Karnataka High Court
S R Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2022
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.13217/2022 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.13175/2015 (S-RES) &
WRIT PETITION NO.21382/2021 (S-RES)
IN W.P.NO.13217/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RANGAIAH D S
S/O SHREEDHARA
AGE 38 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BWSSB, SE -1, SUB-DIVISION
SWAMY VIVEKANANDA ROAD
HALASURU, BANGALORE
R/AT NO 01, 1ST FLOOR ITTMADU
20TH CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE - 560085
2. SHRI DINESH N
S/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGE 35 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, WEST - 1, BWSSB
ARAKAVATHI BHAVAN
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560040.
2
3. SHRI NANDEESH KUMAR S S
S/O SAMPATH
AGE 39 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BWSSB
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, NORTH-WEST - 6
SUB-DIVISION, PIPELINE ROAD
SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560009
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
AND SECRETARY, BENGALURU WATER
SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
4. SRI S C CHENAPPAJI
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CENTRAL -1 SUB DIVISION, HIGH GROUNDS
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 051
3
5. SRI NANJUNDAIAH K
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
EAST - 2 3 SUB DIVISION
OMBR 1ST MAIN ROAD, EAST OF NGEF
KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560043
6. SRI S RAJESH
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
UFW DIVISION, SUVARNA BHAVANA
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560055
7. SMT J DEEPA
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
WWM-VRISHABAVATHI VALLEY - 2
SUB DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, BWSSB STP
NAYANDAHALLI, NEAR R R NAGAR
METRO STATION, BENGALURU - 560039
8. SRI H J ASHWINI
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
NORTH WEST-1 DIVISION, 5TH MAIN
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 080
9. SRI G M LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
WWM-110V-2-2 SUB DIVISION
YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064
10 . SRI P M SRINIVAS
AGE MAJOR
4
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
BUILDING AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
SUB DIVISION - 4, KUMARA PARK WEST
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560020
11 . SRI H B CHENNESHAPPA
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(DELETED R11 AS PER V/C/O DTD: 04.11.2022)
12 . SRI SRIDHAR S
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
SOUTH WEST - 2, SUB-DIVISION
KAPILA BHAVAN
AUROBINDOMARG, 4TH T BLOCK EAST
PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 082
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SRI.K.SATHISH, ADV. FOR R6;
SMT.MANJULA KULKARNI ADV. FOR
SRI.V.S.NAIK, ADV. FOR R9;
SRI.NISHANTH.A.V., ADV. FOR R7 & R12;
V/O. DATED 04.11.2022, NOTICE TO R10 H/S
& R11 IS DELETED;
NOTICE TO R4, R5, R8 AND R12 ARE SERVED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE OF IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.MuAaAa-
Ka/Sigu-13/1792/2019-20 DTD.13.08.2019 OF JUNIOR
ENGINEERS AND IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING
BWSSB NO.MuAaAa-Ka/Sigu-13/1793 AND BWSSB-MuAaAa-
Ka/Sigu-13/1792/2019-20 DTD.13.08.2019 OF ASSISTANT
ENGINEERS (NON GRADUATE) VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND R1
5
OF THE R3 AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME IN
SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO RANKING ASSIGNED TO THE
PETITIONERS AND PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN THE
IMPUGNED SENIORITY LISTS OF JUNIOR ENGINEERS AND
ASSISTANT ENGINEERS (NON-GRADUATES) AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.13175/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.S R NAGARAJ
S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA M
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
O/O. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD, SHIMSHA BHAVAN,
46TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 070
2. SMT SOWMYA S
D/O.SUBRAMANI K
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
O/O. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (M),
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD, 9TH FLOOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009
3. SRI.DHANANJAYA B
S/O SRI.BALARAMAIAH R
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (MECH)
O/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD, CMC-3, DIVISION,
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 055
6
4. RAJESH K
S/O.PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
O/O, AEEN-3, BWSSB,
SHAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE
5. SMT PREETHI J
D/O.JAYANNA T
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
O/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BWSSB,
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 055 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD,
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER &
THE SECRETARY, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
& SEWERAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009
4. SRI.S.C.CHENAPPAJI
7
AGED MAJOR
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CENTRAL-1, SUB DIVISION, HIGH GROUNDS
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560051.
