Karnataka High Court
Ms.Aishwaraya.R vs State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 4808 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 3417 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
IN W.P. NO. 4808 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. KAIKASHAN
D/O SRI. SADIQ VALI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS HQA TO COMMISSIONER
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
BENGALURU-560 001
2. MS. PARWATI
D/O SRI. RANGA REDDY
AGED ABUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO AND MIP
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
KALABURAGI-585 102
3. MR. DHARMAPAL S.
S/O K.G. SHANKRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO
TUMAKURU RAYADURGA RAILWAY LINE
TUMAKURU-572 102
4. MR. RAMACHANDRA GADADE
S/O SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, NHAI
YADAGIRI-585 201
-
2
5. MR. MOHAMMED NAEEM MOMIN
S/O SRI. ABDUL RAZAK MOMIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIDAR SUB-DIVISION
BIDAR-585 401
6. MR. NAGARAJ L.
S/O SRI. LACHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGARA SUB DIVISION
SAGARA-577 401
7. MS. VIDYASHREE CHANDARAGI
D/O SRI. VITTAL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED
BENGALURU-560 086
8. MR. CHANDRAIAH R.
S/O SRI. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA-577 501
9. MS. MAMATHA KUMARI
D/O SRI. KESRIMAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RECRUITMENT AND ENQUIRY
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 020
10. MS. GEETA HUDED
D/O SRI. GOOLAPPA HUDED
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY-4
-
3
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU-560 102
11. MR. SHIVANNA M.G.
S/O SRI. GOVINDAPPA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 010
12. DR. SAHANA S.H.
D/O SRI. S.Y. HADIMANI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, BDA
BENGALURU-560 102
13. MS. NIKITHA M. CHINNASWAMY
D/O SRI. K.P. CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, BDA
BENGALURU-560 102
14. MRS. KAMALA BAI B.
D/O SRI. BALA NAIK P.
AGED ABOAUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISION
MYSURU-570 001
15. MR. BINOY P.K.
S/O SRI. VIJAYAN P.V.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, KIADB
BYKAMPADY, MANGALORE-575 011
16. MR. SRIVINIVAS GOWDA V.
S/O SRI. N.H. VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS PERSONAL SECRETARY
TO MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
-
4
17. MR. GIRISH NANDAN M.
S/O SRI. M.B. MULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
HASSAN-573 201
18. MR. RAJU K.
S/O SRI. NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201
19. MR. S.B. DODAGOUDAR
S/O SRI. BASANNEPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(REVENUE), CITY CORPORATION
BELAGAVI-590 003
20. MR. SOMAPPA KADAKOL
S/O SRI. BHIMAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132
21. MR. SIDDALINGAREDDY
S/O SRI. SHARANAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE SUBDIVISION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228
22. MS. SUREKHA
D/O SRI. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, NHAI
KALABURAGI-585 101
23. MR. G. SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O SRI. G. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-
5
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUBDIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101
24. MR. HOTEL SIVAPPA
S/O SRI. HOTEL GADILINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, RAMANAGAR-565 159
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. MR. BABU M.S.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS RENT CONTROLLER
BENGALURU SOUTH, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
4. MR. RAVI KUMAR M.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WAITING FOR POSTING, DPAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
-
6
5. MRS. MANGALA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 49 UEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MULTI STORIED BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
6. MR. LOKESH P.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
TAPOVANA, DODDA BAATI
DAVANAGERE-577 566
7. DR. ASHA S.
AGED ABOAUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
1ST FLOOR, DANVANTHRI ROAD
ANANDRAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
8. MRS. CHANDRAMMA Y.N.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ZONAL COMMISSIONER
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU-570 024
9. MRS. SUMA R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
10. MRS. KRISHNAVENI B.V.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
-
7
CURRENTLY WORKING AS AGM,
BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
11. MR. MOHAMED JUBAIR N.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LAW UNIVERSITY, SUTAGATTI ROAD
NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025
12. MRS. YASHODHA R.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
TUMAKURU-572 101
13. MRS. PRAMILA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM
STATION ROAD
KALABURAGI-585 102
14. MRS. USHARANI N.C.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
FINANCE CORPORATION, NAGARABHIVRIDDHI BHAVAN
22, 17TH 'F' CROSS, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ROAD
NEAR BMTC DEPOT, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 038
15. MRS. SAROJA B.B.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, HIRIYUR-572 143
16. MR. RENUKA PRASAD A.C.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ESTATES)
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE (RETIRED FROM SERVICE)
-
8
BENGALURU-560 002
17. MRS. THABSSUM ZAHERA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB
2ND FLOOR, ABOVE CANARA BANK
NEXT TO SIT
TUMAKARU-572 103
18. MRS. ARUNA PRABHA H.S.
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, BEHIND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
NEAR CLOCK TOWER, MANGALORE-575 001
19. MR. PRAVEEN K.N.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENAGALURU-560 020
20. MR. NATESH D.B.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA,
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005
21. MR. CHIDANANDA N.S.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NO.16/D, DEVRAJ URS BHAVAN
3RD FLOOR, MILLERS TANK BED AREA
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052
22. MR. AJEEJ DESAI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-
9
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR
HUBBALI-DHARWAD SMART CITY
SOFTWARE TECHONOLY PARKS OF INDIA
4TH FLOOR, 'E' BLOCK IT 030
OPPOSITE INDIRA GLASS HOUSE
HUBBALI-588 029
23. DR. NAGARAJ H.L.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMANGALUR SUB DIVISION
CHICKAMANGALUR-577 101
24. MR. SHIVANANDA MURTHY B.C.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION
PANDAVAPURA-571 434
25. MR. RAVINDRA KARALINGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION
BELAGAVI-590 001
26. MRS. MEGHANA R.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
27. MR. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH H.G.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING
AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION
HARAPANAHALLI-583 131
28. MRS. SAVITHA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ZONAL COMMISSIONER
-
10
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU-570 024
29. MR. RAJESH M.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KABINI RESERVIOR PROJECT
MYSURU-570 001
30. MR. VIJAYA KUMAR A.В.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
31. MR. SAJID AHMAD MULLA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, HONNAVAR-581 334
32. MRS. VEENA B.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRWIN ROAD
MYSURU-570 001
33. MRS. JAYASHRI SHINTHRI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
P.B. ROAD, NAVANGAR
HUBLI-588 001
34. MR. KUMARASWAMY Β.Τ.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE, 'B' BLOCK
-
11
DAVANAGERE-577 004
35. MRS. JAYA H.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
III AND IV FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
36. DR. AUDRAMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
AFZALPUR TAKKE, SAINIK SCHOOL POST
BIJAPUR-586 102
37. DR. SUDHA B.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER
TERRITORIAL DIVISION
NEAR ZOO COMPOUND, RADIO PARK
BELLARY-583 101
38. MR. MANJUNATH M.N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
YATTINAHOLE PROJECT, TUMAKURU-571 101
39. MR. RAVICHANDRA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
DR. C.L. RAMANNA ROAD, KOTE
SHIMOGA-577 202
40. MR. RANGASWAMY R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COUNCIL SECRETARY
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, SAYAJJI RAO ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA MYSURU-570 024
-
12
41. MR. ARUL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALIPURA SUB DIVISION
TUBAGERE, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
42. DR. VENAKATARAJU N.C.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SECRETARY
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA
CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005
43. DR. DAKSHAYINI K.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
44. DR. GEETHA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020
45. MR. PREETAM NASLAPURE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TEACHERS COLONY, HINDUNAGAR
TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006
46. MR. ABHIJIN B.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
HEAD QUARTER ASSISTANT
-
13
TO COMMISSIONER
TO HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARMENT
4TH FLOOR, MINTO, ANJENEYA BHAVAN
A.V. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
47. MR. RAJASHEKARA DAMBAL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
VIJAYAPURA-586 101
48. MR. RAMESH P KONAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY
ADMIN CHIEF MINISTERS OFFICE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
49. MR. JAGADISH B.Α.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION
OPPOSITE HASSAN INSITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES, RANGOLI HALLA
HASSAN-573 201
50. MRS. RESHMA HANGAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KOTTURU HARIHARA, NEW BG LINE
HARIHARA-577 601
51. MRS. GAYATHRI N NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE-575 001
52. DR. MAМАТНА В.К.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-
14
CURRENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
ADMIN, URBAN LAND TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE
BMTC TTMC 'B' BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR
SHANTINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560 027
53. MR. NAVEEN JOSEPHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY-2
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
54. MRS. SOWMYA N GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE,
FORT, K.R. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002
55. DR. BHASKAR N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KULOOR FERRY ROAD, URWA
MANGALORE-575 006
56. MRS. SYEDA AFREEN BANU S. BELLARY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BELAGAVI MEDICAL COLLEGE, AMBEDKAR ROAD
SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001
57. MR. SHIVAKUMAR C.L.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WAITING FOR POSTING, DPAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
58. MRS. RANJITHA M.P.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
UNDER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, NO.8
1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
-
15
VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052
59. DR. HARISH B.R.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
60. MR. VINYAKA PALANKAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHINTRI BUILDING
RAMNAGAR 1ST CROSS, OPPOSITE TO NTTF
DHARWAD-580 001
61. MRS. SOUJANYA BHARANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
62. MRS. SHAILAJA S.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DIRECTOR OF AYUSH
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DHANWANTRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
63. MRS. PRIYADARSHINI V.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, K.R.S. ROAD
METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
NEAR VIKRANT TYRE FACTORY
MYSURU 570 016
64. MR. UMESH CHANDRA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
-
16
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, NELAMANGAL KUNIGAL SECTION
