Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohan S V vs Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage ... on 28 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.50265 OF 2019 (S-PRO)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.4453 OF 2020, 9380 OF 2020 AND
17601 OF 2022
IN WP NO.50265 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. V. RAMESH
S/O LATE P. VENKATACHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
ENGINEER
K-2, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU-560009.
2 SRI. M. DEVARAJ
. S/O P. MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
ENGINEER
WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT
II FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU-560009.
2
3 SRI. K. N. RAJEEV
. S/O NARAYAN N.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
ENGINEER
4TH FLOOR, BANGALORE WATER
SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU-560009.
4 SRI. A. RAJASHEKAR
. S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT
KORAMANGALA VALLEY
KADABEESANAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD
BENGALURU-560103.
5 SRI. K.N. PARAMESH
. S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
ENGINEER
MAINTENANCE-2 CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU-560009.
6 SRI. K.N. MAHESH
. S/O S.NANJUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAINENANCE-WEST
ARKAVATHI BHAVAN, RPC LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560040.
3
7 SRI. G. MAHADEVA GOWDA
. S/O GOVINDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT
HEBBAL VALLEY
NAGAVARA OUTER RING ROAD
BENGALURU-560024.
8 SRI. B.C. GANGADHAR
. S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS CHIEF ADDITIONAL
CHIEF ENGINEER,
MAINTENANCE-1, 6TH FLOOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU-560009.
9 SRI. T.R. SRINIVAS
. S/O LATE R. RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
ENGINEER
WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT-1
5TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU-560009.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. SATHISH, ADVOCATE)
4
AND:
1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560009.
2. SRI. S. V. VENKATESH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT
HEBBAL VALLEY
NAGAVARA OUTER RING ROAD
BENGALURU - 560024.
3. SRI. B.M. SOMASHEKAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560009.
4. SRI. L. KUMAR NAIK
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NORTH WEST-1
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
BEHIND MODI HOSPITAL
BENGALURU-560079.
5
5. SRI. RANGASWAMY
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTION WORKS
KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560020.
6. SRI. JAYASHANKAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS
NORTH DIVISION
PINAKINI BHAVAN
DODDABALLAPUR ROAD
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560064.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. M.L. SUVARNA LAKSHMI ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
FINAL GRADATION LIST IN THE CADRE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (GRADUATES) DATED 13.08.2019 (ANNEXURE-R)
PREPARED AND PUBLISHED THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS FAR AS THE
RANKING ASSIGNED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.
6
IN WP NO.4453 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA K.L.
D/O LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BWSSB, R/O.NO.544, 4TH 'C' MAIN
11TH CROSS, WOC ROAD, NAGAPURA
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU-560010.
2. SRI. JAGADEESH R.
S/O K.V. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, R/O NO.2369, 12TH MAIN
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560010.
3. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C.R.
S/O LATE A. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB., R/O NO.19, SHOP STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560004.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
7
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. SRI. NAVANEETH K.L.
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(MMM-VV)-1, BWSSB
NAYANDAHALLI, R.R. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 098.
4. SRI. CHANNABASAVAIAH R.M.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
E-1, BWSSB,
OPP. TO BABUSAPALYA BUS STAND
OUTER RING ROAD, (SERVICE ROAD)
1ST BLOCK, HRBR, KALYAN NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 043.
5. SRI. MOHAN V.
S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA S.N.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER OFFICE OF AEE (K-O &M)4-1,
TIPPAGONDANAHALLI
8
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-562 130.
6. BHARATH KUMAR S.
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(STP-HV)-1 SUBDIVISION
BWSSB- HEBBAL BANGALORE
BENGALURU - 560 024.
7. ASHOKA GOWDA T.P.
S/O PRAKASH T.S.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
W-3 BWSSB, I MAIN ROAD
BEML 5TH STAGE, R.R.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
8. SRI. HUSSAIN BASHA
S/O MOULASAB
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF AEE-SW2
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU-560 027.