5. SRI.NANJUNDAIAH.K
AGED MAJOR
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
EAST-2-3 SUB-DIVISION
OMBR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, EAST OF NGEF
KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU-560043
6. SRI.S.RAJESH
AGED MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
UFW DIVISION, SUVARNA BHAVANA
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560055.
7. SMT.J.DEEPA
AGED MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
WWM-VRISHABAVATHI VALLEY-2
SUB DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, BWSSB STP
NAYANDAHALLI, NEAR RR NAGAR METRO STATION
BENGALURU-560039.
8. SRI.H.J.ASHWINI
AGED MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
NORTH WEST-1 DIVISION, 5TH MAIN
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE
BASAVESHWARNAGAR
BENGALURU-560080.
9. SRI.G.M.LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH
AGED MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
WWM-110V-2-2 SUB DIVISION
8
YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560064.
10. SRI.P.M.SRINIVAS
AGED MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
BUILDING & VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
SUB-DIVISION-4, KUMARA PARK WEST
SAMPANGI RAMANAGAR
BENGALURU-560020.
11. SRI.SRIDHAR.S.,
AGED MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
SOUTH WEST-2 SUB-DIVISION
KAPILA BHAVAN, AUROBINDO MARG
4TH 'T' BLOCK EAST, PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR
JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560082.
12. SRI.H.T.KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE H.C. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
O/O. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ENGINEER-K-4 SUB DIVISION
BWSSB, SUVARNA BHAVAN
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560055.
13. SRI.DODDAVEERAPPA
S/O CHIKKAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
O/O. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NW-3, 5TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI OUTER RING ROAD
BANGALORE-560072.
14. SRI.Y.B.DARSHAN
S/O Y.C.BALAKRISHNA
9
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (IN-CHARGE)
E-1-1 SUB DIVISION, OFFICE AT
BEML LAYOUT NEAR ITPL
KUNDANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560066.
15. SRI.B.YASHANT
S/O LATE HTIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (IN-CHARGE)
SE-6, 9TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS
BTM WATER TANK, BTM II STAGE
BANGALORE-560076.
16. SRI.Y.RANGARAJU
S/O LATE H.S.YOGANARASIMHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ENGINEER (ELE)-3, BWSSB JAYANAGAR
SHOPPING COMPLEX, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1; SRI.M.S.NARAYAN,
ADV. FOR R2 & R3; SRI.NISHANTH.A.V., ADV. FOR R4, R5 &
R7; SRI.K.SATHISH, ADV. FOR R6; SRI.V.S.NAIK, ADV.
FOR R9; SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV FOR R12
TO R16; R8, R10 & R11 - SERVED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD.5.3.2015
PUBLISHING THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF JUNIOR
ENGINEER CADRE FOR THE YEAR 1.4.2011, 01.04.2012,
01.04.2013 & 01.04.2014 (ANNX-L) ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND
AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND DIRECT THE R-
2 TO PREPARE AND PUBLISH THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF
10
JUNIOR ENGINEERS IN TERMS OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED
BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN ITS OFFICIAL
MEMORANDUM DTD.05.07.1976 AND 14.12.1987 (ANNX-E &
F), WITHIN A TIME FRAME SPECIFIED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
IN W.P.NO.21382/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SANTOSH PRASAD M
S/O LATE MUNIRAJULU G
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD, KODICHIKKANAHALLI,
GLR PREMISES, BENGALURU
R/AT NO.135, BLOCK C
SAVESA APARTMENT,
UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061
2. SRI.S.R.NAGARAJ
S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA M
AGED 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
O/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
SOUTH-1 DIVISION, J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
JAMBUSAWARI DINNE,
BENGALURU-560 076.