KUNIGAL-572 130
65. MR. ANIL KUMAR P.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
ETTINAHOLE PROJECT, DODDABALLAPURA
66. MR. BALAPPA HANDIGUNDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
TUNGA UPPER RIVER PROJECT
RANEBENNUR-581 115
67. MRS. NANDINI P.M.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W.
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR A/W.
SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE
SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE
SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADVOCATE FOR R26, R30, R34,
R38, R39, R40, R42, R43 & R44;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR A/W.
SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE
SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADVOCATE FOR R45, R62, R66 &
R67;
R4, R9, R16, R20, R22, R23, R25, R27, R29, R31, R32, R34 &
R36 - V/O DATED 11.04.2022 D/W;
SRI. RANGANATH JOIS FOR R48, R57 & R66;
R5-R8, R10-R15, R17 & R18, R24, R26, R28, R30, R33, R35,
R38-42, R50, R54, R60, R64 & R65 ARE SERVED;
SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
-
17
SRI. SATISH K., FOR R3, R45-R49, R51-R53, R55-R59, R61 &
R63;
DR. RAVINDRA V REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R37)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2021 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION Nos.6617 TO 6673 OF 2019 (ANNEXURE - C) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION Nos.6617 TO 6673 OF
2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 3417 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. MS. AISHWARAYA R.
D/O SRI. RAMARADHYA R.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION
MANDYA
2. MR. RAMESH KOLAR
S/O SRI. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS
REHABILITATION OFFICER
UPPER KRISHANA PROJECT
NARAYANAPURA
3. MR. SANTHOSH KAMAGOUDA
S/O SRI. SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR SUB DIVISION
RAICHUR-584 101
4. MR. MANJUNATH DOMBAR
S/O SRI. NAMADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-
18
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT OFFICER
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
BAGALKOTE
5. MR. RAYAPPA HUNASAGI
S/O SRI. ANANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GADAG SUB DIVISION
GADAG
6. DR. ISHWAR ULLAGADDI
S/O SRI. ALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
BELAGAVI
7. MR. YATHISH ULLAL
S/O SRI. KITTA U.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PUTTUR SUB DIVISION
DAKSHINA KANNADA
8. MR. NARAYANARADDI KANAKARADDI
S/O SRI. GOVINDARADDI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL SUB DIVISION
KOPPAL
9. MR. MADAN MOHAN C.
S/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H.E.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLYWORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE SUB DIVISION
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
-
19
10 . MR. KALPASHREE C.R.
D/O CHANDREGOWDA S.P.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
YETTINAHOLE PROJECT, HASSAN
11 . MS. ANNAPURNA NAGAPPA
MADUKAMMANAVAR
D/O SRI. NAGAPPA MUDUKAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAVANUR SUB DIVISION
HAVERI
12 . MR. SURAJ A.R.
S/O SRI. A. RAJEEV
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
PRIVATE SECRETARY TO
HON'BLE MINISTER FOR
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
AND MEDICAL EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
13 . MR. ABID GADYAL
S/O SRI. ISMAIL GADYAL
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLY WAITING FOR POSTING
DPAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU
14 . MR. ASHOK TELI
S/O SRI. SHREEMANT TELI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD SUB DIVISION
DHARWAD
15 . MR. MAMATA HOSAGOUDAR
S/O SRI. DYAMANNA HOSAGOUDAR
-
20
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE SUB DIVISION
DAVANAGERE
16 . MR. SIDDARAMESHWARA
S/O SRI. AMARAYYA KANTHI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING
AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HOSPET SUB DIVISION
HOSPET
17 . MR. AJAY V.
S/O SRI. K.S. VITTALAKSHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION
TUMAKURU
18 . MR. PRASANNA KUMARA V.K.
S/O SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA V.K.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO-BMRCL
KIADB, BENGALURU
19 . DR. MADHU N.N.
S/O SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA E.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
DEPUTY SECRETARY-1 BDA
BENGALURU
20 . MR. SHEKARA G.D.
S/O SRI. DODDACHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
KIADB
DAVANGERE
-
21
21 . MR. SOMASHEKARA V.
S/O SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, BENGALURU
22 . MS. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O SRI. PRABHULINGREDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
DEPUTY SECRETARY
RURAL DRINKING WATER AND
SANITATION DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU
23 . MR. PRASANT HANAGANDI
S/O SRI. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
YADGIR SUB DIVISION
YADGIR
24 . MS. ADA FATHIMA
D/O MOHAMED SANAULLA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KUIDFC
BENGALURU
25 . MR. AJITH M.
S/O SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA RAI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
BMRCL, KIADB
BENGALURU
26 . MR. RAGHUNANDAN A.N.
S/O SRI. NARAYANASWAMY A.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-
22
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU
27 . MR. NATARAJA G.R.
S/O RAMEGOWDA G.D.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
NH-206, TUMAKURU
28 . MS. MAMATHA DEVI G.S.
D/O G. SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BHATKAL SUB DIVISION DISTRICT
UTTARA KANNADA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY L.K., ADVOCATE
SRI. K.S. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001
2. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. MR. BABU M.S.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS RENT CONTROLLER
BANGALORE SOUTH
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
-
23
4. MR. RAVI KUMAR M.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WAITING FOR POSTING
DPAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
5. MRS. MANGALA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MULTI STORIED BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
6. MR. LOKESH P.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINICIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
TAPOVANA, DODDA BAATI
DAVANAGERE-577 566
7. DR. ASHA S.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
1ST FLOOR, DANVANTHRI ROAD
ANANDRAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
8. MRS. CHANDRAMMA Y.N.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ZONAL COMMISSIONER
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU-570 024
-
24
9. MRS. SUMA R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
10 . MRS. KRISHNAVENI B.V.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS AGM
BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
11 . MR. MOHAMED JUBAIR N.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LAW UNIVERSITY
SUTAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR
HUBLI-580 025
12 . MRS. YASHODHA R.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
TUMAKURU-572 101
13 . MRS. PRAMILA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM, STATION ROAD
KALABURAGI-585 102
14 . MRS. USHARANI N.C.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
NAGARABHIVRIDDHI BHAVAN
-
25
22, 17TH 'F' CROSS
SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ROAD
NEAR BMTC DEPOT
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU
15 . MRS. SAROJA B.B.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, HIRIYUR-572 143
16 . MRS. THABSSUM ZAHERA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, 2ND FLOOR, ABOVE CANARA BANK
NEXT TO SIT, TUMAKURU-572 103
17 . MRS. ARUNA PRABHA H.S.
