Karnataka High Court
Union Of India By Its Secy M/O Water ... vs G S Deshpande S/O Late Dr S G Deshpande on 29 November, 2010
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THEas*DAY OF NOVEMBER,
PRESENT _ A RARE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE - _ 3 R'
AND A M 1' A _
THE HONELE MRS. JU Sf:1cE'
WRIT PETITION NO';Ea%45/2do3(S-'OAR;
BETWEEN:
1.
}jIARYANA~ .12.; 0.9
UNION OF"IN_DEA;BY"ITS SECY I '
M/O WA'I'E':R-RESOURCES' A ' A
SHRAM'SHA_K<'m1'_BHAVAN V .
RAEIEMARG, NEW DIELHI.-..1 1Q 001
{:EN1"RA;._ GR"O'UND_jw TE BOARD
BY ITS CI"*IA'IRMAN»__ ., ' -
NEW «CGO COfMPL.EX.,,NH IV
FARIDABAD "
PETITION ERS
R' 1' {B5} Srilizky IEARIPRASAD, CGSC, FOR SR1 D KALYAN
.RASAv,ARAJ,__CGSc)
1.
1' SR1, G S DESHPANDE S /O LATE DR S G DESHPANDE
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC SCIENTIST--B
O R ~._[JR HYDROGEOLOGIST} IN CENTRAL GROUND
V' -- WATER BOARD, STATE UNIT OFFICE
2ND MAIN, 2-A CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR
BELGAUM 590 001
SR1 V SAIVASAN S /O LATE R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, Occ SCIENTIST-B
[JR HYDROGEOLOGIST] IN CENTRAL GROUND
WATER BOAD, SWR, 31ST CROSS
9
1 1TH MAIN
4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 O} 1
3. SRI D PENCHALA REDDY
S /O D NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. OCC SCIENTIST--B
(JR HYDROGEOLOGIST) IN CENTRAL GROUND . ..
STATE UNIT OFFICE--141, 2ND MAIN 2--A (__3.jROSj'. :.-
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE--590 001 " " "
(By Sri: P A KULKARNI FOR C/R1333}
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDERAAR;FICLE0"Z26.V&.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING To 'QIIASH*I.fI-IE' ORDER V 2
DT. 3.6.2002 PASSED IN OA'-N'O..,709, 7;IzIV..AI_\ID":.71'5/2001
ON THE FILE OF THE "ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE .:3EI\JGI§I.V"eI.I3AI\IGALORE VIDE
ANNEX.A. 3
RESERVED AND COMING ON
FOR RRo_N'O,UI'u"CE:\{1E.I§§'..T OF ORDERS THIS DAY,
NA(§fARATHNA.,JQ; " DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:~
ORDER
petition is filed by the Union of India and A another" by challenging the order dated 3.6.2002 passed in A "'0§A;'NoS.709, 714 & 715/2001 by the Central Administrative Wiiribunai, Bangalore (hereinafter, referred to as "tribunal"). This writ petition was transferred to the Hor1'b1e Supreme Court of India and by order dated 17.4.2007 the petition X,/"
has been sent back to this court for deciding the same on merits after giving an opportunity to all the parties. In fact, several writ petitions which were transferred frorn,_various High Courts to the Hon'bie Supreme Court were the respective High Courts. _ _ _
2. The respondents herein Chad" ' filed -1' the,' original applications which were allowed b3:%?directing.p't'he' »petifi,erie'rs.,,p to extend the benefits to the respondent»applicants terms of para 14 of the dec.ision;it'oi"' t;1*ierV'J.aipur'VBe1ich of the Rajasthan High Court dated f'infC_ivil Writ Petition confirrned the order passed by the Jaipur7Bench-- Lofiijj~the.._:f'i7riiaunai in O.A.No.60/96 dated 12.2,1998r"~»
3. _; 'Since the__tribu11a1 has disposed of the respondents e.pp1ications«,_based on the decision of the decision of the the tribunal as confirmed by the Jaipur Bench theARajasthan High Court, it is necessary to advert .A to the facts and decision in the aforesaid case. The case of the applicants before the tribunal at was that they were appointed in the post of Asst. f~lydro--geologist in the scale of Rs.2,000/- to 3,500/- by direct recruitment on selection by the UPSC in thfehyear 1983. Thereafter they became eligible for promot.io;n3.':toh;theV. post of Scientist 'B' {Junior Hydrogeologist) a _ in the scale of 3.3.2.200 -- 4,000/"-13Hon"completion.ofvthreej years service. That the UPC for piforriotion t'he'~ Scientist--B met in" the year.:a"1987v. 'andV...r_ecorr1'me'ndedVV promotions upto the year' 1985"ai.idj4thereafter"i11e"V1)PC had not met. Though made by the respondents, is V' the authorities.