3. SRI.DHANANJAYA.B
S/O R.BALARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
100 MLD HEBBAL STP
STP/HV DIVISION, OPP. TO LUMBINI GARDEN,
BDA OUTER RING ROAD,
HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024
11
4. SRI.DASTAGIR BASHA P
S/O LATE PAKRUDHIN P
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF AEE NE-2
KUMARA PARK WEST
BWSSB, CENTRAL STREET
BENGALURU-560 020 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
AND SECRETARY, BENGALURU WATER
SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
4. SRI S C CHENAPPAJI
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CENTRAL -1 SUB DIVISION, HIGH GROUNDS
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 051
5. SRI NANJUNDAIAH K
AGE MAJOR
12
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
EAST - 2- 3 SUB DIVISION
OMBR 1ST MAIN ROAD, EAST OF NGEF
KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560043
6. SRI S RAJESH
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
UFW DIVISION, SUVARNA BHAVANA
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560055
7. SMT J DEEPA
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
WWM-VRISHABAVATHI VALLEY - 2
SUB DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, BWSSB STP
NAYANDAHALLI, NEAR R R NAGAR
METRO STATION, BENGALURU - 560039
8. SRI H J ASHWINI
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
NORTH WEST-1 DIVISION, 5TH MAIN
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 080
9. SRI G M LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
WWM-110V-2-2 SUB DIVISION
YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064
10 . SRI P M SRINIVAS
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
BUILDING AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
SUB DIVISION - 4, KUMARA PARK WEST
13
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560020
11 . SRI H B CHENNESHAPPA
AGE MAJOR
(DELETED R11 AS PER V/C/O DTD:17.11.2022)
12 . SRI SRIDHAR S
AGE MAJOR
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
SOUTH WEST - 2, SUB-DIVISION
KAPILA BHAVAN
AUROBINDOMARG, 4TH T BLOCK EAST
PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 082
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA. FOR R1;
SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SRI.NISHANTH.A.V., ADV. FOR R7 & R12;
SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.B.M., ADV. FOR R4 & R5;
SRI.SATHISH.K., ADV. FOR R6;
SMT.MANJULA KULKARNI, ADV. FOR
SRI.V.S.NAIK, ADV. FOR R9; R8 & R10 - SERVED;
V/O. DATED 17.11.2022, R11 IS DELETED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE OF IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.MuAaAa-
Ka/Sigu-13/1793/2019-20 DTD.13.08.2019 vide Annexure-Q
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE
THE SAME IN SO FAR AS THE RANKING ASSIGNED TO THE
PETITIONERS AND PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IS CONCERNED
AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
14
ORDER
In the above writ petitions, as the parties are same and as it involves common facts and relief, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. In W.P.No.13175/2015, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
1) To call for records relating to issue of the impugned notification bearing No.BWSSB/Mu.Aa.A-Ka/Sigu-07/4371/2014-
15 dated 05.03.2015 publishing the final seniority list of Junior Engineer Cadre for the year 01.04.2011, 01.04.2012, 01.04.2013 and 01.04.2014 (Annexure-L) issued by the third respondent, and after perusal set aside the same;
2) To direct the 2nd respondent to prepare and publish the final seniority list of Junior Engineers in terms of the guidelines issued by 15 the State Government in its Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976 and 14.12.1987 (Annexures-E & F), within a time frame specified by this Hon'ble Court.
3. In W.P.No.21382/2021, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
1) Call for relevant records relating to issue of impugned Notification bearing No.Mu Aa Aa-
Ka/Sigu-13/1793/2019-20 dated 13.08.2019 (Vide Annexure-Q) of the 3rd respondent and after perusal set aside the same insofar as the ranking assigned to the petitioners and the private respondents is concerned,
2) Direct the respondents to re-do the Seniority List of Assistant Engineers consequent on disposal of W.P.No.13175-13179/2015 pending before this Hon'ble Court and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners.
