Karnataka High Court
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vs State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2024
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.7775 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
OFFICER AND EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION
HAVING OFFICE AT CENTRAL OFFICE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
A.AMRUTHARAJ
S/O LATE ANANDA RAJ
AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560002
2
3. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, AAG A/W
SRI V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO APPROVAL
OF THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (GENERAL
CADRE AND RECRUITMENT OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES)
RULES 2018 AS ULTRAVIRES OF SECTIONS 82, 84, 89 AND 69
OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AND RULE 26
OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RULES VIDE
ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION DATED 16.03.2020
PUBLISHED ON 17.03.2020.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.09.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
The captioned petition is by the officer and employees
of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)
assailing the constitutional validity of Rule 4(a) of BBMP
(General Cadre and Recruitment of Officers and Employees)
Rules, 2018 (for short 'the 2018 Rules').
3
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Respondent No.1/State published a draft of the 2018
Rules. The petitioner/Association filed its objections to the
said draft that lead to constitution of committee by
respondent No.1/State to examine the objections tendered.
Petitioner/Association is aggrieved by the approval of the
draft by the respondent No.1/State. Petitioner contends
that Rule 4(a) of Cadre and Recruitment of Officers and
Employees is not in conformity with the provisions of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) and
is ultra vires to the provisions of Sections 82, 84, 89 and 69
of the KMC Act. Petitioners are aggrieved on the ground
that their objections were not properly examined by the
committee before approving the draft of the 2018 Rules.
3. Learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds
urged in the petition has vehemently argued and contended
that as on the date of filing of this petition, KMC Act was
4
still holding the field. He has placed reliance on Section 84
of the KMC Act, 1976. Referring to Section 84, it is argued
that the impugned legislation more particularly Rule 4(a) of
Rules, 2018 clearly contravenes the statutory scheme more
particularly Section 84 of the KMC Act, 1976. He has cited
Section 82 of KMC Act to indicate that the State has already
appointed its officers to the municipal corporations.
Similarly, he has also cited Section 83 of the KMC Act
vesting power on the State to appoint officers from
Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service. Referring to
Section 86 of KMC Act, he would point out that it clearly
deals with the power of the State to appoint Special Health
Officers. Referring to this Section, he would contend that
pending consideration of the captioned petition, BBMP Act,
2020 is enacted with effect from 11.01.2021. Referring to
Chapter VI of the BBMP Act, he would contend that said
Chapter regulates the appointment and conditions of
service of Corporation Officers. Referring to Section 375(1)
5
of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Act,
2020 and Sections 97 and 98 under Chapter VI, he would
point out that State can depute its officers from other
departments of State Civil service to BBMP in certain
cadres. Referring to Section 106 of BBMP Act, he would
vehemently argue and contend that municipal governance,
Bengaluru exclusively vests with the BBMP and the
Corporation is vested with the powers as indicted in the Act
and also perform such functions and discharge duties as
prescribed by and under the Act.
4. Referring to this multiple sections of KMC Act
and BBMP Act, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently
argued and contended that the entire scheme does not
provide for government as an appointing authority in
respect of any cadre or office, particularly in respect of
Group A posts.
6
5. Countering the States arguments and judgments
cited in its support, learned Senior Counsel would point out
that the statement of objections does not spell out the
source from which State Government gets power to appoint
Group A posts. He would further point out that the State is
not vested with power and the same is not expressly
provided under the Statute and therefore, State could not
have created authority in itself while framing Rules and
thereby reserving right to recreate Group A posts.
Referring to Section 69 of KMC Act, 1976, he submitted that
the said Section needs to be read harmoniously and Section
105 should not be rendered otiose and therefore, requires
harmonious construction. Referring to the material on
record, he would further contend that if State Government
has to be an appointing authority in respect of Group A
post, it would have expressly provided for such power in
terms of Sections 97 and 98 of BBMP Act. He would
vehemently argue and contend that said factual matrix is
7
conspicuously absent in the BBMP Act enabling the State
Government to be the appointing authority and therefore,
he would contend that the State Government cannot itself
designate as an appointing authority for Group A posts
while framing cadre and recruitment rules.
6. While countering States arguments that there is
no analogous provision for Section 84 of KMC Act, learned
Senior Counsel has persuaded this Court to take cognizance
of Sections 69 and 105 read with provisions contemplated
under Sections 97 and 98 indicating that powers are
conferred on the Government where it can make
appointments while residuary powers are vested in the
Chief Commissioner or the Corporation as the case may be.
Referring to these significant details, learned Senior
Counsel would point out that under the garb of framing
cadre and recruitment rules, the State could not have
designated itself as an appointing authority to Group A
posts.