AGED 59 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, BEHIND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
NEAR CLOCK TOWER
MANGALORE-575 001
18 . MR. PRAVEEN K.N.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SHIVAARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
19 . MR. NATESH D.B.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA
CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA
-
26
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005
20 . MR. CHIDANANDA N.S.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NO.16/D, DEVRAJ URS BHAVAN
3RD FLOOR, MILLERS TANK BED AREA
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052
21 . MR. AJEEJ DESAI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR
HUBBALI-DHARWAD SMART CITY
SOFTWARE TECHNOLOY PARKS OF INDIA
4TH FLOOR, E BLOCK IT 030
OPPOSITE INDIRA GLASS HOUSE
HUBBALI-588 029
22 . DR. NAGARAJ H.L.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMANGALUR SUB DIVISION
CHICKAMANGALUR-577 101
23 . MR. SHIVANANDA MURTHY B.C.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION
PANDAVAPURA-571 434
24 . MR. RAVINDRA KARALINGANNAVAR
AGED 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION
BELAGAVI-590 001
25 . MRS.MEGHANA R.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
-
27
CURRNETLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
26 . MR. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH H.G.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION
HARAPANAHALLI-583 131
27 . MRS. SAVITHA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ZONAL COMMISSIONER
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA
CHAMARAJPURA, MYSURU-570 024
28 . MR. RAJESH M.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KABINI RESERVIOR PROJECT
MYSURU-570 001
29 . MR. VIJAYA KUMAR A.B.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
30 . MR. SAJID AHMAD MULLA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, HONNAVAR-581 334
31 . MRS. VEENA B N
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
-
28
MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE
IRWIN ROAD, MYSURU 570 001
32 . MRS. JAYASHREI SHINTHRI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
P.B. ROAD, NAVANGAR
HUBLI-588 001
33 . MR. KUMARASWAMY B.T.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE 'B' BLOCK
DAVANAGERE-577 004
34 . MRS. JAYA H.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
III AND IV FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
35 . DR. AUDRAMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
AFZALPUR TAKKE
SAINIK SCHOOL POST
BIJAPUR-586 102
36 . DR. SUDHA B.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER
TERRITORIAL DIVISION
NEAR ZOO COMPOUND
RADIO PARK, BELLARY-583 101
-
29
37 . MR. MANJUNATH M.N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER
YATTINAHOLE PROJECT
TUMAKURU-571 101
38 . MR. RAVICHANDRA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
DR. C.L. RAMANNA ROAD KOTE
SHIMOGA-577202
39 . MR. RANGASWAMY R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COUNCIL SECRETARY
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
SAYAJJI RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURA
MYSURU-570 024
40 . MR. ARUL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
TUBAGERE-DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA -561 203
41 . DR. VENKATARAJU N.C.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SECRETARY
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA
CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005
42 . DR. DAKSHAYINI K.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
-
30
KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
43 . DR. GEETHA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
44 . MR. PREETAM NASLAPURE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
BELGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TEACHERS COLONY, HINDUNAGAR
TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006
45 . MR. ABHIJIN B.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
HEADQUARTER ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER
TO HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, MINTO, ANJENEYA BHAVAN,
AV ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
46 . MR. RAJASHEKARA DAMBAL
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
VIJAYAPURA-586 101
47 . MR. RAMESH P KONAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY
ADMIN CHIEF MINISTERS OFFICE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
48 . MR. JAGADISH B.A.
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
-
31
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION
OPPOSITE HASSAN INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
RANGOLI HALLA, HASSAN-573 201
49 . MRS. RESHMA HANGAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KOTTURU HARIHARA, NEW B G LINE
HARIHARA-577 601
50 . MRS. GAYATHRI N NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA
MANGALORE-575 001
51 . DR. MAMATHA B.K.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
ADMIN, URBAN LAND TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE
BMTC, TTMC 'B' BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR
SHANTINAGAR, KH ROAD, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560 027
52 . MR. NAVEEN JOSEPH A.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY-2
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU 560020
53 . MRS. SOWMYA N GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLGE
FORT, K R ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002
-
32
54 . DR. BHASKAR N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
MANGLAORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KULOOR FERRY ROAD, URWA
MANGALORE-575 006
55 . MRS. SYEDA AFREEN BANU S BELLARY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BELAGAVI MEDICAL COLLEGE
AMBEDKAR ROAD, SADASHIV NAGAR
BELAGAVI-590 001
56 . MR. SHIVAKUMAR C.L.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WAITING FOR POSTING
DPAR, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
57 . MRS. RANJITHA M.P.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO 8, 1ST FLOOR, CURNNINGHAM ROAD
VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052
58 . DR. HARISH B.R.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560020
59 . MR. VINAYAKA PALANKAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CHINTRI BUILDING, RAMANGAR 1ST CROSS
OPP TO NTTF, DHARWAD-580 001
-
33
60 . MRS. SOUJANYA BHARANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTH
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560001
61 . MRS. SHAILAJA S.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DIRECTOR OF AYUSH
MINISTR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DHANWATRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
62 . MRS. PRIYADARSHINI V.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRETNLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
KIADB, KRS ROAD
METAGALLI INDUSTIRAL ESTATE
NEAR VIKRANTH TYRE FACTORY
MYSURU-570 016
63 . MR. UMESH CHADNRA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
NHAI, NELAMANGALA
KUNIGAL SECTION, KUNIGAL-572 130
64 . MR. BALAPPA HANDIGUNDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
TUNGA UPPER RIVER PROJECT
RANEBENNUR-581 115
65 . MRS. NANDINI P.M.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENLTY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTHLAYOUT
-
34
BENGALUGU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUAMRA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
66 . MRS. KAIKASHAN
D/O SRI. SADIQ VALI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS HQA TO COMMISSIONER
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
BENGALURU
67 . MISS. PARWATI
D/O SRI. RANGA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO & MIP
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
KALABURAGI
68 . MR. DHARMAPAL S.
S/O K.G. SHANKRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO TUMAKURU
RAYADURGA RAILWAY LINE
TUMAKURU
69 . MR. RAMACHANDRA GADADE
S/O SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKINGA AS SLAO, NHAI
YADAGIR
70 . MR. MOHAMMED NAEEM MOMIN
S/O SRI. ABDUL RAZAK MOMIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIDAR SUB-DIVISION
BIDAR
71 . MR. NAGARAJ L.
S/O SRI. LACHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
-
35
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGARA SUB DIVISION
SAGARA
72 . MISS. VIDYASHREE CHANDARAGI
D/O SRI. VITTAL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED
BENGALURU
73 . MR. CHANDRAIAH R.
S/O SRI. RMAAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA
74 . MS. MAMATHA KUMARI
D/O SRI. KESRIMAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RECRUITMENT & ENQUIRY, BBMP
BENGALURU
75 . MS. GEETA HUDED
D/O SRI. GOOLAPPAHUDED
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY-4
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU
76 . MR. SHIVANNA M.G.
S/O SRI. GOVINDAPPA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU
77 . DR. SAHANA S.H.
D/O SRI. S.Y. HADIMANI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
-
36
WORKING AS SLAO, BDA
BENGALURU
78 . MS. NIKITHA M. CHINNASWAMY
D/O SRI. K.P. CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, BDA
BENGALURU
79 . MRS. KAMALA BAI B.
D/O SRI. BALA NAIK P.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKINGA AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISION
MYSURU
80 . MR. BINOY P.K.
S/O SRI. VIJAYAN P.V.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKINGA AS SLAO, KIADB
BYKAMPADY, MANGALORE
81 . MR. SRIVINIVAS GOWDA V.
S/O SRI. N.H. VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS PERSONAL SECRETARY
TO MINISTER FOR CO OPERATION
82 . MR. GIRISH NANDAN M.