Thereafter 1993 and made its recomjnendationsllifor of promotion and the authorities promotion on 30.6.1995 by which the 3appl'icantsA'~:;ye1*e33V promoted to the post of Scientist Iéflowever, '"the--r--e" was no indication of the year of L' which the applicants were promoted. it is the further case__lofVthe applicants that though an eligibility list for proinotion to the post of Scientist 'C' was prepared the A " authorities had failed to include the names of the applicants the eligibility list for the reason that they had not completed five years of service in the grade of Scientist 'B'. Representations were made in this regard. But the same did not evoke any response from the authorities. According to 11%.» the applicants, they were entitled to the benefits of seniority and consequential benefits to the post of SCl€3I1tiStv_'ii.3_":.l'V'iT_Vl1Ll'1 reference to the vacancies against which they becan1e.y'_e.1.igii3vle« _ for promotion as and when the vacancies had .0ec1n'red«.frorn ~« .. if the year 1985 onwards. In that case,»_:th¢y"wére--a1igib1'é' promotion for the post of Scientist that.e.1i..acco1l;n.t'of *' non-publication of seniority Scienti:-7ltlg_'l'S*l immediately prior to notifying the eligible lforupromotion to the post of Scientist committed by the authorities_.:l,;y therein, promotion to to be given under the Flexible' [FCS] by treating the applicantslals post of Scientist 'B' in the year 1987 ._ AclcordirigggtoA'the~"applicants though deputationists other, Deplartraents were granted the benefit, the not granted the benefit on the ground that they'*hadnlot_'cbmpleted the regular five years in the post of Scienti.st.;'B'. That if the service of the respondents- VA ll..:>applli.cgants was recommended from the year 1987 itself as ' been promoted from that time, then they would have " the requisite eight years of regular service for promotion to the post of Scientist 'C' and therefore, being aggrieved by the non--inclusion in the eligibility list for promotion to the at post of Scientist 'C', they filed applications before the Tribunal.
5. The authorities had filed a reply befor_e:"t.heJaipur Bench of the tribunal by contending that 0iilcers_ Grade of Scientist 'B' with fiVe_years..regular grade were eligible for in situ'V'p:r'omotioi1.yto of Scientist 'C' and since joiarliedthye post of Scientist 'B' in the year the post of Asst. Hydrogeologis'ts, the eligibility Criteria and not included in the eiigibiliiisl/'"iiSt~S.:f:;~r: on 25.10.1995. But the lulras ,year 1987 which considered promotionsS"against_ tlzeflfacancies pertaining to the years " atytrliich«'point of time, the applicants were not _levligib1_e"v..for;"'pro*:notion and in the year 1995, they were pinrfioted asf__Scientist 'B' and therefore. they were not eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist 'C'. In the A circumstances, the authorities had sought dismissal of the applications. The applicants had filed a rejoinder to the "reply filed by the authorities. Zr' as