9. SRI. SUNIL KUMAR G.S.
S/O SRI G.S.SIDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF AEE(P) -3-2
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD
9
KAPILA BHAVAN, AUROBINDO MARG
JAYANAGAR 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 082.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI. KEERTHIKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7;
SRI. J. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.MU Aa Aa-Ka/Si GU-
13/1793/2019-20 DATED 13.08.2019 AND NOTIFICATION
BEARNIG NO.MU Aa Aa-Ka/Si GU-13/1971/2019-20 DATED
13.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-
G AND H RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
IN WP NO.9380 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. SRI. L. KUMAR NAIK
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE LACHCHANAIK
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NORTH-WEST-1
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
10
2. SRI. RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE KADARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTION WORKS
KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020.
3. SRI. JAYASHANKAR
S/O LATE M. SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
K-4 DIVISION
SUVARNA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, BWSSB
MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2 . SRI S.V. VENKATESH
S/O NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HEBBAL BANGALORE WATER
SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU - 560 024.
11
3 . SRI. M. DEVARAJ
S/O P. MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER,
WEST, 2ND FLOOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD,
K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4 . SRI. K.N. RAJEEV
S/O NARAYAN N.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
EAST 4TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5 . SRI. K.N. PARAMESH
S/O LATE NAJUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
MAINTENANCE-2 CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
6 . SRI. S.V. RAMESH
S/O LAET P. VENKATACHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER
K-2, BANGALORE WATER
12
SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SATHISH K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/MODIFY
SENIORITY LIST MAKING SEPARATE LISTS FOR GRADUATE
ENGINEERS AND NON-GRADUATE ENGINEERS DATED
14.08.2019 IN NO.1816/2019-20 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N,
SOFAR AS PLACEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED
IN A SEPARATE LIST OF NON-GRADUATE ENGINEERS LIST
WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE AND CONTRARY TO THE RULES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT - 1 BOARD AND ETC.
IN WP NO.17601 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1 . SRI. MOHAN S.V.
S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA S.N.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE AEE (K-O AND M) 4-1,
TIPPAGONDANAHALLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH-562130.
13
2 . SRI. HUSSAIN BASHA
S/O SRI. MOULASAB
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF AEE-SW2
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
BENGALURU-560 027.
3 . SUNIL KUMAR G. S.
S/O SRI G. S. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF AEE (P) 3-2
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD,
KAPILA BHAVAN,
AUROBINDO MARG,
JAYANAGAR 4 'T' BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 082.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
I FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
2 . THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
14
3 . THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD,
I FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
4 . SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, R/O NO.544,
4TH 'C' MAIN, 11TH CROSS WOC ROAD,
NAGAPURA, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560010.
5 . SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C.R.
S/O LATE A. RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, R/O NO.19,
SHOP STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
6 . SRI. JAGADEESH R.
S/O K. V. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, R/O NO.2369,
12TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
...RESPONDNETS
(BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6)
15
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION
COMMITTEE DATED 11.08.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
3 BEARING NO.BEM/JA/MUM/MU/AA/AA-KAA/SIGU-02/1630/
2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENTS 4
TO 6 FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF EXECUTIVE
ENGINEERS IN THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1-
BWSSB AND ETC.
IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the Final Gradation List, issued by the respondent-Board insofar as the cadre of Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer issued on 13.08.2019, 14.08.2019, inter alia sought for direction to the respondent-Board to publish the integrated gradation 16 list of Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer in terms of the Recruitment Rules.
2. It is the case of petitioners in W.P. No.50265/2019 that the petitioners are Graduate Engineers, recruited as Assistant Engineers on 01.08.1998 and working in different Cadres of Assistant Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer at Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Board'). The service conditions of petitioners are governed by the Regulations called as Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1981 (for short, hereinafter referred to a 'Regulations'). The said Regulations provide for mode of appointment, qualification, experience, promotion to various posts / Cadre in the respondent-Board. Insofar as the posts of Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, 17 Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer are concerned, the mode of appointment is as follows:
SCHEDULE- 2 BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD S Post Mode of Minimum Up Probation Appointing Rema l appointment qualification per / authority -rks . Experience ag officiating N required e period o limi . t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3 Executive By promotion Should 1 year Board (1) . Engineer from the possess a Deputy cadre of degree in Chief Graduate engineering Engr/ Assistant or Water Engineers on Technology Supply the basis of or Engr/ Seniority- equivalent Sanitary cum-merit. qualification Engineer . should (Rs.100- OR have put in 1900) atleast 4 By years as deputation Assistant from P.W.D. Executive from the Engineer or cadre of in Executive equivalent Engineer (in posts.
the case no
suitable
candidates Preferably
are available experience
internally). d in Public Board
Health
Engineering
.
