Karnataka High Court
Sri B S Mahabaleshwara vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
WP NO 14366 OF 2008 (S-KAT)
C/w
WP NO 14537 and 15542-15552 OF 2009, &
WP NO 34430 OF 2009 (S-KAT)
In WP NO 14366 OF 2008
BETWEEN
1. B S MAHABALESHWARA
S/O LATE P PARAMESHWARA
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PRINCIPAL GRADE I
GOVT ITI, HIRIYUR
CHITRADURGA
2 SRI HANUMANTHA RAJA
S/O SRI NARSEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS ASST DIRECTOR/
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
2
OF EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING
KAUSHALAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE-29
3 SRI B S MUNISWAMY
S/O SUBANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR/
PRINCIPAL GRADE I, GOVT ITI,
BELUR
HASSAN DISTRICT
4. B T SHEKARAPPA
S/O THIMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GRADE I
GOVT ITI, PERIYAPATNA
MYSORE
5. SIDDHALINGAPPA KURI
S/O LATE MAGUNDAPPA KURI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PRINCIPAL GRADE I
GOVT ITI, SRIRANGAPATNA
MANDYA
6. S SRIDHARA
S/O LATE G SRINIVASALU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GRADE I
GOVT ITI, SIDDLAGHATTA
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
7. YEKANTHASWAMY
S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GRADE II
GOVT ITI, (WOMEN),
SHIMOGA
8. SHARANA GOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GRADE II
GOVERNMENT ITI
JEVARGI
GULBARGA DISTRICT
9. D L KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LOKANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GRADE II
BT CENTRE, PENYA
BANGALORE-22
10. K BALAKRISHNA
S/O N.KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GRADE II
GOVT ITI (WOMEN)
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-29
11. SRI SRINIVASAMURTHY
S/O R VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS VICE PRINCIPAL/
PRINCIPAL GRADE II, GOVT ITI
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-29
12. S. EKANTHA
S/O LATE NEELAPPA
4
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GRADE II
GOVT ITI, (WOMEN)
CHITRADURGA
13. H C SRIKANTARADHYA
S/O H.S.SOMARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL GRADE II
GOVT ITI (WOMEN)
GUNDLUPET
CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RANGANATHA JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT B S VIJAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-1
2. THE SECRETARY
GOVT OF KARNATAKA
DEPT O LABOUR
M.S. BUILDING
SACHIVALAYA II
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT &
TRAINING (NOW CALLED COMMISSIONER)
KAUSHALAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE-29
5
4. SHANKAR DEVEGOWDA B
S/O BOREGOWDA
RETD ASST DIRECTOR
OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
C/O COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING,KAUSHALAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE-29
5. RAVISHANKAR D G
S/O GANGADHARAIAH
AGE:42 YRS
ASST. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING
C/O COMMISSIONER OF
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
KAUSHALAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE-29
6. SRI SHIVAPPA MADIWAL
S/O B MADIWAL
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI, BANGALORE
7. SRI K G NARAYAN NAYAK
S/O. SRI GOVIND NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
TRAINING OFFICER
DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
GOVT. I.T.I.
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560029
8. S V SUBRAMANYA
S/O. LATE VENKATAPATHY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEHARS
JUNIOR TRANING OFFICER
6
GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560029
9. P S PRABHAKAR
S/O SURYANARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS AVTS INSTRUCTOR
GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 029
10. M SHIVAPPA
S/O BATYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
BANGALORE
11. M ANTHAPADMARAJ
S/O K GOALKRISHNAJI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETD TRAINING OFFICER
C/O COMMISSIONER OF
EMPLOYEMENT AND TRAINING
KAUSHALAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE-29
12. D V SURESH
S/O D.L.VASUDEVA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ASST DIRECTOR
C/O COMMISSIONER OF
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
KAUSHALAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE-29
7
13. B ESHWARAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RETD TRAINING OFFICER
C/O COMMISSIONER OF
EMPLOYEMENT AND TRAINING
KAUSHALAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE-29 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, 9;
SRI E.S. INDIRESH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
R5 TO 8, 10 TO 13 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.10.2008 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION NO. 6353-54/1998, 7845/2001, 6758-60/1998,
AND 2766-69/2004 VIDE ANX-A, AND THE RELEVANT
RECORDS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND QUASH THE SAME AS
ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
WP NO. 14537 OF 2009 and 15542-15552 OF 2009
BETWEEN
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT OF LABOUR
8
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE -560 001
3. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEMENT
AND TRAINING
9/1, SRI PRASHANTH COMPLEX
P KALINGARAO ROAD
BANGALORE ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI E.S. INDIRESH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI SHANKAR DEVEGOWDA B
S/O SRI BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
ASSISTANT TRANINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAININGINSTITUTE
TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE
2. SRI RAVISHANKAR C G
S/O. SRI GANGADHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
INSTITUTE , B H ROAD
TUMKUR
3. SRI S V KORI
S/O. VEERAPPA KORI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
PRINCIPAL GOVT I T I
DHARWAD
9
