flowing therefrom, _ Applicants - ain » Appliation Nos. BO68 to B08 7/2006 sought for. a declaration that the endorsement dated 07.12.2005 passed by the second respondent is improper and 'legal and for quashing of the said endorsemant : 7 'a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to Bppoint the applicants as Assistant Engineers and Junior . Engineers either on adhoc / contract basis or on regular basis, besad on their seniority maintained by the 5° respondent From the date Sri Kumaraswamy and others wos were appointed in the year 1998 and later absorbed in the "services of the 2" respondent - Depertment and for grant | of all service and monetary benefits flowing therefrom. FUN We I PE ES ee ee:
See eT a EE ee Oe Ee OP Ne Re PE Z.1 It is the case of the applicants | before the Tribunal that they had acquired basic Degree 3 and Dil Professional and Executive Employment £ Exchange. "Even though they were eligible te be appointed on: contract or ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineers, they wers 'sought to be deprived of the opportunity of getting appointment by issuance of the impugned "Notification, calling -- for applications | for recruitm nent to the posts of Assistant Engineers cand gunior - - Engineers. Applicants had filed Application Nos. 2047 te 2081 of 1998 before the Tribunal seeking fur a direction-t2 the respondents to consider the od cases of the applicants for appointment of Assistant . Engineers and Junior Engineers on ad hoc / contract basis "in the Upper Krishna Project (for short, "UKP') based on their seniority maintained by Professional and Executive | = Employment Exchange. The said applications were 'disposed of by order dated 12.09.2005 with a direction to | the respondents therein to consider the cases of the applicants.
\ 2.2 Pursuant te the direction issued in 'the said applications 2047 to 2081 of 1998, the "Governinent considered the cases of the applicants and issued an endorsement dated 07.12. 2005, rejecting the reques . of the applicants on the ground. that: the work of 'the UKP in most of the divisions and f Sub divisions was completed and the work in the remaining Divis fons and Bub- Divisions was nearing comp ration; the staff was found to be surplus in the UKP and. ne » Fresh. recruitment either on ad hee or contract: basis. Was made; the Government had done regular recroitrnent in 1 the year 2002 to All up the vacant posts by calling applications fram eligible candidates and oo since the applicants did not apply for recruitment at that time, their cases cannot be considered.
a : 2.3 The Tribunal in the course of hearing the said applications by order dated 09.08.2007, had directed the "respondents to furnish information as to whether there TNC SE MMPS EPSP PITT GMA WP RAR PT COUKI Or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH coul was any requirement of Assistant Engineers / Junior "--e Engineers for UKP and if so, how many posts and under an ee oe what category. Pursuant to the said direction, the
-- WY WWW RAI IDS GUO RAR PP SO UEP FE OE PUES POP ON PR EN We er ek Secretary to Government filed an affidavit on | 14. 99. 2007 with certain documents stating that there were about oo) 7 vacancies of Assistant Engineers: end 579 "vacancies of | :
Junior Engineers available and they viere 2 yet te be filled up as per iaw. It was further stated | in the 2 affidavit that as far as the UKP was concerned,. there were about i89 yacancies of Assistant Engineers. cand 72 vacancies of Junior Engineers as on 7 24, 08. 2007. = Be Objections, statement was filed by the respondents in. the: "applications contending that: the applicants. hed crosted the upper age limit for recruitrnent to the posts of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers in pursuance of the impugned Notification; there was no | merit ine the: contention of the applicants that they had to he selected on the basis of the seniority maintained in the os Employment Exchange; the applicants had no legai right to "appointment : they had to compete for recruitment like ~ other candidates; appeointrnent on contract or adhoc basis was resorted to only in the exigencies of service and at Nees NARNIA FGA CUURE UT RARNAIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU! ww woe -10- that point of time, there was no compelling 'reason to resort te such appointment. a
4. In view of the observations of the. Hon' ble Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI AND OTHERS (2006 (4) SCC 1), the Tribunal held that : Ao. 'person hae right to appointment and he i she has only: right a) have his tase considered for appointment and $i nce, the spolicants are not even working as temparary or. ad. hoe emo nloyees, the question of granting any "reliel 'woutd 'fot arise and accordingly, dismissed. tha applications. That being aggrieved by the dismiss of the applications by the impugned order dated
28. 10. 2008, the applicants before the Tribunal have 'preferred these writ petitions.
5, We have heard the learned counsel appearing 'for the writ petitioners and the jearned Additional
- Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. we ee ie ee ee Crewe iti WE PARI SE SO PVE PES eet Or CU em
-L1-
6. Learned counsel appearing for the pettioners submitted that the Tribunal was not justifies in. rejecting:
the applications filed by the petitioners herein, and the:
raspondents have erroneously rejected the applicat ons of the writ petitioners for appointment | to the poste of Assistant Engineers and Junior Er; gineers. 'The Tribunal ought to have allowed the. applications and issued necessary directions to the respondents.
7 On "the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate argued in support of the order passed by. the Tribunal and submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra), the writ petitioners are not entitied to direction as "sought for in the applications and the order of the Tribunal is justified.
8. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. Ko arowwe wee wees er Ree CMR TS PMAINIAL FER AUR OP RAR ARA Pert COURT OF RAAKNATARKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH coul
-[2-
9. The material on record would clearly" show wat the petitioners herein and others approached | 'the Tribunal in Application Nos.2047 to 2081. of 1996 and the Tribunal . by order dated 12.09.2005, had issued a direction te the respondents 1 to 6 herein to consider the abe: of the applicants for appointment: as Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers en "adhoe L contract basis in Upper Krishna Project. Pursuant to the: said direction, the Government: has vonsderad the cases of the applicants and lesued an 'endorsement dated 07,12.2005, rajecting the request of the apolicants - writ petitioners, The material cn record would ciearly show that the work of the URP in most of the Divisions and Sub-Divisions is completed ai id the works in the remaining Divisions and 'Sub- Divisions is nearing completion and the existing staff is found to be surplus in the UKP and no Fresh recruitment oN either on ad hoc or contract basis is being made. In view of the principles jaid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra) it is cheer thet the writ petitioners cannot claim any right for appointment on temporary or ad hoc basis and wherefore, the order an passed by the Tribunal rejecting the applications. cf the writ petitioners is justified and the same does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the Writ petitions are disrrissed. TAIRA EET ee WRIA CPO AW CAAA PO 7 "Index: Yes/No Web Host : Yes / No Sut & a a CO Ne er EER DS Se