S/O SRI. M.B. MULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
HASSAN
83 . MR. RAJU K.
S/O SRI. NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUNDAPURA
UDUPI DISTRICT
-
37
84 . MR. S.B. DODAGOUDAR
S/O SRI. BASANNEPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(REVENUE), CITY CORPORATION
BELAGAVI
85 . MR. SOMAPPAKADAKOL
S/O SRI. BHIMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
86 . MR. SIDDALINGAREDDY
S/O SRI. SHARANAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE SUB DIVISION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
87 . MS. SUREKHA
D/O SRI. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, NHAI
KALABURAGI
88 . MR. G. SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O SRI. G. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKINGA AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
89 . MR. HOTEL SIVAPPA
S/O SRI. HOTEL GADILINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGAR URBAN DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAMANAGAR
-
38
90 . MR. BALARAMLAMANI
S/O SRI. VACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS DISTRICT OFFICER
FOR BACKWARD WELFARE
BAGALKOTE
91 . DR. BASANTHI B.S.
D/O SRI. B.R. SARVAN SINGH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DIRECTORATE IT AND BT
BENGALURU
92 . MR. GANGAPPA M.
S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOTE SUB DIVISION
BAGALKOTE
93 . MR. KRISHNAKUMAR M.P.
S/O SRI. M. PUTTASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS
RAMANAGAR
94 . MR. RAGHU A.E.
S/O SRI. ESHWARACHAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
KUDALASANGAMA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KUDALASANGAMA
BAGALAKOT
95 . MR. RENUKA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU
-
39
96 . MR. ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
ETTINAHOLE PROJECT
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHNAKAR A/W
SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE,
SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE,
SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADVOCATE FOR R21, R24 & R32,
R39 & R41;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHNAKAR A/W
SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE,
SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADVOCATE FOR R53, R61, R64 &
R65;
SRI. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R14;
SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R37, R42 & R43;
SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAGARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7, R11, R12, R13, R15
& R16;
R95 & R96 -V/O 11.04.2022 D/W;
R3, R8, R9, R14, R15, R17, R18, R20, R23, R25, R28, R29,
R33, R35 TO R38, R40, R42 TO R89 ARE SERVED;
SRI. RANGANATH R., ADVOCATE FOR R47, R56 & R64;
SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ANUSHA, ADVOCATE FOR R34 & R40;
SRI. RANGANATH JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.12.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION Nos.6617 TO
6673/2019 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITIONS AND
ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.09.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-
40
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) These writ petitions are filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2021, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal" for short) dismissing Applications No.6617 to 6673 of 2019 filed by the petitioners.
2. We have heard Shri. Uday Holla, learned senior counsel as instructed by Advocate, Shri. Vivek Holla, Shri. P.S.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel as instructed by Advocates Shri. Srinivasa Murthy L.K., and Shri. K.S.Raghavendra, appearing for the petitioners, Shri. Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Shri. Vikas Rajipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents No.1 and 2, Shri. M.S.Bhagwat, learned Senior counsel as instructed by Advocate Shri. Satish K., and Shri. V.Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel as instructed by Advocate Smt.Anusha, appearing for the private respondents, Shri.
-
41 D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel as instructed by Advocates Shri.Abhishek Marla M.J., Shri.Kethan Kumar and Shri.Naveen Gudikote S. Shri. Ranganath Jois, Dr.Ravindra V. Reddy, Shri.Rajashekar, Shri.C.M.Nagabhushana, Shri.Nagarjuna and Shri.Ranganath R., learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
3. The facts leading to the present writ petitions are as follows:-
The petitioners, following the recruitment Notification dated 22.01.2015, issued by Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), applied for the post of Gazetted Probationers Group A and B. The petitioners were selected in terms of the selection list dated 30.06.2017. The appointment followed vide notification dated 16.09.2017. It appears that after their appointments, a Preliminary Gradation List was prepared, where the promotees to the post of Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), Class-A (Junior Scale) were shown as seniors to the petitioners based on the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016. The petitioners having come to know about it filed objection to
-42
the said list. The State on 31.08.2019 published a seniority list by following the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016. In terms of the impugned official memorandum, the State has finalized the seniority list applying the quota provided in the Rules to the cadre strength or number of posts deviating from the long standing procedure of vacancy based quota. As a consequence in terms of seniority, the petitioners were placed below 64 promotees.
The petitioners have also stated that on 14.05.2016 State brought an amendment to Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment), Rules, 1977 prescribing post based quota for State Civil Services and later the amendment was repealed/withdrawn on 20.11.2015. Thus, it is contended that the impugned Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 is illegal.
The seniority list and the official memorandum dated 23.03.2016 are questioned before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the petitions. Thus, the petitioners who
-
43 were the applicants before the Tribunal are before this Court.
4. Shri Uday Holla and Shri P.S. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following submissions and contentions:-
• That the determination of seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees within the Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), Class-A (Junior Scale) was initially governed by the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers, Class I and II posts appointment by Competitive Examinations Rules, 1966. The said Rules provided that the provisions of the Mysore State Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957 shall be applicable for the purpose of recruitment of probationers under the Rules.
• That the Mysore Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1957 provided for methods of recruitment, minimum qualification, period of probation etc., as indicated in the Schedule. In
-44
respect of Class I (Junior Scale) posts, 66 2/3rd percent of vacancies are to be filled by promotion by selection from Class II Officers and 33 1/3rd percent shall have to be filled by direct recruitment by competitive examination to be held by Public Service Commission. This was amended in the year 1977 by Karnataka Administrative Service (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules 1977, whereunder, Schedule to the 1957 Rules came to be amended and in respect of Class I (Junior Scale) posts, 50% of the vacancies were to be filled by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment.
• That the Apex Court in V.B. Badami & Ors. Vs. State of Mysore reported in (1976) 2 SCC 901, held that the seniority of direct recruits and promotees has to be reckoned on the basis of the quota as applied to the arising vacancies and that appointment in excess of quota cannot bestow seniority on promotees.
-45
• That following the said ruling, the respondent -
State issued an Official Memorandum on
05.07.1976, which inter alia provided as follows:-
"x x x x x
2. The general principles to be observed in working out the quota rule prescribed in the Rules of Recruitment are as follows:
(1) Where the Rules prescribe a quota between direct recruits and promotees, confirmation or substantive appointment can only be in clear vacancies in the permanent strength of the cadre.
(2) Confirmed persons are senior to those who are officiating.
(3) As between persons appointed in a officiating capacity, seniority is to be counted on the length of continuous service.
(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. (5) If promotes 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, the vacancies fall within their quota. If the promotes occupy any vacancies which are within the quota of direct recruits, when
-
46
direct recruitment takes place, the direct recruits will occupy the vacancies within their quota. Promotes 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 the quota rule remains, neither promotes 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. (7) Persons who were allotted to the new State under States Re-organisation Act are first to be accommodated within the permanent cadre strength and if they are in excess of the number, this excess has to be accommodated in the promotional vacancies.
3. While applying the general principles indicated in Para 2 to the State Service cadres other than the KAS, the following steps have to be taken:
(a) All appointments made by Government or under specific authority of Government either by direct recruitment or by promotion on or after 1st November 1956 but prior to the commencement of rules regulating recruitments to such cadres may be treated as regular.
(b) On the date of commencement of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, all vacancies which existed on that date and which arose after that date will have to be classified according to the proportion or quota prescribed for direct recruitment and promotion to a cadre in the Rules. If the cadre strength Notification shows only permanent posts, then this classification will have to be done only for such permanent posts but if the Notification shows both permanent and temporary posts, the classification will have to be done for both the posts taken together, in view of the
-47
provisions of Rule 14 of the General Recruitment Rules.
(c) If there have been any amendment to the cadre and Rules changing the quota of direct recruits and promotes the quota for the two sources will have calculated on the basis of amended provisions from the amendment came in to force.