16
4. In W.P.No.13217/2022, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
1) Call for records relating to issue of impugned Notification bearing No.MuAaAa-Ka/Sigu-
13/1793/2019-20 dated 13.08.2019 of Junior Engineers and impugned Notification bearing No.BWSSB-MuAaAa-Ka/Sigu-13/1793/2019- 20 & BWSSB-MuAaAa-Ka/Sigu-13/1792- 2019-20 dated 13.08.2019 of Assistant Engineers (Non Graduate) Vide Annexure-R & R1 of the 3rd respondent and after perusal set aside the same insofar as it relates to ranking assigned to the petitioners and private respondents in the impugned seniority lists of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers (Non-Graduates);
2) Direct the respondents to re-do the Seniority List of Junior Engineers and Assistant 17 Engineers (Non-Graduate) consequent on assigning them the tanking on the basis of the quota available for Direct recruitees and promotees and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners including review of promotions made to the cadre of Assistant Engineers.
5. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the seniority list of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers (non-graduate) published by the second respondent - Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board (for short, BWSSB). In all the above writ petitions, petitioners are directly recruited Junior Engineers having been appointed on 14.03.2011, whereas respondent Nos.4 to 12 are Promotee Junior Engineers having been promoted on 07.09.2010. The petitioners are claiming seniority over respondent Nos.4 to 12 on the ground that they are excess promotees.
18
6. In W.P.No.21382/2021, the petitioners are challenging the seniority list of Assistant Engineers published on 13.08.2019 with regard to the ranking assigned to the petitioners and respondents.
7. In W.P.No.13217/2022, the petitioners are challenging the seniority lists of Junior Engineers dated 13.08.2019 as well as the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (non-graduate) dated 13.08.2019.
8. Common facts necessary for deciding the issue involved in the above three writ petitions are as follows:
9. Petitioners are direct recruit Junior Engineers appointed on 14.03.2011 and respondent Nos.4 to 12 are promotee Junior Engineers promoted on 07.09.2010 (Annexure 'G') in the respondent - BWSSB. In terms of Cadre Recruitment and Promotion Regulation, 1981 (for short 1981 Regulation) of BWSSB, post of Junior Engineer 19 was to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. The said 1981 Regulation was amended in the year 2005 providing filling up of the post of Junior Engineer 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion from the Ministerial Cadre Staff (Group-C) of the BWSSB possessing requisite qualification. The Cadre strength of Junior Engineer was 57 under Amended Cadre Recruitment and Promotion Regulations 2004 (for short "2004 Regulations") (Annexure-C). Based on 2004 Regulations, respondent Nos.4 to 12 were promoted to the cadre of Junior Engineer by Order dated 07.09.2010 under 10% quota meant for promotion. Subsequent to promotion of respondent Nos.4 to 12, petitioners are directly recruited as Junior Engineers on 14.03.2011. Under promotion order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-G), totally 15 promotions have taken place. It is the grievance of the petitioners that only 10% of Junior Engineers post could be filled up by promotion and 10% of Cadre strength of 57 would be 6, as 20 such respondent-BWSSB could have promoted only 6 persons. As such, over and above 6 promotions are excess and excess promotees are to be shown below the direct recruitees, since their promotion is irregular and outside the quota. Under impugned seniority list, all the promotees promoted under Order dated 07.09.2010 are shown above the petitioners, direct recruitees. Aggrieved by the ranking assigned to the excess promotees over the petitioners, the petitioners are before this Court.
10. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vijay Kumar Bajantri for petitioners, learned counsel Sri.K.Satish, Sri.Raghavendra Gayathri and Sri.Nishanth.V., for private respondents, learned counsel Sri.M.S.Narayan for Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board as well as learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois, for Government. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
21
11. Learned counsel Sri.Vijay Kumar Bhajantri would contend that 2004 Regulations provides filling up of the post of Junior Engineers, 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion, which means the promotees would be entitled for 6 posts out of cadre strength of 57 posts. But as against 6 posts, under Annexure-G O.M. dated 19.07.2010, more than 15 promotions are accorded to the cadre of Junior Engineers. It is contended that over and above 6 promotees are excess promotees and they have to give way for direct recruitees in the seniority list dated 05.03.2015. Learned counsel points out that the private respondents are placed at Sl.No.3 to 18 and directly recruited Junior Engineers are placed at Sl.No.19 onwards. It is submitted that only 6 promotee Junior Engineers could be placed above the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 12 are excess. Learned counsel would contend that before final seniority list dated 05.03.2015 was published, the respondent-BWSSB published provisional seniority list dated 05.07.2013 and in the said 22 list, the petitioners were shown above the promotee Junior Engineers which was correct and hence there was no occasion for the petitioners to file any objections. But while finalizing the seniority list, without providing further opportunity, the private respondents are placed above the petitioners.
12. Learned counsel referring to O.M. dated 05.07.1976, Clause (5) therein submits that if promotions are made in excess of the promotional quota, promotions are not illegal but irregular. Excess promotees cannot claim any right to hold the post unless vacancy falls within their quota. It is also submitted that no block period is formed as required, by classifying and calculating the vacancies. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GONAL BIHIMAPPA V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [1987 (Supp) SCC 207] to say that when the direct recruitment takes place, promotee has to make 23 room for the direct recruitees to the extent of their quota. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
13. With regard to the seniority list under challenge, in W.P.No.21832/2021 and W.P.No.13217/2022, learned counsel Sri.Vijay Kumar would submit that the ranking assigned to the petitioners and respondents in subsequent list of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers (non- graduate) is based on the seniority list dated 05.03.2015 and if the contentions of the petitioners are accepted in W.P.No.13175/2015, the subsequent seniority list insofar as Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers (non- graduate) requires to be revised.
14. Per contra, Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board taking this Court through the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent- Board submits that the petitioners are directly recruited Junior Engineers on 14.03.2011, whereas the private respondents No.4 to 11 are promotee Junior Engineers 24 from different lower ministerial cadres by promotion order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure 'G').
15. Learned Counsel would submit that as on the date of promotion of Respondents No.4 to 12, direct recruitment of petitioners had not taken place. Under 2004 Regulations, the cadre strength of Junior Engineer was 57. The method of filling up of the post of Junior Engineer was 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion. The learned Counsel would also submit that the said 2004 Regulations was further amended by BWSSB Cadre Recruitment and Promotion (Amendment Regulations), 2016 (for short "2016 Regulations") wherein the cadre strength of Junior Engineer was increased to 82, while retaining the method of recruitment 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion from the Ministerial cadre staff (Group C) of the Board possessing requisite qualification.
25
16. It is the submission of the learned Counsel Sri B.L.Sanjeev, that in view of the increase in the cadre strength in the subsequent 2016 Amendment, the promotions would get regularized, since the petitioners would be entitled for 8 posts and to that extent, he submits that promotion would be saved.
17. Learned Counsel Sri K.Satish appearing for respondent No.6 submits that even though the cadre strength under 2004 Regulations was 57, by subsequent 2016 Amendment, the cadre strength was increased to 82. Inviting attention of this Court to 2016 Amendment, learned Counsel would submit that it is amendment by way of substitution. Therefore, the amendment would take effect from the date of coming into force of original Cadre and Recruitment Rules. He also submits that the amendment is to be read as if it was in existence on the 26 date of 1981 Regulation. In that regard, the learned Counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2004(8) SCC 1 and the order dated 18.11.2010 in W.P.No.20914/2010 and connected writ petitions passed by this Court.