4. SRI B S MAHABALESHWARA
S/O. LATE P PARAMESHWARA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PRINCIPAL GOVT I T I
CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
5. SRI GIRIDHAR SALIAN
S/O. SRI B M SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PRINCIPAL GOVT I T I
KARWAR
UTTARA KANNADA
DISTRICT
6. SRI SHIVAPPA MADIWAL
S/O. SRI O B MADIWAL
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
MANGALORE
7. SRI HANUMANTHARAJA
S/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PRINCIPAL GOVT I T I
BAGEPALLI
KOLAR DISTRICT- 561 207
8. SRI B S MUNISWAMY
S/O. SRI SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PRINCIPAL GOVT I T I
TURUVEKERE
TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 227
10
9. SRI B T SHEKARAPPA
S/O. SRI THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PRINCIPAL GOVT I T I
PIRIYAPATNA
MYSORE DISTRICT
10. SRI K. G. NARAYAN NAYAK
S/O SRI GOVIND NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
TRAINING OFFICER
DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING
GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
INSTITUTE
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 029
11. SRI S.V. SUBRAMANYA
S/O LATE VENKATAPATHY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
INSTITUTE
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 029
12. SRI P.S. PRABHAKAR
S/O SRI SURYANARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS AVTS INSTRUCTOR
GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
INSTITUTE
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 029
13. SRI SIDDALINGAPPA KURI
S/O LATE MAGUNDAPPA
11
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PRINCIPAL GRADE-II
GOVT I T I, K M DODDI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DIST
14. SRI S SRIDHAR
S/O LATE G SRINIVASALU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PRINCIPAL, GOVT ITI
KANAKAPAURA
RAMANAGAR DIST
15. SRI K N NAGABHUSHANA SHETTY
S/O SRI D K NAGARATHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
BIDAR
16. SRI HANUMANTHARAJU
S/O SRI NARASEGOWDA
MAJOR
OCC: JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
R/O T DASARAHALLY
BANGALORE
17. SRI SRIDHAR S
S/O SRI G SRINIVASULU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORIKING AS JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
R/O NO.1209/1, 5TH CROSS
7TH MAIN, K N EXTENSION
YESHWANTHPUR
BANGALORE
12
18. VISHAL DTTA V KOHIR
MAJOR
RESIDING AT MIG-14
ALAND COLONY
GULBURGA-585 101
19. MAHANTAPPA NAIK
S/O S NAYAK
MAJOR
C/O A V AVALAKKI
H.NO.403, SECTOR NO.12
MAHANTESHNAGAR
BELGAUM-590 016
20. RAMESH BHAT
MAJOR
R/A NO.2992/2
III MAIN ROAD, SHRIPAD
V V MOHALA
MYSORE - 570 002
21. KUMAR K
MAJOR
LECTURUER
GOVT POLYTECHNIC
K R PET
MANDYA-571 426
22. NAGANANDA V
MAJOR
NO.3346, 3RD LAYOUT
7TH MAIN, R P C LAYOUT
II STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE
13
23. ERAMUDDAUAG G E
MAJOR
NO.795, 9TH MAIN
3RD BLOCK, III STAGE
BASAWESHWARANGAR
BANGALORE - 560 079
24. YAMANAPPA N COODMANI
MAJOR
LECTURER
GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC
BIJAPUR-586 101
25. JAYAPPA H
MAJOR
C/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA D
POST K N HALLI
HARIHARA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 593
25. LINGAMURTHY F
MAJOR
LECTURER, GOVT POLYTECHNIC
DAVANGERE
26. K.N. NAGABHUSHANA SHETTY
S/O D.K. NAGARATHNA SHETTY
AGED 63 YEARS
TRAINING OFFICER
GOVERNMENT I.T.I.
BIDAR
28. M SHIVAPPA
S/O M BATYAPPA
14
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC: JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVERNMENT I T I
MANGALORE
29. SRI M ANANTHA PADMARAJ
S/O K GOPALKRISHNOJI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC:TRAINING OFFICER(JUNIOR)
GOVERNMENT I T I
MANGALORE
30. D V SURESH
S/O SRI D L VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
A V T S ( INSTRUCTOR)
GOVT I T I, VIDYANAGAR
HUBLI
31. B ESWARAPPA
S/O SRI BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
T.O, DIVSIONAL OFFICER
O/O JOINT DIRECTOR
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
HUBLI
32. NARAYANASETTY
MAJOR
ASSISTANT TRAING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAING INSTITUTE
KANAKAPURA
33. YENKATASWAMY
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
15
INDUSRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE
34. SHARANAGOUDA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
JEWARGI
GULBURGA DIST
35. D L KRISHNAMURTHY
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
KOLLEGAL
MYSORE DIST
36. K BALAKRISHNA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
KADUR
CHICKMAGALUR DIST
37. SRINIVASAMURTHY
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DIST
38. S YEKANATHA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
CHENNAGIRI, SHIMOGA DIST
16
39. K. CHANDRA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
PAVAGADA
TUMKUR DIST
40. H.C. SRIKANTARADHYA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
GUNDLURPET
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST
41. K R RENUKA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
NAVANAGAR
HUBLI
42. MADHAVA P KUSHTA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NAVANAGAR
HUBLI
43. SMT B P GOSOLADA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
NARGUNDA
DHARWAD DIST ... RESPONDENTS
17
(BY M.R. SHAILENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R41 & 42;
SRI B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R11, 12, 15 & 27;
SRI GIRESH S. JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI N. S. SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, 4, 5, 7 TO 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21 TO 40
AND 43 ARE SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS. QUASH THE ORDER DT. 24.10.2008
PASED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO. 6353 AND 6354 OF 1998
C/W APPLCIATION NOS. 7845/2001, 6758-6760/1998,
5536/1998, 3781/1998 AND 2766-2769/2004 VIDE ANENX-A
BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.