4 Assistant 75% by For 1 year Chairman
. Executive promotion of graduate
Engineer/ Graduate Assistant
Technical Assistant Engineer a
Assistant/ Engineers on minimum of
P.A. to the basis of 4 years
18
Executive seniority- experience
Engineer/ cum-merit. as
Superinte Assistant
ndent 25% by Engineers.
Chairman
CRS promotion of
Water Assistant 1 year
Works Engineer For
(Rs.750- (Diploma Diploma
1525) Holders) Holders (3
Junior years
Engineers on course) or
the basis of equivalent
seniority- qualification
cum-merit. Should
have put in
an
aggregate
service of
12 years as
Assistant
Engineers
and Junior
Engineer or
15 years
service as
Junior
Engineers.
5 Assistant ** 1-3 by Diploma in 1 year Chairman
. Engineer promotion of Engg. (3
(Rs.660- Junior years
1300) Engineers on course) or
the basis of equivalent
seniority- qualification
cum-merit. with a
minimum of
2/3 by Direct 10 years
Recruitment service as
Junior
Engineer.
Chairman
A Degree in 35
Engg. or yea 1 year (2)
Technology rs
or
equivalent
with a
minimum of
2 years
19
experience
in the field,
preferably
in Public
Health
Engineering
.
Remarks:-
1. The appointment of Water Supply Engineer or and Sanitary Engineer is to be made in consultation with the State Government as per Section 12 of the Act.
2. ** The posts to be allocated in the ration of 30% and 20% between the two cadres viz. J.Es. and J.Es (o) till all the existing J.Es. (o)get promoted. There shall not be any appointment as J.Es. (o) in future.
3. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the private respondents herein have acquired the degree in engineering subsequently as per Annexures 'J' to 'J3'. The respondent - Board has adopted the amendment made to the Karnataka Public Works Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 1960, amended as per Notification dated 13.12.1985, as per Notification dated 17.09.1986, issued by the respondent-Board. It is further stated by the petitioners that the respondent-Board has further amended its Regulations periodically and latest was as per Notification dated 28.10.2005 and the method of recruitment of Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive 20 Engineer, Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer is as follows:
SCHEDULE-2 BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD CADRE, RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION REGULATIONS 2004 AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 28/10/2005 Sl. Designatio No. Method of Qualification & Remarks No. n & Scale of Recruitment Experience of pay of post prescribed for the post s the post 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Engineerin By promotion 1. Should have g from the cadre put in a Engineer- of Chief minimum of 4 in-Chief Engineer by years service (Rs.14975- selection. as Chief 20500) Engineer.
1998 pay scale
2. Chief 5 By promotion For promotion:
Engineer from the cadre should have put (Rs.12550- of Additional in a minimum of 18500) Chief Engineer 2 years service 1998 pay by selection as Additional scale OR Chief Engineer.
By deputation
from any
department of
Government of
undertaking
having relevant
experience in
Public Health
Engineering.
3. Additional 8 By promotion Should have Existing
Chief from the cadre put in a Superintend
Engineer of Executive minimum of 4 ing
(Rs.10925- Engineer years service Engineer
21
17600) as Executive post
1998 pay OR Engineer and redesignate
scale /or Deputy d as
By Deputation Chief Engineer. Additional
from the provided if no Chief
candidates are Engineer
available than it
may be relaxed
to 3 years.
4. Executive 23 By promotion Should have
Engineer from the cadre put in a
/Deputy of Assistant minimum of 4
Chief Engineer on the years service
Engineer seniority-cum- as Asst.
(Rs.10350- merit Executive
16850) OR Engineer and
1998 pay By Deputation shall possess
scale from any degree in
department or Engineering/Te
undertaking chnology or
Government equivalent
having relevant qualification.
experience
preferably in
Public Health
Engineering.