1. I.'
6. The Tribunal took into consideration the Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group 'A' posts) Recruitroen_t Rules, 1995, contained in the notification dated _ which were adverted by the applicants. 'I'h_e~ held' that the cumulative result of the Atliatyan ofiicer who had rendered fiveyears of actual servicetiriagthe post of Scientist 'B' or who 'years of regular service in the' the service which had been of seniority in the post of ».re_ridered a total eight years of ~ Rs.3,500/- was Scientist 'C'. That by the seniorityfist authorities on 1.1.1997 the applicants hadpbeen treated as seniors to persons who were A V.'appoii1te'd to the 1$s'st'"o'f Scientist 'B' on 4.10.1990 and thus, when' eith'c.sj'eligibiiity list was published on 25.10.1995, the applpicanvtslhiadll completed five years of service in the post of "-.,Scientist_A'i~'B' as per rules and they were eligible for being V'_consi'dered for promotion to the post of Scientist 'C'. V' Therefore, the authorities were directed to hold a review DPC to consider the case of the applicants for promotion to the post of Scientist 'C' and if they were found to be eiigible for promotion in accordance with the Rules to grant them
--% promotion the date from which other persons mentioned in the eligibility list dated 25.10.1995 had been granted promotion and necessary consequential benefits. Accordingly, the said applications were disposed offl "
7. The aforesaid order of Jaipur Bench of_.§the was confirmed by the Rajasthan High Court"{J.ai~pur:Bencih}"= by holding that the Direction given conformity with the service f'Li1€_S and Adeclinerl"tO_i.nterfereVin]S. the matter and dismissed the petitionbylafn orgder dated 25.2.2000.
8. comin.gl"to"the~«_case of the respondents herein their case.before"thetribunal at Bangalore was that having beeriinitially apfiinteii as Senior Technical Assistant, they wejrle as Asst. Hydro--geologist and Scientist 'B' {ti'Liniorvvliilyfidroageologistl and it was their case that on the basi_s of'the.:i'rA service as Asst. Hydrogeologist, either by way ofgppromotion or by way of direct recruitment, they were 0' aeiititled for a promotion in higher grade as Scientist 'C' in Waficcordance with the PCS meant for scientists in various scientific departments in terms of the rules regulating the recruitment called Central Ground Water Board ix / {Scientific Group 'A'] Recruitment Rules. 1987 and the 1995 Rules. According to the respondent--appIicants, the FCS benefit is available to Group 'B' Officers also. They relied upon the judgment of the tribunal at Jaipur and similar direction to consider their case for promotion.,gjiirs'tly;': A' by revising promotion as scientist '_B'~a.nd t.hereafter lon'_:Vthe._g 9 basis of revised dates of promoti.on1"'_'aslv Slcieiritilstd' consider the case for further__v"pr.omoti~on a_sl'G.vsci¢riti.s1;.~='C'. * it According to them, the autho_rfiti'es_ 'had irnplvemented the order of Jaipur Bench Court and had extended the benefit of promo'tion_to_ 'B' Grade with effect lg' Grade with effect from 1.1.199£l= to 'o£§i'cers who had approached the tribunal at Jlaipur. ..
9. the speci_f_i_c.case of applicant No.1 herein that afgter_Vco_rnp.1etioi1_'of eight years of service jointly in Grade 'B' and '-'VA' p'os_'ts.V';his case was required to be considered for «V prorriotion to the post of Grade 'B' as per the decision AllV'":Vg.renVd.eredV"by the Jaipur Bench. Applicant No.2, in addition .9 contended that if such consideration takes place he would be "eligible for Scientist 'B' promotion during 1987 itself and Scientist 'C' promotion in the hear 1992 and Scientist 'D' is/« -10- promotion in the year 1997 itself. With regard to applicant No.3, his case being that having entered in Group 'B' cadre as Asst. Hydrogeologist directly with effect from 25.1 1.1985, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to in 1989 and Scientist 'C' 1994.. and Scientist 'prim -9 1' 1999. Relying upon the decision .of"JaiptirHlif3Vench .of4.l_the'.. if tribunal, which was confirmed by on 25.2.2000, the applicationsfffilled by the: app1ica'nts"'herein " if were allowed. The said orderpy.i.sl:'1'1<1_ challenge..in Writ petition.