IN WP NO 34430 OF 2009
BETWEEN
1. GOVINDARAJU G
S/O GOVIDAIAH
AGED 38 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
MADDUR
MANDYA DIST
2. MAHESHA K M
S/O MASTIGOWDA
AGED 33 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
18
N R MOHALLA
MYSORE
3. N RAJENDRA KUMAR
S/O P NANJUNDASWAMY
AGED 34 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
K M DODDI,
MADDUR TQ
MANDYA DIST
4. GURUPADAPPA JOGI
S/O BASAPPA
AGED 40 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI(M)
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE
5. SYED AKBAR PASHA
S/O LT SYED AZMATH PASHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
KOLLEGAL
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST
6. SRINIVASANAIK
S/O PALLISIDDANAIK
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT. I.T.I
19
N.R. MOHALLA
MYSORE -07
7. K R SRINIVASA
S/O RANGASWAMY SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
N R MOHALLA
MYSORE
8. M UMESH RAO
S/O MARKONDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE-22
9. JAYANTHI M
W/O LAXMEESHA K K
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
N R MOHALLA
MYSORE
10. NISSAR AHMED
S/O K R SUBAN
AGED 33 YEARS
WORKING AS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI(M)
TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE ...PETITIONERS
20
(By SRI NITYANANDA V NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHANKAR DEVEGOWDA B
S/O BOREGOWDA
AGED 65 YEARS
RTD ASSISTANT TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSITUTE
TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE -560022
2. RAVISHANKAR C G
S/O GANGADHARAIAH
AGED 46 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI, B H ROAD
TUMKUR
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -560001
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
M S BLDNG
BANGALORE-560001
5. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING
9/1, SRI PRASHANTH COMPLEX
21
P KALINGARAO ROAD
BANGALORE-560027
6. SRI S V KORI
S/O VEERAPPA KORI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RTD PRINCIPAL
GOVT ITI
DHARWAD
7. SRI B S MAHABALESHWARA
S/O LATE PARAMESHWARA
AGED 52 YEARS
PRINCIPAL, GOVT ITI
CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURA DIST
8. SRI GIRIDHAR SALIN
S/O B M SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
PRINCIPAL, GOVT ITI
KARWAR-581304
9. SHIVAPPA MADIVAL
S/ O B MADIWAL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
MANGALORE
10. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -560001
22
11. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560001
12. HANUMANTHARAJA
S/O LATE NARASEGOWDA
AGED MAJOR 43 YEARS
PRINCIPAL
GOVT I T I
BAGEPALLI
KOLAR DIST-561207
13. B S MUNISWAMY
S/O SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PRINCIPAL
GOVT ITI
THURUVEKERE
TUMKUR DIST-572227
14. B T SHEKARAPPA
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
PRINCIPAL, GOVT ITI
PIRIYAPATNA
MYSORE DIST
15. K G NARAYANA NAIK
S/O GOVINDA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RTD TRAINING OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
& TRAINING
23
GOVT ITI, HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560029
16. SRI S V SUBRAMANYA
S/O LATE VENKATAPATHI
AGED 58 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT ITI
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560029
17. SRI P S PRABHAKAR
S/O SRI SURANAYARANAYANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS AVTS INSTRUCTOR
GOVT ITI,
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE
18. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
19. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
20. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT
& TRAINING
9/1, PRASHANTH COMPLEX
24
P KALINGARAO ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 027
21. SIDDALINGAPPA KURI
S/O LT NAGUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PRINCIPAL GRADE-II
GOVT ITI, K M DODDI
MADDUR TQ, MANDYA DIST
22. SRI S SRIDHAR
S/O LT G SRINIVASALU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PRINCIPAL, GOVT ITI
KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA DIST
23. K N NAGABUSHANA SHETTY
S/O D K NAGARTHNAM SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RTD TRAINING OFFICER, ITI
BIDAR
24. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
25. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT &
TRAINING
NO.9/1, PRASANTH COMPLEX
P. KALINGARAO ROAD
BANGALORE - 560027
25
26. HANUMANTHARAJU
S/O NARASEGOWDA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
R/O T DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE
27. SRI SRIDHAR S
S/O G SRINIVASALU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
R/O 1209/1, 5TH CROSS
7TH MAIN, K N EXTENSION
YESHWANTHPURA
BANGALORE-560 022
28. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
29. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT
& TRAINING
9/1, PRASANTH COMPLEX