18. Learned Counsel Sri K.Satish, as well as learned Counsel Sri B.L. Sanjeev, would submit that by resolution dated 29.08.2007, the Board had resolved to increase the promotional ratio from 10% to 25%. Thus they submit that when the ratio is increased from 10% to 25%, the petitioners would be entitled for 15 posts out of sanctioned cadre strength of 57. Since the petitioners would be entitled for 15 posts in terms of the above said resolution, it is submitted that the promotions under order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure 'G') is proper and correct and thus, there would not be any excess promotion as contended by learned Counsel for the 27 petitioners. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
19. Learned Counsel Sri Raghavendra G.Gayatri, appearing for impleaded respondents would submit that the said respondents would fall within the quota of promotion i.e., six posts which were available for promotion as on the date of promotion order dated 07.09.2010. Learned Counsel also submits that the petitioners have neither challenged the promotion of petitioners nor the ranking assigned to them under impugned seniority list dated 05.03.2015 of the cadre of Junior Engineers. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
20. Learned Counsel Smt.Manjula Kulkarni, appearing for Sri V.S.Naik, on behalf of respondent No.9-Sri G.M.Lakshminarasimaiah, in W.P.No.21382/2021 submits that he was overlooked while issuing promotion order under Official Memorandum dated 28 07.09.2010 (Annexure-G) on the ground that a departmental enquiry was pending. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.9622/2015 and this Court by order dated 01.04.2022 directed the Board to consider the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Respondent No.9 in W.P.No.21382/2021 claims that he is senior among the promotees in terms of Rule 16(f)(ii) of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Cadre Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 1981.
21. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is whether the respondents No.4 to 11 in W.P.No.13175/2015 are excess promotees and whether they are required to be shown below the petitioners in the impugned seniority list dated 05.03.2015 of the cadre of Junior Engineers. 29
22. The respondent-BWSSB brought into force Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board Cadre, Recruitments And Promotion Regulation, 1981 to regulate service conditions of its employees. 1981 Regulations provided for filling up of the post of Junior Engineers 100% by direct recruitment by persons with qualification of 3 years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or equivalent. 1981 Regulations was amended under 2004 Regulations and the post of Junior Engineer was to be filled up 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion from the Ministerial cadre staff (Group C) of the Board, possessing requisite qualification. The qualification for direct recruitment and promotion was three years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or equivalent preferably in Public Health Engineering and six months duration course in Computer Science. Under 2004 Regulation, the cadre strength of Junior Engineer was fixed at 57. The relevant portion of the method of recruitment to Junior Engineer under 2004 Regulations reads as follows: 30
Junior 57 90% by Direct For Direct
Engineer Recruitment 10% Recruitment and for
(Rs.4900- by Promotion from Promotion:-
12225) the Ministerial
1998 Pay cadre staff (Group (i) 3 years Diploma in
Scale C) of the Board Engineering. Or
possessing Technology or
requisite Equivalent
qualification. Preferably in
Public
Health
Engineering
(ii) 6 months duration
course in
Computer
Science
23. Regulations 2004 were further amended under 2016 Amendment and Schedule II to the Regulations were substituted. The cadre strength of Junior Engineer was increased to 82 and the method of recruitment was retained i.e, 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion from the Ministerial cadre staff of the Board possessing requisite qualification.
24. A reading of the above Regulations abundantly makes it clear that quota is prescribed to fill up the post of 31 Junior Engineer i.e., 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion from the Ministerial Cadre of the employees of the Board. The cadre strength in terms of 2004 Regulations is 57. Out of 57 sanctioned cadre strength, the promotees would be entitled for 10% i.e, approximately six posts. The promotees could occupy 6 posts out of 57 posts of Junior Engineers, as on the date of promotion dated 07.09.2010.
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.B.Badami and others Vs. State of Mysore and others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 901 and Gonal Bihimappa Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 207 has settled the law with regard to preparation of seniority by following quota rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court in V.B.Badami (supra) has observed that:
"As long as the Quota Rule remains, neither the Promotees can be allotted any of the substantive vacancies falling within the Quota of Direct Recruitment, nor can Direct 32 Recruitees be allotted to promotional vacancies".