(d) For purposes of classifying and calculating the vacancies between direct recruits and promotees on the basis of quota fixed in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, the period which will from a block will be from the date of commencement of the carder and recruitment Rules to the dates on which direct recruits were first appointed unless in the meanwhile, there was any amendment to the Rules, in which case the block will be the period commencing from the date of commencement of the rule to the date of amendment and thereafter from the date of amendment to the date of recruitment of direct recruits and the vacancies in both the blocks will have to be taken into account.
(e) After classifying the vacancies as indicated above, if on the date recruitment of direct recruits, the number of promotes actually occupying posts in a cadre is more than the number of vacancies calculated for promotes this excess number will have to be shown below the direct recruits who will occupy the posts classified for them immediately below the promotes who will occupy the posts meant for them. If the number of direct recruits is more than the number of direct recruitment vacancies available, then, the number so in excess will have to be accommodated in the next block of direct recruitment vacancies.
(f) In the second block, the excess number of promotes or direct recruits remaining from the first block should first be accommodated against the vacancies meant for them.
-
48 Thereafter, if promotions have been made before the second batch of direct recruits were appointed, such promotes will be placed against the promotional vacancies available to them. If no such promotions have been made, the direct recruits will be placed against the vacancies available for them and the promotes if they have been promoted after the date of the second direct recruitment will be placed below the direct recruits, to the extent of the promotional vacancies. This procedure should be followed for each subsequent block.
(g) After fixing the position of direct recruits and promotes in accordance with the above instructions, persons who were allotted to the new Stats and who are included in the final ISS list of a cadre as on 1st November 1956 should be confirmed permanent vacancies available on 1st November 1956 and in the promotional vacancies which occurred thereafter or in all the vacancies which occurred between 1st November 1956 and the date on which the Cadre and Recruitment Rules came into force such on formations may be made from an uniform date subject to the condition that they are liable to be reviewed if there are any changes in the final ISS list. Thereafter both direct recruits and promotes shall also be confirmed from an uniform date which shall be subsequent to the date of confirmation of the persons in the final ISS 1st and which confirmations shall also be subject to the same condition mentioned above.
(h) Direct recruits can be confirmed only from a date after the satisfactory completion of their period of probation. Promotes who were promoted after 17th January 1966 when rule 18(2) of the General Recruitment Rules came in to force, can be confirmed only after the satisfactory completion of their period of officiation of one year. Promotes who were promoted prior to 17th January 1966, can, however, be confirmed from the dates of their promotion.
-
49
(i) Where review of promotions based on the final ISS list has been completed under the Regulation of Pay, Promotion and pension Act, 1973, and the instructions issued there under, the position of direct recruits and promotes which has been fixed at present with reference to the dates of their appointment and promotion respectively, should be re-fixed in accordance with the above instructions. Where review of promotions has not been so completed, this review should be made after taking into account, the above instructions and the position of direct recruits and promotes fixed accordingly after the review.
4. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to determine the seniority of the direct recruits and promotes in the various cadres following the above principles." • That subsequently, in Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka and others (1987) (Supp) SCC 207, the Apex Court held that quota rules have to be strictly enforced and applied to the vacancies which arise in the cadre and the quota has to be observed by enforcing the carry forward rule. The ratio of Col.Iyer case that quota cannot be carried forward beyond three years was found to be totally inapplicable and it was reiterated that, the quota between direct recruits and promotees in all Class I junior scale
-
50
posts is to be enforced as against vacancies arising in the permanent cadre. Thereafter, another memorandum was issued on 14.12.1987 withdrawing the instructions issued from 04.05.1982 to 08.02.1985, and reiterating that seniority should be determined according to the established quota based on arising vacancies in the permanent cadre as provided in the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976.
• That on the basis of these regulations, on 22.01.2015, the respondent-State sought to fill 452 Gazetted Probationers positions via notification from the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC). The writ petitioners were selected by direct recruitment as KAS Class I (Junior Scale) Officers on 30.06.2017 and were appointed on 16.09.2017.
• That on 23.03.2016, the respondent - State revised the method for calculating quota for Direct Recruits and Promotees specifically for KAS
-
51
(Junior Scale), shifting from a vacancy-based to a post-based system. This change declared previously identified vacancies as lapsed and facilitated the promotion of 64 'Group-B' officers to KAS 'Group-A' (Junior Scale). Following their selection on 30.06.2017, the petitioners contested their seniority rights through objections to a provisional gradation list. However, on 20.09.2019, the respondent - State promoted the private respondents asserting that seniority determination would be based on total cadre strength rather than available clear vacancies. The petitioners subsequently filed applications before the Tribunal.
• That after considering the contentions advanced, the Tribunal found that the Official Memorandum was issued on 23.03.2016 i.e., on a date when the petitioners were not borne on the service. Further, it was found that the petitioners were appointed by direct recruitment only on
-
52
16.09.2017. The private respondents already stood promoted to KAS (Junior Scale) on 01.07.2017. The challenge to the Official Memorandum and provisional seniority list dated 31.08.2019 was raised only in the year 2019. The Tribunal therefore found that the challenge against the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 and the provisional seniority list prepared on the basis of the same was misconceived and dismissed the applications. • That the applications had been filed with the petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the same. The delay in filing the applications was condoned by the Tribunal. It is therefore contended that the non-suiting of the petitioners on the ground of delay was completely unjustified. It is further contended that it was only when a provisional seniority list was issued by the respondents in 2019 that the petitioners were adversely affected by the Official
-
53
Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 and it is only then that they had a cause of action to challenge the same. It is submitted that the petitioners had submitted their objections to the provisional seniority list dated 31.08.2019 disregarding which the private respondents were placed in independent charge of the higher posts under Rule 32. It is in the said circumstances, that the petitioners had approached the Tribunal on 16.11.2019, within less than three months of issuance of the provisional seniority list. It is further contended that in the light of the binding judgments of the Apex Court, the contention that the quota is to be applied to the cadre-strength cannot be accepted.
• That for nearly four decades, the respondent - State determined seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees based on vacancies in respective cadres and not total cadre-strength. In 2016, the respondent - State's shift to a total
-
54
cadre strength-based calculation, revision and abolition of the vacancy-based quota rule was illegal. The Tribunal has overlooked Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments in V.B. Badami's (supra), and Gonal Bihimappa's (supra), which led to official memorandums in 1976 and 1987 respectively, stipulating that quotas for Direct Recruits and Promotees should be based on clear vacancies in the permanent cadre strength. The Promotees occupying vacancies within the Direct Recruits quota must be reverted or absorbed in subsequent vacancies within their quota. The State violated these Official Memoranda with a memorandum dated 23.03.2016.
• That the official memoranda dated 05.07.1976 and 14.12.1987 remain in force and have not been withdrawn, making it improper for the respondent - State to issue a new memorandum abolishing the quota system and altering seniority determination to the detriment of Direct Recruits.
-
55
The Tribunal has overlooked that the KPSC called for applications based on 2014 vacancies under the earlier memoranda and the petitioners participated in this recruitment. During this process, the respondent - State issued memorandum dated 23.03.2016, abolishing the vacancy-based quota system and depriving the petitioners of their entitled benefits. This action was illegal. Since 1977, the State followed a vacancy-based quota system in line with Hon'ble Apex Court's dicta and there was no need to deviate from this procedure. The respondent - State's unilateral issuance of the memorandum dated 23.03.2016, without considering the rights of Direct Recruits, was contrary to law. • That the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976 mandates direct recruitment only to clear permanent vacancies, either existing or anticipated which guided the notification issued by the KPSC in 2014. The petitioners were
-
56 appointed to KAS Group-'A' (Junior Cadre) posts on 16.09.2017, pursuant recruitment notification issued on 22.01.2015 for 2014 vacancies. Unaware of the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016, the petitioners only learned of it upon their appointment and the issuance of a provisional gradation list on 03.04.2017. They filed objections for the same on 01.12.2017, but the respondent - State published another provisional gradation list on 31.08.2019 without addressing these objections. The petitioners approached the Tribunal after promotions were given to promotees, occupying vacancies meant for direct recruits, without delay or laches. The Tribunal has failed to note that no final gradation list was published before promotions were made, rendering the respondent - State's actions illegal. Additionally, the Tribunal also erred in holding that the petitioners had no rights as they were
-
57
not in the cadre when the 23.03.2016 memorandum was issued.