P. KALINGARAO ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027
30. VISHALA DATT V KOHIR
MAJOR
R/A MIG-14, ALAND COLONY
GULBURGA-585 101
31. MAHANTAPPA NAIK
S/O S NAIK
MAJOR
C/O A.V AVALAKKI
26
H .NO.403, SECTOR NO.12
MAHANTESH NAGAR
BELGAUM-560 016
32. RAMESH BHAT
MAJOR
R/A NO.2992/2
III MAIN, SHRIPAD
V V MOHALLA
MYSORE-570 002
33. KUMAR K
MAJOR
LECTURER
GOVT POLYTECHNIC
K R PET,
MANDYA DIST-571426
34. NANAGANANDA V
MAJOR
NO.3346, 3RD CROSS
7TH MAIN, R P C LAYOUT
2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040
35. ERAMUDDAIAH G E
MAJOR
NO.795, 9TH MAIN
3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 079
36. YAMANAPPA N COODMANI
MAJOR
LECTURER
27
GOVT POLYTECHNIC
BIJAPUR-586 101
37. JAYAPPA H
MAJOR
C/O HANUMANTHAPPA D
POST K N HALLI
HARIHARA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST-577 793
38. LINGAMURTHY F
MAJOR
LECTURER
GOVT POLYTECHNIC
DAVANGERE
39. K N NAGABHUSANA SHETTY
S/O D K NAGARATHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETD TRAINING OFFICER
GOVT I T I
BIDAR
40. SRI M SHIVAPPA
S/O G SRINIVASALU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
R/O 1209/1,
5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN
K N EXTENSION
YESHWANTHPURA
BANGALORE-560 022
41. SRI ANANTHAPADMARAJA
S/O K GOPALAKRISHNOJI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC:TRAINING OFFICER(JUNIOR)
28
GOVT ITI,
MANGALORE
42. SRI D V SURESH
S/O D L VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
A V T S (INSTRUCTOR)
GOVT I T I
VIDYANAGAR
HUBLI
43. SRI B ESHWARAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
T O DIVISIONAL OFFICER
O/O JOINT DIRECTOR
EMPLOYEMENT & TRAINING
R/O .1209/1, 5TH CROSS
HUBLI
44. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVT
D.P.A.R
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
45. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
46. THE COMMISSIONER OF
EMPLOYEMENT & TRAINING
9/1, PRASANTH COMPLEX
29
P KALINGARAO ROAD
BANGALORE
47. NARAYANA SHETTY
MAJOR
ASST TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
KANAKAPURA
48. VENKATASWAMY
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
I T I HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE
49. SHARANAGOUDA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
JEVARGI
GULBURGA DIST
50. D L LAKSHMANAMURTHY
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
ITI
KOLLEGAL
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST
51. SRI K BALAKRISHNA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
I T I, KADUR
CHICKMAGALUR DIST
30
52. SRINIVASAMURTHY
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
I T I, CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DIST
53. S YEKANATHA
MAJOR
LECTURER
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
I T I, CHANNAGIRI
SHIMOGA DIST
54. K CHANDRA
MAJOR
JUNIOOR TRAININ OFFICER
ITI, PAVAGADA
TUMKUR DIST
55. SRI H C SRIKANTARADHYA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
ITI, GUNDUPET
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST
56. K R RENUKA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
ITI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
NAVANAGAR
HUBLI
57. MADHAVA P KUSHTA
MAJOR
31
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
I T I, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
HUBLI
58. B P GOSALADA
MAJOR
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER
I T I, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
NARAGUND
DHARWAD DIST ... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI E.S. INDIRESH, HCGP FOR R3 TO 5, 9 TO 11,
18 TO 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 44, 45 AND 46;
SRI B.B. BAJENTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI GIRISH S. JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R34;
R6 TO 8, 12 TO 17, 21 TO 23, 26, 27, 30 TO 33,
35 TO 43, 47 TO 58 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS. QUASH THE ORDER DTD 24.10.08
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO. 6353 & 6354 OF 1998
C/W. APPLICATION NOS. 7845/2001, 6758-6760/1998,
5536/1998, 3781/1998 AND 2766-2760/2004 VIDE ANNEX-A
BY ALLOWING THIS W.P.
ALL THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In these three batch of writ petitions, the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 24th October, 32 2008 is challenged. The Tribunal in the said order as struck down the provisions relating to the method of recruitment to the cadre of Principal Grade-II/Vice Principal/Assistant Director (Training)/Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor in the Karnataka Employment Training Service (Craftsman & Apprenticeship Training) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998, to the extent it provides for promotion to the extent of 33-1/3rd percent by transfer from the cadre of Training Officers and down below cadres.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the application before the Tribunal.
