Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajkumar K H vs State Of Karnataka on 8 March, 2013
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
W.P.NOS.50376-50403 OF 2012 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAJKUMAR K H
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
RESIDING AT NAYADAKUNTE VILLAGE
AND POST, PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
2. GOPALAIAH
S/O NAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
MUDIGERE VILLAGE, MAVINAKERE POST
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
3. NANJUNDASWAMY G L S/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
RESIDING AT GOVINDANAHALLI
MARGONAHALLI POST
K R PET TALUK
MANDYA-571 423
2
4. LOKESH N, S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT HOSUR KALLAALLI VILLAGE & POST
K R NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE-571 602
5. SRINIVASAMURTHY J
S/O GANGARASAIAH V
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT TUMBAKUNTE VILLAGE
KOLLIGERE POST
DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
6. RANGASWAMY N J, S/O GANGADHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT N NANDHI PALAYA
BANDDIHALLI POST
NITTUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
7. SHIVIKUMAR H M, S/O MALLESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
RESIDING AT AND POST HARTHI
KASABA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANGARA DISTRICT
8. NINGESHA H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT HOSAHATTI VILLAGE
3
ISAMUDRA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577 519
9. RAMESH B S/O NANDYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT ITTIGI VILLAGE AND POST
HUVINAHADAGALI TALUK-583 220
BALLARY DISTRICT
10. NAGARAJ N S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE
RANGASAMUDRA POST
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
11. GIRISH S S/O SANNA THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT GOWRIPURA VILLAGE
AMRUTHAPURA POST
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
12. RUDRAPPA Y K S/O KALALPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT YALACHIHALLI
KUNNALPA KADABA HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 219
13. LAKSHMINARASIMHA REDDY D P
S/O PUTTAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
4
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT JALIHALLI SINGANAHALLI POST
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 127
14. MAHALASKSHMI D M, D/O RAVIKUMAR N
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT AND POST D T VATTEY
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
15. PUSHPALATHA T S D/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT SUBHASHNAGAR
KYATASANDRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT
16. SIDDALINGASWAMY G P
S/O G R PARAMASHIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT SHREE VEERABHADRA SWAMY FLOOR MILL
OPP: R.T.O. OFFICE
9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
ASHOKA NAGAR
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
17. SHANKARAIAH B K S/O KAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT AND POST BEECHAHALLI
DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 215
18. BYRAIAH V P S/O PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
5
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT VARADENAHALLI
AMMANAGATTA POST
KASABA HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
19. SRINIVASA V S/O VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT YALAGATE-GOLLARAHATTI
DAVARAMARIKUNTE POST
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
20. HANUMANTHARAJU R S/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLIGERE POST
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
21. KANTHARAJU H S/O HUCHANNA H
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT NO.17/2, RAMANNA PETE
J M ROAD, CUBBONPET
BANGALORE
22. NAGARAJU S/O DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT AMALAGUNTE VILLAGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 204
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
23. VENKATESH K R, S/O RUDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
6
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT AND POST KENKERE
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
24. HARIPRASAD BILIKAL C
S/O R CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT SRI BILIKAL POST OFFICE ROAD
HOSDURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
25. MANJUNATHA H M, MALLESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT #124, 4TH CROSS
9TH MAIN
GOKULA, 1ST STAGE
IIND PHASE, BANGALORE
26. SABTHOSH M D, DODDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUTR 37 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT V MALLENAHALLI
SUYUR POST, TIPATUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
27. SHIVARUDRAIAH B S
HARADASER AT POST
NITTUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
28. SRINIVASA T C
S/O CHIKKAPPA T
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS LICENCE SURVEYOR
R/AT MARUTHI CIRCLE, UPPARA STREET
7
CHANNAGIRI POST AND TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
DIRECT RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
& COMMISSIONER FOR SURVEY
SETTLEMENT & LAND RECORDS
K.R.CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS & SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.10.12 IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO APPLICATIONS NO.5030-5074/11, 5108-
5186/11, 5498-5570/11, 7288/11, PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BANGALORE AS PER Annexure-D & CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS AS PRAYED FOR BY
ALLOWING THESE WPS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
8
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal declining to entertain the applications filed by these petitioners for a declaration that Rule 46-A(ii) and (iii) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 is unreasonable on the ground that the qualifications imposed under the impugned Rules are not necessary for the post of Revenue Surveyor and that the recruitment Rules framed as well as the qualifications prescribed under the Karnataka General Services(Survey Settlement and Land Records Branch)(Recruitment)(Amendment) Rules, 2009 are unconstitutional and arbitrary.
2. These petitioners were applicants before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. They filed applications challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka General Services (Survey Settlement and Land Records Branch) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2009, insofar as they relate to prescription of qualification such as B.E., B.Tech., PUC 12th Standard, CBSC and ICSE syllabus with 9 60% marks in Mathematics for direct recruitment to the post of Land Surveyor and also prescribing competitive examination by way of publishing Gazette Notification dated 9.12.2009. They also challenged the recruitment notification dated 25.6.2011 inviting the applications for selection and appointment to 1834 posts of Land Surveyors insofar as it prescribes the qualification and competitive examination and syllabus for competitive examination in respect of Paper-II(Specific Paper), on the ground of being arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They also sought for a declaration that Rule 46-A(ii) and (iii) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 is unreasonable on the ground that the qualifications imposed under the impugned Rules are not necessary for the post of Revenue Surveyor. They also sought for regularisation of their services as Land Surveyors or to appoint them on permanent basis by giving preference and granting due service weightage for the service rendered by them as Surveyors and by relaxing 10 the upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by them as Land Surveyors.
3. All these applicants have passed job oriented course in Land Survey and some of them have enrolled themselves with the Survey Department. Majority of them are working privately as Licenced Surveyors in different Taluks in the Revenue Department for a period of about 10 years having been selected in Common Entrance Test conducted by the Karnataka Examinations Authority. They are aspirants for selection to the posts of Land Surveyors. Their grievance is that the aforesaid Rules have been framed and in pursuance of the aforesaid Rules notifications have been issued calling for applications only from persons who possessed the qualifications mentioned in the said rules who are eligible to apply for the said post. Admittedly, none of these petitioners do possess the said qualifications. Therefore, they would not be eligible to apply to the said posts. As they are performing the very same function for more than ten years and they having been selected by a Common Entrance Examination, their 11 grievance is they would not eligible for appointment. Therefore, they are seeking quashing of the prescription of higher qualifications for the said post or in the alternative to regularize their services.
4. The Tribunal by an elaborate order has considered the statutory provisions, the various judgments of the Apex Court on the point and taking note of the settled legal position has declined to entertain those applications.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India .vs. Pushpa Rani [2008 AIR SCW 6564] has reiterated the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. They have held that what steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in 12 such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology or recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration.
6. Further, in the case of P.U.Joshi .vs. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632] it has been held that the questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and 13 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 promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to 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 14 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 amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
7. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, if the Government for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the administration prescribes the higher qualifications by amending the existing Rules and thereafter issues a notification calling for applications from persons who possess such qualification, the said act cannot be held to be arbitrary or irrational or unjust and it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the petitioners were permitted to work in the survey department and whey they have worked for ten long years, that by itself would not give any right to them to dictate to the Government what should be the qualification for the said post. All persons who possess 15 such qualifications are eligible for being recruited and if a person does not possess such qualifications, then he is not eligible for applying against the said post. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal taking into consideration all factual aspects and keeping in mind the legal position has rightly declined to entertain the application. Therefore, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. No merits.
8. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Vg/-