• That the application of the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 solely to KAS Group-'A' (Junior Scale) discriminates against this cadre, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the same yardstick was not applied to other cadres or departments. The Tribunal has also failed to acknowledge that the petitioners, who applied for 2014 vacancies under existing Official Memorandums, had a right to seek seniority from the date those vacancies arose, despite their appointments being subsequent. The Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976 stipulates that promotees occupying vacancies within the direct recruits' quota must make a way for direct recruits upon their appointment, indicating that direct recruits are entitled to seniority from the date, the vacancies arose. The Tribunal has erroneously held that the petitioners had no right
-
58
to seniority as they were not in the cadre when the 23.03.2016 memorandum was issued. In the present case, the vacancies for which the petitioners were appointed in the first place had arisen in the year 2014. Even though the petitioners were appointed in September 2017, they are entitled to claim seniority as of the year 2014.
• That the Tribunal has failed to recognize that the petitioners were aggrieved by the respondent - State's action of placing them below the promotees in the seniority list. According to the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976, the promotees occupying vacancies meant for direct recruits must give way once direct recruitment occurs and cannot claim rights to those posts. The petitioners were concerned with the determination of seniority, which placed them below private respondents despite occupying clear vacancies meant for direct recruits. The
-
59
Tribunal erred in holding that the objections raised by the petitioners were unsustainable under guideline No.5 of the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 and in asserting that the 50-50 quota was maintained without scope for overriding the direct recruits' quota. • That the documents, such as note sheets and file noting, produced by the petitioners, which demonstrated that the State's shift from a vacancy-based quota to a post-based quota was illegal, contrary to law to earlier executive orders and Hon'ble Apex Court's rulings. The Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 was issued at the behest of the Promotees and based on representations from the KAS Officers Association, without hearing the Direct Recruitees, making the decision illegal and is liable to be quashed. Additionally, an amendment to the Rules, prescribing a post-based quota, was repealed on 20.11.2015, restoring the vacancy-
-
60
based classification. Thus, the issuance of the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 was contrary to the Service Rules in force, subverting the State's own rules to achieve indirectly what it could not do directly.
• That on issuance of the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016; the KAS Junior Scale cadre strength was 315, with 33 officers in the direct recruitment quota and 93 in the promotional quota, leaving 189 vacancies in the direct recruitment quota. The respondent - State erred in declaring these vacancies as lapsed and promoting promotees to the direct recruitment quota without filling them. The Tribunal has also overlooked that the last direct recruitment occurred in June 2012 and according to the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in V.B. Badami's case (supra), the next block period should have been from 19.06.2012 to 16.09.2017, during
-
61
which 153 promotees and 56 direct recruits were appointed, violating the 50:50 quota rule.
5. In support of the above contentions, reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners on the following decisions:
• V.B. Badami and others v. State of Mysore reported in (1967) 2 SCC 901;
• Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (1987) (Supp) SCC 207;
• R. K Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745;
• M.S.L Patil v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1997) 1 SCC 766;
• K. Shekar v. Indiramma reported in (2002) 3 SCC 586;
• Coal India Ltd v. Ananta Saha reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142;
• Ajay Kumar Shukla and Others v. Arvind Rai and others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 1195;
• State of Punjab v. R.N. Bhatnagar (Dr) reported in (1999) 2 SCC 330;
-
62 • State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa reported in (1974) 1 SCC 19;
• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405; • M.R Vasuki v. Karnataka Electricity Board reported in ILR 1992 KAR 690;
• BahadursinhLakhubhaigohil v. Jagdishbhai M Kamalia reported in (2004) 2 SCC 65;
• E.V Chinnaih v. State of AP and others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 394;
• M V Dixit v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3802;
• Dr.Rajendra Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2001) 5 SCC 330;
• C Krishna Gowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (1988)2 SCC 615;
• State Of Karnataka v. Chikkabasavaih & Ors. reported in ILR 1981 KAR 518;
• R.K Sabharwal & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in(1995) 2 SCC 745;
• All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 384; • Satyadhyan Goshal & Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Anr. reported in AIR 1960 SC 941;
-
63 • UPSRTC v. State Of U.P., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 444;
• Rajashree Cement v. State Of Karnataka reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1356;
• M.G Maheswara Rao & Ors. v. State Of Karnataka & Ors. reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3848;
• M.V Dixit v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2004 Kar 3802;
• Vinod Verma v. Union of India reported in (2019) 20 SCC 576;
• Syed T.A. Naqshbandi v. State Of J&K, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 592;
• State Of Haryana, Etc.v. Shamsher Jang Bahadur, Etc., reported in (1972) 2 SCC 188; • C. I Verma v. State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1989 Supp (2) 437;
• Ajaya Kumar Das v. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 136;
• K Kuppusamy v. State Of T.N reported in (1998)8 SCC 469 and • Anil Ratan Sarkar v. State of W.B. & Ors. reported in (2001) 5 SCC 327.
-
64
6. Shri. Reuben Jacaob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Shri. Vikas Rajipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 elucidated the sequence of events leading to issuance of the Official Memorandum (O.M.) dated 23.03.2016. The KPSC's Notification for Gazetted Probationers Group 'A' & 'B' was issued on 22.01.2015 followed by the Official Memorandum on 23.03.2016, the final selection list on 30.06.2017 and appointment orders on 16.09.2017. He further submitted that the Official Memorandum was not issued hastily, but rather as a necessary response to delays in recruitment. He emphasized the distinction between direct recruitment and promotional vacancies as governed by the Cadre & Recruitment Rules, asserting that the impugned Official Memorandum aligns with the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1995 SC 1371), which acknowledges that only 30% of promotee officers were appointed due to delays, thus necessitating the Official Memorandum to rectify
-
65 administrative anomalies. Furthermore, the learned Additional Advocate General argued that the applicants lacked locus standi, as they were not appointed to the cadre at the time the Official Memorandum was issued and therefore, had no legal grounds to contest it. He noted that the applicants failed to challenge the promotion orders of private respondents, which also warranted the dismissal of their applications. He reinforced that the Official Memorandum was grounded in legal precedent and maintained that Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality and does not extend to claims of equality arising from illegality. Thus, the principles of lawful administration necessitate that any irregularities should not lead to claims of unjustified equal treatment.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the relevant Recruitment Rules with regard to Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), Class-A (Junior Scale), are as follows:-
• The Mysore Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1957 - the relevant entry in the schedule is (b) All Class-I (Junior Scale posts) were the
-66
method of appointment provided is that 66 and 2/3rd per cent of the vacancies to be filled by promotion by selection from Class II Officers and 33 and 1/3rd per cent were direct recruitment by competitive examination to be held by the Public Service Commission.
• The Rule was amended in the year 1977 by the Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1977, where under the ratio was amended as 50% of the vacancies to be filled up by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment.
• Thereafter, the said Rules were amended by the Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1994. The Schedule was amended and the relevant entry at Sl.No.(b) of the Schedule was substituted as Sl.No.(c) - KAS Group-A (Junior Scale).
• Thereafter, the said Rule was amended as per Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2001, wherein a proviso was inserted in Column (2) of Sl.No.(c) of the Schedule relating to KAS Group-A (Junior Scale).
-
67
• Thereafter, the said Rule was amended as per Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, wherein existing Table-1 and Table-2 inserted vide 1994 amendment were omitted and new cadre strength table and entries in the Schedule were inserted. The relevant entry relates to Sl.No.(b) of the Schedule KAS Group-A (Junior Scale).