3. The applicants are working in the Department of Employment of Training either as Assistant Training Officer or as Junior Training Officers. They are Diploma holders in Mechanical Engineering. Prior to 1998, recruitment to several posts in the Employment and Training Service was governed by 33 the Rules called the 'Karnataka Employment & Training Service (Craftsman and Apprenticeship Training) (Recruitment) Rules, 1985, for short, hereinafter referred to as '1985 Rules'. The provision for recruitment to the posts of Principal Grade-II in the 1985 Rules is as under:
Category of post Method of Minimum qualification recruitment Principal Grade- Fifty percent by For direct recruitment:
II/Vice direct recruitment (1) Must be holder of a Principal/Assistant and fifty percent by Decree in Mechanical or Director/Assistant promotion from the Electrical or Automobile or Apprenticeship cadre of Group Electronics or Advisor Instructors. If no Telecommunications or suitable person is possesses equivalent available for qualifications.
promotion, by direct
recruitment. (2) Must have teaching
experience for a period of
not less than three years in
any Technical or Training
Institute recognized by the
University or Board or
Technical Education or
National Council for
vocational Traders.
OR
Must have three years of
work experience in any
Industry licenced under the
34
Indian Factories Act, 1948.
FOR PROMOTION:
(1) Must be holder of a
Degree in Mechanical or
Electrical or Automobile or
Electronics and
Engineering or
Telecommunications of
possess equivalent
qualification prescribed for
direct recruitment.
OR
(1) Must be holder of a
Diploma in Mechanical or
Automobile or Electrical or
Electronics or
Telecommunications or
Electronics &
Telecommunications
granted by the Board of
Technical Education,
Government of Karnataka
or possess equivalent
qualification.
(2) Must have put in a
service of not less than
three years in the cadre of
Group Instructor, Foreman,
Instructor, Millwright,
Foreman, Junior
Apprenticeship Advisor.
35
4. The first respondent published a draft of the new Rules called the Karnataka Employment & Training Service (Craftsman & Apprenticeship Training) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998, for short, hereinafter referred to as '1998 Rules'. By the 1998 Rules, certain posts were sought to be re-designated and qualification of Degree in Engineering was prescribed for promotion. The posts which were re-designated are as under:
Designation as per the Designation as per the Pay scale 1985 Rules 1998 Rules Principals Grade- Principals Grade-II/Vice Rs.2150-4200 II/Vice Principals/Assistant Principals/Assistant Directors/Assistant Directors/Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor Apprenticeship Advisor Group Instructors Training Officers Rs.1900-3700 Senior Instructors Assistant Training Rs.1720-3300 Officers Junior Instructors Junior Training Officers Rs.1520-2900
5. The method of recruitment to the category of post of Principal Grade-II was prescribed as under:36
Category of post Method of Minimum qualification recruitment Principal Grade- (1) 33-1/3 percent For direct recruitment:
II/Vice by direct Must be a holder of a
Principal/Assistant recruitment. degree in Engineering in
Director (2) 33-1/3 Mechanical or Automobile
(Training)/Assistan percent by or Electronics or
t Apprenticeship promotion from the Telecommunications or
Advisor cadre of Training Computer Engineering or
Officer on the basis possess equivalent
of common seniority qualification.
maintained at the 2. Must have teaching level of Training experience for a period of Officers. not less than three years in If no suitable any Technical or Industrial candidates are Training Institute available for recognized by University or promotion by direct Board of Technical recruitment Education or National (3) 33-1/3 percent Council for Vocational by transfer from the Training (NCVT) or must cadre of Training have three years of Officer. experience in any industrial If no suitable person licensed under the Indian in the cadre of Factories Act, 1948.
Training Officer is 3. Must not have available for attained the age of 33 years transfer, by transfer in respect of others, 36 from the cadre of years in respect of Assistant Training Backward Classes and 40 Officer. If no suitable years in respect of person in the cadre Scheduled Castes and of Assistant Training Scheduled Tribes and Officer is available Group-A. for transfer, by transfer from the FOR PROMOTION:
cadre of Junior 1. Must be a holder of a 37 Training Officer. If Diploma in Mechanical or no suitable Instrumentation or candidates are Automobile or Electrical or available for Electronics or transfer/promotion, Telecommunication or by direct Electronics & recruitment. Telecommunication granted by Board of Technical Education, Government of Karnataka or possess equivalent qualification.
2. Must have put in a service of not less than three years in the cadre of Training Officer.
FOR TRANSFER:
1. Must be a holder of a degree in Engineering in Mechanical or Electrical or Automobile or Electronics or Telecommunication or Instrumentation of Computer Engineering or possess equivalent qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment.