26. The State of Karnataka based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.B.Badami (supra) laid down guidelines by issuing O.M. dated 05.07.1976 (Annexure-E) to determine seniority between direct recruitees and promotees. Relevant paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the O.M. reads as follows:
"4. Direct recruitment is possible only by the method and procedure prescribed under the Rules of Recruitment. In promotional vacancies, the promotion would be either by Selection or on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit. A promotion could be made in respect of a temporary post or for a specified period but a direct recruitment is, generally, to be made only to clear permanent vacancy either existing or anticipated to arise at or about the period when probation is expected to be completed or in a temporary vacancy likely to continue for not less than 3 years.33
5. If promotions are made to vacancies in excess of the promotional quota, the promotions are not totally illegal but are irregular. The promotees cannot claim any right to hold the promotional posts, unless the vacancies fall within their quota. If the promotees occupy any vacancies which are within the quota of direct recruits, when direct recruitment takes place, the direct recruits will occupy the vacancies within their quota. Promotees who were occupying the vacancies within the quota of direct recruits will either be reverted or they will have to be absorbed in the subsequent vacancies within their quota if available.
6. As long as quota rule remains, neither promotees can be allotted to any of the substantive vacancies falling within the quota of direct recruits nor can direct recruits be allotted to promotional vacancies."
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gonal Bihimappa (supra) was considering fixation of seniority between direct recruitees and promotees inter se amongst the Officers in 34 the Karnataka Administrative Services. One of the question determined by the Hon'ble Apex Court was, what is the effect of quota rule in the matter of fixation of inter se seniority in the Gradation List so far as recruitees from different sources are concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gonal Bhimappa (supra) placing reliance on V.B.Badami (supra), at paragraphs 10 and 11 observed as follows:
"10. Badami case referred to several authorities of the court and clearly drew out the judicial consensus on the point in issue by concluding that the quota rule had to be strictly enforced and it was not open to the authorities to meddle with it on the ground of administrative exigencies.
11. The scheme in force relating to the services for fixing inter se seniority takes into account the filling up of the vacancies in the service from the two sources on the basis of the quota and, therefore, fixation of inter se 35 seniority in the Gradation List has to be worked out on the basis of quota."
What emerges from the above two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and O.M. dated 05.07.1976 is that the quota rule has to be strictly followed and it would not be permissible to encroach the quota meant for direct recruitees and promotees by either of them. The seniority is to be fixed in accordance with the quota meant for direct recruits and promotees.
28. Under Official Memorandum dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure 'G') the respondent-Board promoted 15 Ministerial staff to the cadre of Junior Engineers who possessed the requisite qualification of Diploma as against the entitlement of six promotion. In terms of the quota meant for promotees, the Board could have effected only six promotions but as against this, the Board admittedly promoted 15 Ministerial staff to the cadre of Junior Engineers. Excess promotion over and above six (6) may 36 not be illegal promotion but it is only an irregular promotion. The excess promotees whose promotion is irregular, means they had no promotional vacancy and have to make way for the direct recruitees when direct recruitment takes place.
29. Admittedly, the petitioners are directly recruited Junior Engineers under Official Memorandum dated 14.03.2011. The excess promotees under order dated 07.09.2010 ought to have been placed below the promotees in the impugned seniority list dated 05.03.2015.
30. Moreover, the petitioners who are directly recruited were properly assigned ranking showing above the promotees in the provisional seniority list published on 05.07.2013. When the ranking of the petitioners are shown properly above the promotees, there was no occasion for the petitioners to file any objection to the provisional list. But while finalizing the seniority list, the 37 petitioners are shown below the respondents, in that, the petitioners had no opportunity to have their say when the private respondents No.4 to 11 are placed above the petitioners. Without providing any opportunity, the petitioners are pushed down while preparing final seniority list of the cadre of Junior Engineers published on 05.03.2015.