8. Shri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents contended that the applicants, who were appointed as KAS Group-'A' (Junior Scale) on 16.09.2017, had no standing to claim rights under policies established prior to their induction into the cadre. The learned senior counsel referenced the judgments in P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General reported in (2003)2 SCC 632 and Union of India vs. Pushparani reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, to assert that individuals not yet part of a cadre cannot claim rights based on policies enacted before their entry. Further addressing the second prayer concerning seniority, it is submitted that seniority should be determined based on the actual entry date into the cadre rather than the date of vacancy creation. The
-
68 learned senior counsel by referring the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. N.R. Paramar reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340 and K. Megchander Singh & Ors. vs. Nigam Siro & Ors., reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689, argued that established jurisprudence supports the principle that seniority is linked to the date of service entry.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents contended by referring to the ruling in S.S. Balu vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479, of Hon'ble Apex Court, asserting that delay defeats equity and precludes relief for those who are indecisive. He contended that the respondent - State promoted individuals from KAS (Junior Scale) to KAS (Senior Scale) on 19.08.2021.
10. Shri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the party respondents brought to our notice an amendment brought about to the Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules on 20.04.1995 by Karnataka Administrative Services Amendment Rules,
-
69 1994. The amendment provided that the appointment to KAS Group-A Junior Scale shall be 50% by direct recruitment in accordance with Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers appointment by Competitive Examination Rules, 1966 and 50% by promotion from the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-1. It is contended that the finding of the Apex Court in V.B. Badami's case (supra), and Gonal Bihimappa's case (supra), was specifically with reference to the rule position that existed at the relevant time i.e., that the quota was to be applied as against arising vacancies. It is contended that with the Amendment Rules, 1994, the concept of applying the quota in respect of KAS Class-1 Junior Scale to arising vacancies stood specifically omitted and therefore, the quota could be applied as against the fixed cadre strength or the arising vacancies as the State found fit. It is submitted that after 1995, the practice of applying the quota to the arising vacancies was being followed only on the strength of the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976 and 14.12.1987 and not on the basis of the Rules as contended by the
-
70 petitioners. It is therefore urged that the Government had the absolute power and the jurisdiction to issue another executive order amending the method of applying the quota since there was no prescription contained in the Rules. Therefore, the contentions urged by the petitioners that the prescription of Official Memorandum dated 10.03.2016 that the quota has to be applied as against the fixed cadre strength is against the provisions in the Rules is completely fallacious and all that has been done is to change the mode of application of the quota fixed by executive orders by another executive order, which is perfectly permissible.
11. It is further argued that the applications are not maintainable both factually and legally by relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in The State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties reported in (2009) 8 SCC 46. It is also contended that the Official Memorandum (O.M.) dated 23.03.2016 is based on precedents set up by V.B. Badami's (supra) and Gonal Bihimappa's (supra), clarifying that Clause (4) of the Official Memorandum does not violate seniority rules but addresses unfilled vacancies
-
71 within quotas, treating them as a shortfall. The Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 resolved the longstanding seniority dispute between promotees and direct recruits by establishing a strict 50% quota for each category, thereby preventing any future transgressions.
12. It is contended that promotions granted to certain private respondents remained unchallenged until 2021, reinforcing the notion that the applicants lack standing to contest the quota rule or the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 as they were not part of the institution at that time. It is highlighted that the applicants have no right to question Cabinet proceedings or communications between the Law Department and Cabinet members regarding the issuance of the Official Memorandum which was thoroughly deliberated and approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 17.03.2016. It is also contended that there is no legal infirmity in issuing this Official Memorandum, countering claims that the impugned order is arbitrary or illegal and asserting that the Government possesses the authority to
-
72 issue such memoranda in accordance with established guidelines and the Hon'ble Apex Court rulings.
13. In support of their contentions, they relied on the following decisions:
• R. K. Sabharwaland Others v. The State of Punjab and Others reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745;
• V. Lakshmikanthan and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in 2018 (12) SCC 43;
• K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395;
• Dr Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 103;
• B. S. Murthy and Others v. Α. Ravinder Singh and Others reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 317;
• Suraj Prakash Gupta and Others v. The State of J&K and Others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 561;
• Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v. T. T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108;
-73
• Rai Sahib Ram Jawariya Kapur and Others v. The State of Punjab reported in 1955 SCC OnLine SC 14;
• Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (1974) 4 SCC 788;
• D. P. Das v. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 115;
• R. S. Raghunath v. The State of Karnataka and Another reported in (1992) 1 SCC 335;
• Smt. Gouramma v. The Deputy Commissioner and Others in Writ Petition No. 100101/2024 Decided on 29.07.2024;
• Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715;
• S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 3 SCC 399;
• G.K. Dudani v. S.D. Sharma, reported in (1986) (Supp) SCC 239;
• Narender Chadha v. Union of India, reported in (1986) 2 SCC 157;
• State of Uttarakhand v. S.K. Singh, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 49;
-
74 • K. Jagadeesan v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 228;
• Sitaram Jivyabhai Gavali v. Ramjibhai P. Mahala, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 262;
• Dharangadhra Chemical Works v.
Dharangadhra Municipality, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 92;
• Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 631;
• State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 389;
• Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 725;
• N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 308;
• G.S. Lamba v. Union of India, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 604 and • A. Janardhana v. Union of India, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 601.
14. On being confronted with the amendment of the year 1994, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 does not refer to Rules and does not state that
-
75 because the word 'vacancy' has been removed, there is a lapsing of the unfilled quota of direct recruitment. Further, the Official Memorandum specifies that lapsing occurs only up to that date and the annexure specifies that "the vacancies arising in future should be filled in accordance with the quota from which it occurred viz. if a direct recruit in this cadre is promoted or he/she retires then that vacancy shall be filled by direct recruitment. If a promotee in this cadre is promoted or he/she retires then that vacancy shall be filled by promotion". The implication of this is that the Official Memorandum is a one-time measure. Government does not have such power to issue such as Official Memorandum as a one-time measure. Therefore, the contention that there has been lapse of the unfilled quota of direct recruitment is wholly untenable.
Government has issued a Government Order dated 06.09.2007 as per which action should be taken to fill up direct recruitment vacancies through direct recruitment. The preamble to this Government Order indicates the reason why direct recruitment vacancies should continue to be filled
-
76 up by direct recruits and states that this is to attract and get young generation employees with higher qualifications (direct recruits) along with experienced employees (promotees). It was to be a blend of youth and experience. The Government Order has not been superseded. Further, it is contended that Government Order shall stand on a higher pedestal than an Official Memorandum.
It is further contended that Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 applies to all recruitments to all State services and to all posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and to members of all State Civil Services and to holders of posts, whether temporary or permanent. Rule 17 of the said Rules provides for appointment by direct recruitment and by promotion and stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Rules of recruitment specifically made in respect of any service or posts, the appointing authority may: (a) fill up direct recruitment vacancy be filled by promotion when it is specified that persons eligible to be considered for promotion are not fit to
-
77 be so promoted and (b) fill by promotion a vacancy required to be filled by direct recruitment when such vacancy is not likely to last more than one year. Further, the note to this rule specifies that save as provided in clause (b), no promotion shall be made against a direct recruitment vacancy.
In the light of the note to Rule 17, it is contended that no promotion can be made against the direct recruitment vacancy and therefore there is no question of quota for direct recruitment lapsing. It is further urged that the State Civil Service must attract younger generation and there must be an amalgam of youth (with newer ideas) and experience. That is possible only when 50% vacancies for direct recruitment is maintained and is not permitted to be lapsed."
15. We have considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. We have also noticed the ratio in the judgments cited. We notice that the Apex Court in V.B. Badami's case (supra), has specifically considered the Rule position that existed at the relevant time and held that
-
78 where rules prescribed quota between direct recruits and promotees, confirmation and substantive appointment can only be in respect of clear vacancies in the permanent strength of the cadre. It was also held that the promotees cannot claim any right to hold the promotional posts unless vacancies fall within their quota. It was also found that in the light of the Mysore Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1957 and the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966 the quota is to be applied as against the existing or arising vacancies in the permanent cadre strength. The said decision was in the year 1976. Though an attempt was made to differ from the position as settled in V.B. Badami's case (supra), by this Court in the case of M.G. Kadali v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1982 KAR 1413, the Apex Court in Gonal Bihimappa's case (supra), again held that a deviation from the quota rule, by itself cannot lead to any inference of breaking down of the quota and that the quota has to be applied as against vacancies arising in the permanent cadre.