2. The transfer shall be on the basis of seniority in the cadre of:
1. Training Officer, or
2. Assistant Training Officer, or
3. Junior Training Officer as the case may be in that order.
3. Must have put in 38 teaching experience of not less than three years in Government Industrial Training Institute.
6. A comparison of 1985 Rules and 1998 Rules makes it clear that in 1985 Rules, only two methods of recruitment to the post of Principal Grade-II was provided, namely, by direct recruitment and promotion from the immediate lower cadre in the proportion of 50-50. However, in the 1998 Rules, three methods of recruitment are prescribed:
(1) 33-1/3rd percent by direct recruitment (2) 33-1/3rd percent by promotion from the cadre of Training Officers (3) 33-1/3rd percent by transfer from the three cadres viz.
Training Officers, Assistant Training Officers and Junior Training Officers.
7. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the post of Principal Grade II to the extent of 33-1/3rd percent are 39 required to be filled by transfer from the cadre of Training Officers. The qualification prescribed for transfer is a Degree in Engineering in certain subjects specified therein. The effect of the said Rules is, persons who are very much junior to the Training Officers, i.e., who are working as Assistant Training Officers and Junior Training Officers, if they possess a Degree in Engineering and has got three years of experience, they would become eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Principal Grade-II. In other words, in the case of promotion, a person who is junior would overtake the senior, subject to his possessing a Degree in Engineering. It is this anomaly in the amended Rules, which was challenged by the applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal, on consideration of the rival contentions held that the cadres of Assistant Training Officer and Junior Training Officer are feeder cadres for promotion to the cadre of Training Officers. The next promotional post for the post of Training Officer is the post of Principal Grade II. By 40 operating the amended provision it is permissible to promote even the Assistant Training Officer and Junior Training Officer to the cadre of Principal Grade II. This amounts to treating unequals as equals. This results in absurd situation. Though prescription of qualification and prescription of conditions of service are all within the sphere of the Executive and Courts are not expected to dictate terms to the Executive, in the instant case, though different teaching experience could have been prescribed for different cadres and it is reasonable to classify the employees working in the same cadre on the basis of qualification for the purpose of promotion, it is unreasonable to classify persons working in 2 to 3 cadres down below on the basis of qualification and to promote them to the higher cadre by treating them as equals by skipping intermediary cadres, as has been done in the present case. Therefore, they held that 1998 Rules to the extent they provide for promotion to the cadre of Principal Grade II to the extent of 33 1/3rd percent by transfer from the cadre of Training Officer and other lower cadres are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the 41 Constitution of India and to that extent the said Rule was struck down.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the private respondents have preferred W.P.No.14366/08. The State has preferred W.P.No.14537/09 and W.P.Nos.15542-552/09, whereas, the persons who were not parties in the said application but who are aggrieved by striking down of the said Rules, have also preferred W.P.Nos.34430-489/09 seeking leave of this Court to challenge the same.
10. Sri. Ranganath S Jois, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents in the application contended that the Executive has the absolute authority to amend the Rules governing service conditions of its employees including that of promotion. The object of 1998 Rules is to provide an early avenue to Graduate Engineers who have entered service in the lowest cadre, i.e., as Junior Training Officers. By providing such an opportunity, the applicants who are Diploma Holders 42 are in no way affected as their promotional opportunity is not taken away. Therefore he submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court and therefore it is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that clubbing of different cadres may be unreasonable, but clubbing of similar cadres is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as Junior Training Officer, Assistant Training Officer and Training Officer form compact a cadre. Clubbing persons working in the said three cadres for the purpose of promotion is a reasonable classification, which cannot be found fault with.
11. The learned Government Advocate assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal reiterated the aforesaid grounds and further contended that the whole object of this 1998 Rules is to provide an opportunity to bright Graduates to have promotional avenues, which cannot be found fault with. 43
12. Sri. Nithyananda V Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34430-34489/09 reiterated the aforesaid grounds and contended that as the petitioners are affected by striking down of the Rules, which affects their promotional opportunity, they have preferred these writ petitions challenging the said order. This Court, at the time of preliminary hearing allowed the application for permission and in fact, granted stay of the order passed by the Tribunal as they are aggrieved persons and they are entitled to maintain the writ petition. He contended that all of them possess Degree in Engineering. They have the requisite experience prescribed under the 1998 Rules and as the applicants' right is in no way affected and their promotional opportunity is kept in tact, they are not aggrieved persons at all and the Tribunal committed serious error in striking down the impugned rules.
13. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants supporting the impugned order contended that on 44 the basis of educational qualification it is permissible in law to have classification of cadres. Even a particular higher educational qualification can be prescribed as a condition precedent for promotion. That cannot be found fault with. But for promotion, the candidates have to be selected from several feeder cadres. The said several feeder cadres should be of the same pay scale. A person who is in a lower cadre, merely because he possesses higher educational qualification, could not be permitted to be considered for promotion. When cadres are amalgamated for the purpose of constituting the feeder cadre for promotion, amalgamated cadres must be of equal ranking. Cadres which do not carry the same pay scale cannot be clubbed together and a feeder cadre cannot be constituted. It is in this background, the Tribunal on proper appreciation has found that the impugned rule is absurd, it is arbitrary and therefore rightly struck down the said Rule. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal do not call for any interference.