5. Assistant 81 75% By Should possess
Executive promotion of 3 years
Engineer Assistant Diploma in
/Technical Engineers on Engineering or
Assistant the basis of equivalent
/P.A. to seniority-cum- qualification
EE/ (Rs. merit. with a minimum
7500- 25% by of 10 years
15350) promotion of service as
1998 pay Junior Engineer Junior Engineer
scale on the basis of in the Board
seniority-cum- and shall be a
merit. If suitable Computer
candidates are Literate through
not available passing
such vacancies minimum of six
can be months duration
22
considered for course in
direct computer
recruitment. basics. 3 years
shall be give to
acquire
computer
qualification
from the date of
Amendment.
should possess
a Degree in
Engineering or
Technology or
equivalent
qualification in
the respective
faculty from a
recognised
university of the
Union or State
Government
with two years
experience in
the field and
shall be a
computer
literate through
passing
minimum of six
months duration
course in
computer/basic
s.
PREFERENCE:
1.Possessing
qualification
and experience
in Public Health
Engineering.
2. Possessing
P.G.in
respective
faculty.
23
4. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Board, by
resolution dated 04.11.2015, had taken a decision to prepare a Gradation List of Engineers and as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. PAVITRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (II) reported in (2019) 16 SCC 129, and the Circular issued by the Government on 04.06.2019 and 24.06.2019 and thereby, the fresh Gradation List of codifying Graduates and non Graduates - provisional list was issued as per Annexure-
M. The petitioners further submit that, Final Revised list of all the Cadres of Engineers was prepared on 13.08.2019 and 14.08.2019, based on the said Provisional Revised list. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, the respondent No.1, has finalised the list of Graduate Assistant Engineers and also prepared a separate list of non-graduate Assistant Executive Engineers. It is the categorical statement of the petitioners that, the respondent No.1, ought to have prepared a 24 combined/integrated gradation list of Assistant Executive Engineers looking into the quota fixed for them for the post of Executive Engineer (Graduate) and thereafter, having taken note of the fact that they were put in four years of service in terms of the Rules provided for promotion to higher cadre, they have to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer as the Degree in Engineering is the required qualification. It is further stated by the petitioners that, the ranking has to be made considering the date of eligibility, as the candidates have to acquire the Engineering Degree vis-à-vis quota meant for them. In the event, if there are no vacancies in the cadre of Executive Engineer for promotion and if they have been promoted, in excess of one-third quota fixed for them under the cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the respondent - Board, it is averred by the petitioners that, the respondent No.1 ought to have prepared combined / consolidated list of Assistant Executive 25 Engineers (Graduates and non-Graduates) or Assistant Engineers (Graduates and non-Graduates) as per the quota fixed for the two sources (feeder channel) under the Recruitment Regulations. Therefore, the petitioners contended that, the date of eligibility would be the date on which the private respondents acquired the qualification of Degree in Engineering in the Cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers in the absence of vacancies and therefore, the petitioners have sought for quashing the impugned revised final Seniority List dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure- T). In so far as the Additional Chief Engineers are concerned, the petitioners have questioned the final Gradation List dated 20.06.2019 as well as the Revised Final Gradation List as per Annexure-W, on similar terms. Hence, petitioners have presented these writ petitions.
5. In W.P. No.4453/2020, petitioner No.1 has been appointed as a Junior Engineer and later promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the respondent - Board and 26 has secured Graduation in Engineering during 2014 and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 02.09.2014. Petitioner No.2 was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 06.05.2016. Petitioner No.3 entered into service as Meter Reader and thereafter acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering and thereafter promoted as Junior Engineer on 07.04.2005. Petitioner No.3 was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and later promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 06.05.2016. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, in view of amendment made by the respondent - Board during 2004 to the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1981, the respondent - Board has cancelled the practice of preparing separate seniority list from amongst the Graduates and non-Graduates in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers and has issued the Notification dated 27 13.08.2019 vide Annexures - G and H, without considering the objections made by the petitioners and as such, presented the Writ Petition.
6. In W.P. No.17601/2022, petitioners are Graduate Engineers appointed as Assistant Engineers and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the petitioners are appointed through direct recruitment being Graduates in Engineering, however, the respondents in the said writ petition were initially appointed as Meter Readers and thereafter promoted as Junior Engineers and therefore it is the grievance of the petitioners that, there is no promotional avenue in respect of Diploma Holders in the Executive Engineer Cadre as per Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion (Amendment) Regulations, 2004. It is the case of the petitioners that, as the petitioners are Graduate Engineers and as such, entitled for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers, however, respondent Nos.4 to 6 28 are Assistant Executive Engineers in non-Graduate List and therefore, they cannot be promoted to the post of Executive Engineers. It is further stated that, in the absence of the seniority list, the respondent - Board without making consolidated list of Assistant Executive Engineers - Graduate and non Graduate, has issued the impugned seniority list and therefore, petitioners challenge the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 11.08.2022, inter alia, sought for direction to the respondent - Board to promote the petitioners to the cadre of Executive Engineers from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers (Graduate List).