31. Learned Counsel Sri K.Satish contended that under 2016 Amendment to the 2004 Regulations, the cadre strength was increased from 57 to 82 and the said amendment is by way of substitution. It is submitted that always substitution would be effective from the date of coming into force of the original regulation or enactment. He has placed reliance on Zile Singh's case (supra). In Zile Singh's case, it was held that the amendment by way of substitution would take effect from the date of enactment of the statute. But in the instant case, the amendment by way of substitution is subsequent to the 38 preparation of seniority list. As on the date of preparation of seniority list, 2004 Regulation was in existence and 2016 Amended Regulations had not come into effect. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri K.Satish has no merit insofar as the present facts and circumstances are concerned.
32. Learned counsel Smt.Manjula Kulkarni for Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.9 submits that this Court in W.P.No.9622/2015 (Sri.G.M.Lakshminarasimhaiah V/S Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others) disposed of on 01.04.2022 directed the respondent-Board to assign ranking to the petitioner therein in the impugned seniority list dated 05.03.2015 taking note of his retrospective promotion from 07.09.2010. Respondent No.9 Sri.G.M.Lakshminarasimhaiah is a promotee. Respondent No.9 is accorded retrospective promotion from the date his juniors are promoted i.e. 07.09.2010. The dispute in the above stated writ petition by 39 Sri.G.M.Lakshminarasimhaiah was intere se between promotees. Therefore, the said order would have no bearing on the inter se dispute between direct recruitees and promotees.
33. With regard to the contention that the Board had resolved to increase the quota from 10% to 25% under resolution dated 29.08.2007, hence promotion would be within quota, it is to be noticed that resolution was passed to enhance the quota from 10% to 25% for promotions and to take approval from the Government. However, when the 2004 Regulations is in existence, the Board could not have passed such resolution contrary to the existing regulation. But it was open for the Board to amend the regulation and without amending the regulation by way of resolution, the Board cannot take decision contrary to the existing regulation. It is also to be noticed that the resolution was not approved by the 40 Government and that the said resolution is not given effect to.
34. In W.P.No.21382/2021 and W.P.No.13217/2022, the petitioners have challenged the seniority list of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers dated 13.08.2019. Those seniority lists are prepared on the basis of the ranking assigned to the petitioners and respondents in the seniority list of Junior Engineers dated 05.03.2015. When this Court has come to the conclusion that the promotions of respondents No.4 to 11 are in excess of the quota meant to promotees, they are to be shown below the petitioners in the seniority list of Junior Engineers dated 05.03.2015, subsequent lists are to be revised accordingly.
35. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
41
ORDER
i) W.P.No.13175/2015 is partly allowed. The rankings assigned to the petitioners and respondents No.4 to 11 in the seniority list of the cadre of Junior Engineers published under O.M. bearing No. BWSSB/Mu.Aa.A-Ka/Sigu-
07/4371/2014-15 dated 05.03.2015 (Annexure-L) are quashed. The respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to assign ranking to the petitioners above respondents No.4 to 11 in the above seniority list of Junior Engineers.
ii) W.P.Nos.21382/2021 and 13217/2022 are partly allowed. The rankings assigned to the petitioners and private respondents No.4 to 11 in the seniority list of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers published under O.M. bearing No.MuAaAa-Ka/Sigu-13/1793/2019-20 dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure-Q) and Notifications bearing No.BWSSB-MuAaAa-Ka/Sigu-
4213/1793/2019-20 & BWSSB-MuAaAa-Ka/Sigu-
13/1792-2019-20 dated 13.08.2019 (Annexures-R and R1), respectively are quashed. Based on the ranking that is directed to be assigned in the seniority list of Junior Engineers dated 05.03.2015, appropriate ranking shall be assigned to the petitioners and respondents in the seniority list of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers dated 13.08.2019. Consequent to assigning rankings as directed above to the petitioners and private respondents, the promotions shall be reviewed.
iii) Three months time is granted for compliance from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE JT mpk/*