10. We"havefijeardfllltlfiel'learnedvcounsel for the petitioners and leai-tied counselvllfbrfrespondent Nos. 1 to 3.
11. It isbconetended. the learned counsel for the petitidriers that "the promotion of respondents who are vAvo1=king_VbvAas--.Scientist 'B' to the post of Scientist 'C' is regulated Central Ground Water Board {Scientist V . Group posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987 and as per the 9' ,saic't.lRulVe"s, a person working as Scientist 'B' for a period of fi'v.e"y'ears can claim promotion to the post of Scientist 'C'
-subject to assessment by the competent authority and 9' therefore, the tribunal could not have directed to? consider ...:»'''"w .
the case of the applicants for promotion contrary to the recruitment rules. With regard to the decision of the. Bench of the tribunal, it was submitted that _ therein had been wrongly denied promotion of the year 1987 and under the circums-tanritclesfhl the 4'trib__1o1nal.d directed that they should he -considered poet Scientist 'C' with effect from 19.95. the instant case, until the applicants:'--c'or--ripleted.__iiye«.years"of"vservice in Scientist 'B' category, consideration for promotioynfi It is further contended .'tht§"}n"stant case has straight away Jaipur Bench without noticingithe distinguishingfeatures in the instant case and sincethe order ofthe uiblunal is contrary to the recruitment ' ._ rules; the decision Vofthe tribunal may be set aside. Perlhfcontra, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant Nos.l and 2 have retired and applicant No.3 is still in service and that the tribunal was ifustified in applying the decision of the Rajasthan High Court confirming the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the tribunal to the facts of the present case and the said order does not call for any interference in this Writ Petition. 44;-
13. During the course of submission, the order dated 4.5.2010, issued by the Ministry of Water Resources, in compliance with the judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of V.SambashiVa Rao by which the officers have been granted in--situ_.fa.nd» _ promotion to the grade of Scientist th€"pI" scale of Rs.2,200--'75--2800--100--4009,/- a_.-spfiefeffi -C'en'tra1e____IV?'aya T Commission under Flexible' Qomplernenting'"Scheme; in Central Ground Water Board respectiye places of posting as shown againstQ"'fy;=.1/1ei--i:; nfames5.has_been brought to our notice by theV_Counse1_V:for irespondenfts. As per the said order promotion has to take effect from theqdates each of the promotees to the next higher grade'. retirement or further orders ' "*whi'e--h{ev.er isxearlier.' """ "On a perusal of the said order, it is applicant has been promoted as Asst.
Hydrogeotoegiisttilurith effect from 285.1986 and the second *._applicant'; has been promoted to the said post with effect "«e:"t1*om""A_«t11e same date and the third applicant has been 8 promoted to the said post with effect from 1.1.1989. 88 W14. In the case of Union of India V/s. V.Sambasiva Rao and others, disposed of by the Andhra Pradesh High Court _ rgi in W.P.No.22349/1999, it is noticed that the writ petition was disposed of pursuant to common order dated 1? passed by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in _ by which the said writ petition wasggremandedftjrbdeicidgingu the same in accordance with law alter giving' 'eanA.0ppo14tuni<tf.'A of hearing all the parties. statdeddddearlierg' petitions have also been remandKed.Vdyby.the ddSu;:ireme:VCourt for deciding the issue. theA;ridtiEa~.d.,dAPifadesh'AHigh Court directed that having regya..rd_ :0 order which has a Department of Science and dated 2.5.1986 and the consequent High Court was of the view that an obligation to implement the aforesaid aridllmake further orders to implement in'._I'espectWolf the applicants therein and having 'dismissed the writ petition. Office Order ].\¥o..3'd'd7£3/Vl.(d):"jydated 4.5.2010 referred above had been accordivngly issued, wherein the case of the applicants herein V"-dare also covered under the said order as noticed above and they have been granted promotion as Asst. Hydrogeologist from the retrospective date. Hence, we are of the considered View that the relief sought by the applicant/ respondents here before the tribunal has been granted by the petitioners .-3 4+« herein. Under the circumstances, it would not be necessary for us to go into the merits of the decision of the tribunal following the Jaipur Bench and as confirmed by the Rajasthan High Courtiin these cases. Therefore, of the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the a1,1tho1'_ié;ie's",--i'M_ petition would not survive for further conrsiid-evration and, accordingly, it is dismissed reserving to":
herein to seek any relief resoe.ct"-- of ':';d.ated"', 4.5.2010) in the event of theyfhyaving any grievance against the said order.
[f sd/J Sd/5 JUDGE