7. In W.P. No.9380/2020, the petitioners are Diploma holders and subsequently acquired the Engineering Degree. The petitioners, after securing promotion, are now working as Executive Engineers. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, the contesting respondents were appointed much later than the petitioners however they 29 have been given seniority in the next cadre. Being aggrieved by preparation of the Seniority List making separate list for Graduate Engineers and Non-Graduate Engineers, dated 14.08.2019, the petitioners have presented the writ petition.
8. After service of notice, the respondent - Board entered appearance and filed statement of objections and sought to justify the impugned Seniority List. It is stated by the respondent - Board that, the respondent - Board is governed by the Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1981 as per Notification dated 30.04.1982 and subsequent Notifications and Seniority List has been made in conformity with the Regulations as well as the law declared by this Court in W.P. No.37101-03/2016 dated 02.07.2019 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
30
9. I have heard Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. K. Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.50265/2019, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Shivaprasad Shantangoudar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.4453/2020, Sri. J. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.17601/2022 and Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.9380/2020 and on the other side, Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Board; Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - State; Sri. A.V. Nishanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P. No.9380/2020.
10. Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.50265/2019, has raised the following legal contentions:
31
(a) In the impugned Seniority List, classification based on the birth mark is impermissible under law. The ranking of the parties in the Select List would determine the seniority in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957. The Provisional Seniority List of the Assistant Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers, Executive Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers - Graduates and non Graduates, was prepared during 2019, without finalising the Gradation List of basic cadre and therefore, he contended that the publication of Provisional Gradation List of higher cadre is impermissible under law. Referring to the Recruitment Regulations of the respondent - Board, Sri. M.S. Bhagwat further argued that, for the post of Assistant Engineer, one-third is by promotion of Junior Engineers on the basis of seniority cum merit and two-
third is by direct recruitment. It is his submission that, quota Rules apply where the vacancies are available. 32 Therefore, Sri. M.S. Bhagwat contended that, the respondent - Board ought to have prepared and published the Seniority List of integrated / consolidated Assistant Engineers in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, fixing the quota prescribed. In this regard, he places reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.N. NAGARAJA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2003 (5) KLJ 70 and argued that, the impugned Seniority List is contrary to the aforementioned decision.
(b) Secondly, Sri. M.S. Bhagwat argued that, in order to make promotion on the basis of the qualification, the respondent - Board ought to have considered the date on which such candidates had acquired requisite qualification, which will be the criterion for further promotion to higher cadre. He further submitted that, when the quota of promotion is fixed for two sources i.e., Graduates and non Graduates, without preparing the 33 combined list and their date of eligibility, having taken into consideration the date on which they had acquired the requisite qualification, the respondent-Board ought not have issued the impugned seniority list and as such the impugned Seniority List is required to be set aside. In this regard, he places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. DIXIT AND OTHERS Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 1 SCC 474 and argued that, date on which the requisite qualification was acquired, is the criterion for consideration for promotion.
(c) Thirdly, Sri. M.S. Bhagwat emphasised that, the permissibility of preparation of common seniority list in the cadre of Graduates and non Graduates is existing in the relevant Rules, which provides for promotion. In this regard, he refers to the Judgment of this Court in the case of VENUPRIYA S. AND OTHERS Vs. BANGALORE 34 WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD reported in (2021) 2 KLJ 408.
(d) Lastly, Sri. M.S. Bhagwat argued that, ranking in the seniority list cannot be altered without hearing the affected parties and in this regard, he refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. P.K. RAI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1968 SC 850 and argued that, the respondent - Board ought to have followed the principles of natural justice, before issuing the impugned seniority list and accordingly sought for setting aside the impugned seniority list challenged in these writ petitions.
11. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.4453/2020 argued that, the petitioners in the said writ petition have completed Graduation while in service, however their names have been included in the non Graduate Seniority List. He further contended that, though there was no 35 provision for preparing a separate Seniority List of Graduates and non Graduates under the Regulations, and therefore, he emphasized that the respondent - Board has committed an error in preparing the distinct Seniority List as such sought for interference of this Court. Nextly, he contended that, there should not be any discrimination between Graduate Engineers and non Graduate Engineers while considering the case of petitioners for promotion to higher cadre. To buttress his arguments, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR Vs. SRI. TRILOKI NATH KHOSA reported in (1974) 1 SCC 19 and argued that, once the cadre is consolidated / integrated into a common class, there cannot be a distinguishing feature of qualification acquired by the candidates.
12. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel further contended that, the impugned Notification has no 36 statutory force and it cannot override the Rules framed under the statute governing the conditions of service of the employees. In this regard, he places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. ARUN KUMAR ROY reported in (1986) 1 SCC 675 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
13. Sri. J. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.17601/2022 contended that, the respondent - Board has committed error in considering the case of non Graduates for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. He contended that, there is no common seniority list of Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers and therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee of the respondent - Board accepting the case of the non Graduate category in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers is contrary to law and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court 37 to quash the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 11.08.2022.
14. Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.9380/2020 contended that, the petitioners were promoted as per Seniority List dated 17.05.2016 and their promotions / placement was not challenged nor objected by the contesting respondents in the said writ petition. It is his categorical submission that, the final seniority list as per Notification dated 13.08.2019 wherein, a separate list of Graduates and non Graduate was made, is impermissible in law. He further submitted that, segregation of the list by the respondent - Board is contrary to the Judgment of this Court in the case of M.N. NAGARAJA (supra). He further contended that, the Judgment of the Division Bench in M.N. NAGARAJA case was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, he argued that, respondents' contention on the ground of delay and laches cannot be accepted. Learned 38 counsel places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R. MUDGAL AND OTHERS Vs. R.P. SINGH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1986 SC 2086. He also referred to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMARJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. DEVI RATAN AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 1 SCC 417 and argued that, prayer made in the writ petitions has to be accepted.
15. Per contra, Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Board, submitted that, after publication of the provisional gradation list in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. PAVITRA - II, objections were invited, and taking into consideration the objections, a separate list for Graduates and non Graduate Assistant Executive Engineers was published. He further submitted that, a consolidated seniority list was issued and Officers 39 who were appointed to the post of Junior Engineers on the basis of their educational qualification - Diploma, were promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. Simultaneously, a separate list of promotees was also prepared taking into consideration their educational qualification - Bachelor of Engineering and they were classified as Graduate Engineers while issuing impugned seniority list. In this regard, Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, referred to Rule 16(i) and (j) of BWSSB Regulations. He further contended that, the impugned seniority list was prepared based on the Board Notification dated 17.09.1986 and therefore, sought to justify the impugned seniority list.
16. Sri. A.V. Nishanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 in W.P. No.9380/2020, contended that, the respondent No.2 in the said writ petition was senior to the petitioner No.3, however the petitioners No.1 and 2 are senior to respondent No.2. He further contended that, the respondent No.2 being senior to the petitioner No.3 40 has to be placed above him and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
17. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question to be considered is whether, the impugned seniority list making distinction between Graduates and non Graduate Engineers in promotional avenues is justified under law in view of Judgment of this Court in M.N. NAGARAJA case?
18. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the parties raised various legal aspects and refer to the Judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the principal aspect lies circumscribed with the G.O. dated 30.04.1982 issued by the Government in respect of Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1981 of BWSSB. Clause 16 of the said Regulations provides for seniority. Clause 16(e) and 16(f) provides as follows:
41
" 16(e) Where candidates are appointed to any service or class of post by promotion and by direct recruitment, the candidates promoted shall be senior to these directly recruited in cases where their dates of appointment are the same.
16(f) When promotion to a service or class of post or cadre are made on the basis of seniority- cum-merit at the same time, the relative seniority shall be determined.
(i) If the promotions are made from any one cadre or class of post by the seniority interse in the lower cadre or class of post.
(ii) If promotions are made from several cadres or classes of post of the same grade by the period of service in these grades.
(iii) If promotions are made from several cadres or classes of posts the grades of which are not the same by the order in which the candidates are arranged by the authority making the promotion."