45
14. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arise for consideration in this proceedings is as under:
Whether prescribing a feeder cadre on the basis of seniority in the cadre of Training Officer or Assistant Training Officer or Junior Training Officer, as the case may be, is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as held by the Tribunal?
15. Before we analyze the facts of this case, it is useful to refer to the judgments of the Apex Court on which reliance is placed to know the legal position.
16. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Vs. TRILOKI NATH KHOSA & OTHERS reported in AIR 1974 SC 1, dealing with the question, whether persons drawn from different sources are integrated into one class, can they be classified for purposes of 46 promotion on the basis of their educational qualifications, held that:
"Though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualification. The rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of Diploma-holders does not violate articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be upheld."
In other words, if persons in the same cadre can be classified into two categories on the basis of the educational qualifications for the purpose of promotion, thereby persons who do not possess the educational qualification could be denied the promotional chances and such course would not be contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further they held that:
47
"Unless the classification is unjust on the face of it, the onus lies upon the party attacking the classification to show by placing the necessary material before the Court that the said classification is unreasonable and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution."
"Classification is primarily for the legislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the terms and conditions of service and if, looked at from the standpoint of the authority making it, the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis, it has to be upheld."
"Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification, for were such an inquiry permissible it would be open to the Courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature or the rule-making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object."48
The Apex Court in the case of DIRECTOR, LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LTD., & OTHERS Vs. PRAVTKIRAN MOHANTY & OTHERS reported in 1991 SCC (L&S) 472 dealing with the re-organization of existing cadres affecting seniority and chances of promotion, held as under:
"4. The writ petitioner holds only diploma in Electrical Engineering. Shri Bidura Dharan Mohapatra and Parijat Ray hold double diploma of Mechanical and Electrical Engineer. It is settled law that the Government or the corporation, due to administrative exigencies, is entitled to and has power to reorganise the existing cadres or amalgamate some or crave out separate cadres. The pre-existing three separate cadres, namely, Electrical, Mechanical and the composite cadre, namely, Electrical-Mechanical were sought to be amalgamated into two cadres by absorbing the personnel working in the composite cadre, namely, Electrical-Mechanical in either Electrical cadre or Mechanical cadre. Options have been called for in that regard from all the persons working in the Electrical-Mechanical cadre and the appellants 49 exercised their options for absorption in Electrical cadre. The employees working in the Electrical and Mechanical cadres were also aware of the same. It was, therefore, open to the respondent to raise any objection to the policy at that stage. But he failed to do so. The decision to amalgamate the existing cadres by reorganising into two cadres was a policy decision taken on administrative exigencies. The policy decision is not open to judicial review unless it is mala fide, arbitrary or bereft of any discernible principle. On account of the amalgamation and adjusting the composite Electrical-Mechanical cadre in either of the Electrical or Mechanical cadre as per the options given, the order of seniority of the employees working in Electrical or Mechanical cadres is likely to be reviewed. When the persons in the composite Electrical-Mechanical cadre opted to the Electrical cadre, they are entitled to be considered for their fitment to the cadre as per the seniority from the date of their initial appointment vis-a-vis their scale of pay. This was the procedure adopted by the corporation in fixing the inter se seniority. The procedure adopted is just, fair and reasonable and beneficial to all the employees without affecting 50 their scales of pay or losing the seniority from the date of initial appointment. Undoubtedly, in this process the respondent/writ petitioner lost some place in seniority which is consequential to amalgamation. He has not been deprived of his right to be considered for promotion, only his chances of promotion have receded. It was not the case of the respondent that the action was actuated by mala fide or colourable exercise of power. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with the relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of the respondent/writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent/writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified."