-
79
16. The application of quota as against the arising vacancies was on the basis of the Rules enumerated as items (a) and (b) hereinabove. The Rules have admittedly undergone an amendment in the year 1995. Though it appears that the amendment of 1995 and it's effect were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal by any of the parties, it is now not disputed before us that such an amendment did occur in the Rules.
17. The text of the amendment as far as it is relevant is as follows:-
"3. Amendment of Schedule.- In the Schedule to the Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1957 for the entries relating to the category of posts of,-
(i) All Class-I (Senior Scale) Posts at serial number (a), the following shall be deemed to have been substituted, with effect from 30th July, 1992, namely:-
(a) Κ.A.S. By promotion from the For promotion:- Must
(Selection cadre For of K.A.S. have put in a service of
Grade) not less than Thirteen
Group-A (Senior Scale) years in the cadre of K.A.S. Group-A (Senior Scale) and K.A.S. (Group-A) (Junior Scale)"
(b) K.A.S. By promotion from the For promotion:- Must Group-A cadre of KAS Group-A have put in not less than (Senior (Junior Scale) five years of service in Scale) the cadre of KAS Group-A (Junior Scale)".
-
80
OR By posting of an IAS Officer, OR By posting of an Officer from any other State Civil Services.
(ii) All Class-I (Junior Scale) posts at serial number (b), the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"(c) KAS (i) 50 percent by direct For promotion:- Must Group-A recruitment in accordance have put in a service of (Junior with the Karnataka not less than Eight years Scale) Recruitment of Gazetted in the cadre of Tahsildar Probationers (Appointment Grade-I and Tahsildar by Competitive Examination) Grade-II of which not Rules, 1966 and, less than one year shall in the cadre of Tahsildar
(ii) 50 percent by promotion Grade-I".
from the cadre of Tahsildar Grade-I
18. The amendment of the year 1995 has introduced a change as indicated above. On a reading of the amended provision, it is clear that the concept of applying the ratio as against arising vacancies as far as the post of KAS Class-I Junior Scale is concerned has been omitted by the amendment of 1995. If that be so, the application of the ratio as against the arising vacancies after 1995 was based on the Official Memorandum issued by the Government in 1976 and 1987, respectively. Having noticed this, the State
-
81 appears to have given effect to the amended Rules as amended in 1995 by issuing the Official Memorandum on 23.03.2026. There is therefore, no question of amendment of the Rules by an executive order or Office Memorandum. All that has been done by the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 is to provide that the ratio would be applicable to the fixed cadre strength in future. The said Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016, (though not specifically referring to 1995 amendment) prescribes the mode of operation of the quota, which syncs with the 1995 amendment. At best, it amends the mode of operation of the quota as has been fixed by the earlier Official Memoranda of 1976 and 1987, respectively. As long as the official memorandum dated 23.03.2016 does not violate the 1995 amendment, it cannot be said that the State has no power to issue the said Official memorandum as it does not violate any other law. The judgments in Badami and Gonal Bhimappa supra, are rendered before the 1995 amendment. The scope and effect of the 1995 amendment never came
-
82 up for discussion in any of the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners.
19. The prescription of qualifications, methods of appointment by framing Cadre and Recruitment Rules, amending the Rules and by issuance of executive instructions are matters which come within the purview of the Legislature, or the Executive Authority of the State Government, whenever same is authorized under law. The Constitutional Courts have no role in the matter of prescription of such conditions of service of State Government employees. The question of discrimination also does not arise in the matter since the power to prescribe qualifications and methods of appointment, taking note of the needs of the service is absolute and is vested in the State. We are therefore unable to accept the contention that there was any illegality in the issuance of the Original Memorandum dated 23.03.2016, as contended.
20. In the instant case, the Government in exercise of its admitted power had attempted an amendment to the Rules in 1997 and thereafter withdrawn it. However, in view
-
83 of the settled position that it is perfectly within the power of the State to amend existing rules relating to method of appointment to different posts taking note of ground realities and policy decisions, the fact that a general amendment to the Rules was proposed in 1997 but was later withdrawn also will not be a reason to hold that the prescription by an executive order that the quota is to be applied to the cadre strength is invalid.
21. We further notice that the Notification was published in the year 2015 to fill up vacancies, which according to the petitioners were available from 2014 onwards. The existence of the vacancies on their notification cannot give any vested right to persons participating in a selection process to contend that the quota as was being operated as on the date of the notification must be continued in the matter of fixation of their seniority as well.
22. The Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 reads as follows:-
"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No.DPAR 557 SRR 2015 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
-84
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, dated:23.03.2016 Official Memorandum Sub:Filling up of the K.A.S. (Junior Scale) posts by post based classification instead of vacancy based classification- reg'
-----
The State Government has issued guidelines in O.M.No.DPAR 48 SSR 75, dated: 5.7.76 and O.M.No. DPAR 43 SSR 87, dated:
14.12.1987 for calculating the quota to be filled by direct recruitment and promotion as prescribed in the respective Cadre and Recruitment rules based on vacancies.
The Government has decided to revise the method of calculating the quota for Direct Recruitment and Promotion in K.A.S junior scale. Accordingly, the following guidelines are issued:
(1) The number of posts to be filled by direct recruitment and by promotion shall be determined and appointment shall be made, based on the total cadre strength of K.A.S. Junior Scale depending upon the quota prescribed in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules.
(2) The appointments, either by direct recruitment or by promotion shall be made against the percentage or number of posts determined for the respective quota.
(3) Direct recruits shall be appointed against the number of posts determined for the direct recruitment quota and the promotees shall be appointed against the number of posts determined for the promotional quota. As long as the quota rule remains, neither direct recruits can be appointed against posts in promotional quota nor promotees can be appointed against posts in direct recruitment quota.
(4) The unfilled quota calculated and treated as shortfall, either in favour of direct recruits or in favour of promotees, according to the rules of recruitment in force prior to this date shall lapse. The posts which may be filled after commencement of the said amendment rules shall be so filled after determining the share of the quota strictly according to these rules from the source against which they are reckoned.
Provided that, unfilled backlog of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, if any, in direct recruitment and for Schedule Caste /Schedule Tribes in promotion shall not lapse and shall be filled within the quota earmarked for direct recruitment and promotion respectively.
-
85
(5) When a direct recruit vacates the post in direct recruitment quota, it shall be filled by direct recruitment only. Similarly, when a promotee vacates the post in promotional quota, it shall be filled by promotee only.
(6) In exceptional circumstances, due to exigencies of administration and for reasons to be recorded in writing, independent charge arrangements may be made against direct recruitment posts. As soon as the direct recruitment is done the independent charge arrangement shall be withdrawn. The service rendered against such independent charge arrangements neither counts for seniority nor gives any right for promotion to the incumbent against the post in which he is placed in independent charge.
(7) The provisions of this Official Memorandum shall apply prospectively to the direct recruitments and promotions made on and after this date and shall not apply to the seniority determined and the seniority lists finalized prior to this date and therefore they shall not be altered.
23. It is trite law that where there is no specific prescription in the Rules, the Government, exercising its power under Article 164 of the Constitution of India is empowered to issue Government Orders, Executive Directions or Official Memoranda which are not in conflict with Statutes or the Rules in force. If the mode of applying the ratio either against the arising vacancies or the fixed cadre strength is not provided either by the general rules or the cadre and recruitment rules for the posts in question, then, there is no embargo as against the State Government
-
86 issuing Official Memorandum clarifying as to how the quota is to be applied.
24. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there was no illegality in the exercise of issuance of Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016. In the light of the amendment effected to the Rules, the State has the power to issue the Official Memorandum in the manner in which it is issued. The 1995 amendment not being challenged, petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as sought for by them. The writ petitions therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, in both the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE cp*