19. Having taken note of the aforesaid provisions read with Schedule - II to the said Notification, the said aspect was considered and answered by the Division Bench of 42 this Court, in M.N. NAGARAJA case (supra). Paragraph 5 and 6 of the said Judgment reads as under:
"5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned Counsels for the parties, it becomes necessary to have a closer look at the Cadre and Recruitment Rules governing the post of Assistant Executive Engineer/Technical Assistant/Personal Assistant to Executive Engineer/Superintendent, CRS Water Works. It is quite apparent that the post of Assistant Executive Engineer has to be filled up by way of promotion by drawing personnel from two channels/two feeder cadres, viz., (i) graduate Assistant Engineers, (ii) Assistant Engineers (Diploma holders) and Junior Engineers. To fill up the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, a ratio of 75:25 is fixed by the statutory rules between the above noticed two feeder cadres. The contesting respondents were promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer against 75% of posts, whereas the appellant was promoted against 25% posts. Therefore, the primary question is whether the appellant and the contesting respondents having been appointed to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from two different channels in the ratio prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules 43 would continue to retain their separate identity in the respective feeder cadre before their appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer for the purpose of further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer or not. The rules themselves speak clearly as well as loudly. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules governing appointment to the post of Executive Engineer or to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer do not, nowhere, speak about continuation of the past identity of the candidates in two feeder cadres for the purpose of further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. On the other hand, once appointments are made to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, all those persons who have come to be appointed to that post regardless of their channel from which they came to the said post, would constitute a homogeneous, indivisible class for the purpose of further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.
6. We do not wish to burden our judgment with case-laws. It is well-settled that, if two or more persons are appointed to a cadre by way of promotion the same day, inter se seniority of the promotees in the promoted cadre should be determined with reference to the length of service 44 put in by each of the promotees in the feeder cadre. This rule does not admit any exception unless the statute otherwise directs. Nothing is placed before us or shown to us that this well- settled principle cannot be applied in the instant case. If that is the position, since the appellant- petitioner and the contesting respondents were promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on regular basis on 24-7-1982 and since admittedly the appellant joined the service of the Board on 23-8-1965, that is to say, well before the contesting respondents joined the services of the Board in the year 1971 and onwards, it goes without saying that the appellant is entitled to be regarded as senior to the contesting respondents in the feeder cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer for the purpose of further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Therefore, the placement given by the Board at Sl. No. 6 in the final seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers cannot be faulted. The action of the Board is in conformity with the law."
(emphasis supplied) 45
20. In the above case, the question before the Division Bench was relatively with regard to the denial of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer from the feeder cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer on the ground of distinction between Graduates and non Graduate Engineers. Having taken note of the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court vis-à-vis Notification dated 30.04.1982, I am of the view that, the respondent - Board has not properly understood the findings recorded by the Division Bench in M.N. NAGARAJA case (supra), in the right perspective. It is also notable that once the direct recruits and promotees, irrespective, whether Graduate or non Graduate, are promoted in one cadre, they form homogeneous class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to the higher cadre based on the educational qualification sans length of service in the feeder channel. It is also relevant to cite the findings in the case of V.B. 46 BADAMI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS reported in (1976) 2 SCC 901, wherein it is held that, seniority is based on confirmation as full member of the service in the substantive vacancy. The quota between promotees and direct recruits is to be fixed with reference to the permanent strength in the cadre. As long as the quota rule remains, neither promotees could be allotted in any of the substantive vacancies of the quota of direct recruits nor direct recruits could be allotted to the promotional vacancies. In that view of the matter, though learned counsel appearing for the parties refers to several Judgment of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I firmly believe that the question arising for consideration in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in M.N. NAGARAJA case (supra).