The Apex Court in the case of K. NARAYANAN & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in AIR 1994 SC 55 dealing with the question of appointment by transfer in 51 different and higher cadre and retrospective operation of Rules, held as under:
"Appointment by transfer in the same service or from the different cadre or service but equal in rank and status is well known. But transfer from lower to higher cadre not by promotion but direct appointment only because the incumbent became eligible without any selection, test or criteria may not be in consonance with service discipline. What the rules contemplate is that once a junior engineer acquires a degree qualification then he automatically should be deemed to have become an Assistant Engineer. An employee occupying a higher post in different cadre may on regularisation be entitled to claim his seniority from the date he was holding the post but giving a higher post in different cadre in which the employee has never worked either as officiating or temporary or even ad hoc because the employee became eligible earlier would be violative of the right of equality. The methodology adopted in the rules by transferring such a person and placing him in the category of direct recruits from the date of acquiring the degree the Government could be said to have 52 violated the basic norms of appointment and recruitment to any particular service. The Government may appoint all the Junior Engineers en bloc after framing of the rule and place them below all those who were working as Assistant Engineers on that date but they cannot be so appointed as to get precedence over those who are working from before. It would result in artificially making unequals as equals. Any person entering the service can justly feel secure of equality in continuance, promotion etc. Any executive action violating it cannot be upheld. Seniority is an incident of service which cannot be eroded or curtailed by a rule which operates discriminately. The purpose of opening evening classes and permitting diploma holders to study was to improve efficiency in service and provide better service conditions. When rules were framed and provision for appointment by transfer was made both these objectives were achieved. But operation of the rule with retrospective effect has no nexus with either except that it may result in undue benefit to one class of employees over the other."53
In P.U. JOSHI AND OTHERS Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS reported in 2003 SCC (L & S) 191, dealing with the scope of judicial review of determination of conditions of service, alteration thereof by amending rules, constitution, classification or abolition of posts, cadres or categories of service, amalgamation, bifurcation of departments, etc, held that:
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by 54 substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State of change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to 55 amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
17. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that classification is primarily for the legislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the terms and conditions of service. If looked at from the standpoint of the authority making it, if the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis, it has to be upheld. However, classification would offend Articles 14 and 16 if it is arbitrary, oppressive, actually and palpably unreasonable. Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. Transfer is normally resorted in same cadre. But when it is made in a different higher cadre, it must not be violative of Constitutional guarantee and the rule of fairness. Appointing a person by way of transfer/promotion to a higher post in a different cadre when such a person has not worked in the cadre which is immediately below the said 56 cadre, is violative of Constitutional guarantee of those who are working in the cadre immediately below the cadre to which promotion is made. It is against basic principle to recruitment of any service.
18. In the instant case, the facts are not in dispute. The applicants are all Diploma holders, who joined the services as Junior Instructors. Thereafter, they were promoted to the next higher cadre 'Senior Instructor'. Thereafter they are promoted to the cadre of Group Instructors. So, there are three cadres which one has to pass through before he is considered to the post of Principal Grade II. 1985 Rules provided for 50% post being filled up by direct recruitment and 50% post by way of promotion. Now in the amended Rules, another feeder cadre is constituted. Persons who are working as Junior Training Officers with pay scale of Rs.1520-2900, Assistant Training Officers in the pay scale of 1720-3300 and Training Officers with pay scale of Rs.1900-3700 are grouped into one category for promotion to the post of Principal Grade II, provided they 57 possess a Degree in Engineering. Therefore in the cadre of Training Officers, we have two sub-cadres - (1) who are Diploma Holders who are eligible for being promoted as Principal Grade II and (2) another cadre on the basis of a Degree in Engineering. Whether a person possesses a Degree in Engineering or Diploma in Engineering, if he is in the cadre of Training Officer, both of them are eligible to be promoted. There is no grievance on that score.
19. The grievance is, persons who are working in the lower cadre, i.e., as Assistant Training Officer with pay scale of Rs.1720-3300 and persons who are working as Junior Training Officer with pay scale of Rs.1520-2900, if they possess Degree in Engineering, they are also eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Principal Grade II. It is here there is an attempt to amalgamate three different cadres with three different pay scales, as one cadre. In other words, a person who is working as Junior Training Officer without working in the cadre of Assistant Training Officer and Training Officer is 58 also eligible to be promoted directly as Principal Grade II. Similarly, a person who has worked as Assistant Training Officer without working as Training Officer is eligible to be promoted as Principal Grade II. The result is double and triple promotion, i.e., without working in the cadres immediately below cadres, a person is promoted to the higher cadre. This is the anomaly, which is brought about by this amendment. The justification for this anomaly is that it applies only to persons who have got a Degree in Engineering, as they have got a better qualification and as they are stagnated in these junior cadres, now an avenue is open to them to improve the efficacy of the system.
19. As held by the Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH KHOSA, on the basis of educational qualification, classification is permissible. Persons who are not holding the said qualification can be denied promotion on the ground of efficiency. In the instant case, a Diploma Holder as well as Engineering Graduate both are eligible for promotion. 59 Therefore it is not a case where on the basis of educational qualification one is prevented from being considered for promotion. On the contrary, on the basis of educational qualification, a person who is not in the immediate lower cadre, who is very much junior to the persons who are working in the lower cadre are considered for promotion on the basis of educational qualification, which is impermissible. It is contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. When Engineering graduation is not the qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Training Officer and merely because a person who possess that qualification secures employment in the lower cadre by virtue of his educational qualification, he cannot over take his seniors in the hierarchy and he cannot be promoted to the post of Principal Grade II at the cost of the persons who are in the cadre of Training Officers. The argument is, the persons who are in the cadre of Training Officers with Diploma are not denied promotion. No doubt they are not denied promotion, but by reducing the percentage from 50% to 33 1/3rd per cent, their chance of promotion is considerably taken away. But this 60 accelerated promotion of junior-most officers would certainly deny promotion to sizable number of persons who are working as Training Officers which is discriminatory and there is no nexus, which is achieved by such accelerated promotion. This is precisely the reason given by the Tribunal for striking down only that particular Rule which is arbitrary and unreasonable.
We do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not see any merit in any of these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ksp/-