47
21. It is also pertinent to mention here that, the Notification dated 30.04.1982 - Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1981 of the respondent - Board cannot override the Regulations / Rules made by itself. In this regard, though the amendment was made to the BWSSB Cadre, Recruitment and Promotion (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 by Notification dated 28.10.2005 whereby there was no distinction of Graduate Engineers and Non Graduate Engineers in so far as the promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer, ignoring the said principle and deviating from the same is per se violation of law. It is also pertinent to mention here that, yet another Notification dated 16.10.2016 was published in the Gazette whereby there was no distinction between Graduate Engineers and Non Graduate Engineers in so far as promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer, however, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B K PAVITRA & ORS. VS. 48 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ("B K PAVITRA II"), reported in (2019) 16 SCC 129, upholding the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservations (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018, the respondent - BWSSB through impugned seniority lists, unsettled the so called integrated lists of Graduate Engineers and Non Graduate Engineers. It is apt to say that, the Judgment in B.K. Pavitra II cannot be made as a basis to issue two separate lists of Graduate and Non Graduate Engineers, when question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K. Pavitra (Supra) is not relating to the issue involved in these petitions. By doing so, the respondent - BWSSB issued the impugned seniority lists which are contrary to the Rules / Regulations of the BWSSB. It is well settled principle in law that, the Notification should not be contrary to the Rules / Regulations. It is also made clear 49 that, once the Graduate and Non Graduate Engineers are pooled together in the cadre of Executive Engineer, as per the Rules / Regulations of the respondent - BWSSB and further, the said pooled cadre is a single cadre consisting of both Graduate and Non Graduate Engineers, the respondent - BWSSB cannot issue a Notification overruling / contrary to its own Cadre & Recruitment Regulations as both the Graduate and Non Graduate Engineers form a homogeneous cadre and no further separate list of Graduate and Non Graduate Engineers could be prepared by respondent - Board. In other words, birth mark cannot be a criterion for further promotion from the homogeneous cadre. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. Vs. ATUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 10 SCC 432, has held as follows:
"21. It is trite that birthmark of an officer who is a part of the cadre of Group Captains cannot provide 50 an intelligible differentia for the classification to be held valid on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We may in this regard gainfully refer to the decision of this Court in Col. A.S. Iyer & Ors. V. Bala Subramanyan & Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 634, where Krishna Iyer J. as his Lordship then was rejected a somewhat similar argument to justify a classification based on the birthmarks of the members of a cadre. He said:
"Let us eye the issue from the egalitarian angle of Articles 14 and 16. It is trite law that equals shall be treated as equals and, in its application to public service, this simply means that once several persons have become members of one service they stand as equals and cannot, thereafter, be invidiously differentiated for purposes of salary, seniority, promotion or otherwise, based on the source of recruitment or other adventitious factor. Birth-marks of public servants are obliterated on entry into a common pool and bur country does not believe in official casteism or blue blood as assuring preferential treatment in the future career. The basic assumption for the application of this principle is that the various members or groups of recruits have fused into or integrated as one common service. Merely because the sources of recruitment 51 are different, there cannot be apartheidisation within the common service."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Having followed the aforementioned dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, laying down the law that, birth mark is not a criterion to be considered when homogeneous cadre has been formed, I find force in the submission made by Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.50265/2019, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.4453/2020, and Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.9380/2020. I have also noticed the relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P. No.17601/2022 whereby the petitioners have sought for quashing the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 11.08.2022 and having observed above that the entire promotion has to be done in accordance with the 52 Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.N. NAGARAJA (supra), I am of the considered opinion that, the respondent - Board be directed to re-do the entire exercise of promotion in terms of the Judgment rendered in M.N. NAGARAJA case (supra). Accordingly, proceedings on 11.08.2022 by the Departmental Promotion Committee is inconsequential.
23. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER Writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the impugned seniority list prepared by the respondent -
Board, dated 13.08.2019 in so far as the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Graduates) ¸ÀASÉå:¨ÉAdªÀÄA/ªÀÄÄDC-PÁ/¹UÀÄ-13/1791/2019-20; the Final Gradation List in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Graduates) dated 14.08.2019 ¸ÀASÉå:¨ÉAdªÀÄA/ªÀÄÄDC-PÁ/¹UÀÄ-
02/1816/2019-20 and Final Gradation List in the cadre of 53 Additional Chief Engineer dated 14.08.2019 ¸ÀASÉå:¨ÉAdªÀÄA/ªÀÄÄDC-PÁ/¹UÀÄ-02/1817/2019-20; insofar as the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Graduates) ¸ÀASÉå:¨ÉAdªÀÄA/ªÀÄÄDC
-PÁ/¹UÀÄ-13/1793/2019-20,dated 13.08.2019;insofar as the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Graduates), No. BWSSB/CHAD/EST13/135/2015/1949/2021-22 dated
24.09.2021 and the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure-B in Writ Petition No.17601/2022) issued by the respondent - Board are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent - Board to re-do the entire seniority list in terms of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.N. NAGARAJA (supra), within the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.
SD/-
JUDGE sac