8
7. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend
that the challenge to Rule 4(a) of 2018 Rules is not on the
ground of implementational difficulties but on fundamental
principles of same being contrary to specific provisions
which excludes the power of the State in making
appointments except in respect of posts covered under
Section 97 and 98. Learned Senior Counsel though
acknowledges that there is a presumption regarding validity
of a subordinate legislation, however, he would point out
that the same is subject to exception that legislation cannot
be in violation of Statute under which it is made. While
referring to the Sections stated supra, it is argued that
though Statute itself provides that the category of posts for
which State Government can make appointments and vests
general power of administration, the State being the Rule
making authority has to only formulate the recruitment
rules thereby regulating the manner in which powers of
appointment can be exercised by the officers and
9
authorities constituted under the KMC Act, 1976 or BBMP
Act, 2020 and while doing so, cannot usurp itself the power
to appoint. It is in this background, learned Senior Counsel
would contend that Rule 4(a) under challenge completely
militates against the scheme of KMC Act and the provisions
of BBMP Act, particularly Sections 97 and 98 investing the
power on the State to make specified appointments, while
all other appointments is vested with the BBMP under the
BBMP Act.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State reiterating the grounds urged in the
statement of objections and also written submissions has
argued that there is no procedural irregularity in framing
the impugned Rule. He would contend that although BBMP
Cadre and Recruitment Rules are framed acting under
Section 91 of KMC Act, the said Rules would be saved
notwithstanding the repeal of the KMC Act. Reliance is
placed on Section 376 of BBMP Act to ensure that the same
10
saves inter alia all Rules framed under KMC Act. While
countering petitioner's claim and challenge to States Rules
making power under Section 105 of BBMP Act, learned AAG
would vehemently argue and contend that petitioners have
selectively relied only upon Section 105(1)(a) of BBMP Act.
He has also placed reliance on Section 105(1)(c) to
demonstrate that State is specifically authorized to make
rules to regulate appointments. Placing reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
K.Ramanathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu1, it is argued
that the authority authorized to frame rules for the purpose
of regulating appointment is unable to frame rules for all
matters concerned with appointment and not merely
incidental to the said subject. He would emphasize on the
phrase "necessary for the purpose of regulating the
appointment and conditions of service". Referring to these
phrase, learned AAG would indicate that there is wide scope
of rule-making power qua appointment.
1
1985 (2) SCC 116
11
9. Learned AAG emphasizes on the word
"necessary" which was subjected to interpretation by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai
Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported2, he would argue
that Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted the word
"necessary" which means indispensable, requisite,
indispensably requisite, useful, incidental, conducive
essential. Therefore, he would contend that the use of term
"necessary" under Section 105(1)(c) reveals the Rule
making power under the said provision indicating that it
does not only extend to matters that are essential for
regulation of appointment but citing the above said Section,
he would contend that States authority to designate
appointing authority is a fundamental, indispensable,
essential facet of regulating appointment. Placing reliance
on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation vs. Sanjay
2
2008 (4) SCC 114
12
Gajanan Gharat3, he would highlight the interpretation of
Section 69 of BBMP Act as against Section 105 i.e., KMC
Act. Referring to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above said judgment, he would contend
that it is trite that Statute must be read as a whole and
interpretation of one provision which renders another
provision otiose must be rescued.
10. Countering petitioner's claim, he would
vehemently argue and contend that ancillary provisions of
BBMP Act relating to appointment have been duly given
effect to by way of BBMP Cadre and Recruitment Rules.
Therefore, he would contend that Rule 4(a) by no means
seeks to introduce a system of direct appointment in
respect of the posts identified under Sections 97 or 98 of
BBMP Act. It is argued that said posts continue to be filled
up by way of deputation as evident from Schedule-I of
BBMP Rules. Referring to the scheme of BBMP Act, he
3
2022 SCC Online SC 385
13
would point out that it is permissive of a high degree of
control over BBMP since BBMP is an instrumentality of the
State. Placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board vs. B.Heera Naik4, he has argued that City
councils and municipal corporations are covered under the
said Act. Corporations covered under the said Act are in
fact controlled by the State Government and they are
almost entirely dependent financially on the State
Government and therefore, he would contend that it is
permissible to restrain the power of appointment of Group A
posts so as to exert certain degree of control by the State
Government on these local authorities. He would further
contend that exercise of control of State Government in the
matter of appointment in BBMP is manifested in the BBMP
Act itself. Reliance is placed on Sections 100 and 102 of
BBMP Act. Therefore, it is argued that Rule 4(a) of Cadre
and Recruitment Rules by no means usurp the power of
4
(2020) 16 SCC 298
14
supervision and control vested with the Chief Commissioner
of BBMP.
11. Learned AAG would persuade this Court not to
grant any indulgence to the petitioner on the ground that
the impugned Rules is reflective on the policy decision of
the State Government. Citing the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu
vs. P.Krishnamoorthy5, he would contend that the Apex
Court has laid down parameters on judicial review.
Referring to the said judgment, it is also argued that there
is a presumption in favour of constitutional validity of
subordinate legislation and therefore, it is contended that
there is no material placed on record by the petitioner to
substantiate that respondent No.1/State lacks legislative
competency in framing Rule 4(a) thereby reserving the
right to appoint the post of Group A.
5
(2006) 4 SCC 517
15
12. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
and learned AAG for the respondent/State. This Court has
given its anxious consideration to the judgments cited by
counsels appearing for the parties.
13. The petitioner challenges the validity of Rule
4(a) of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2018, approved
by the respondent/State. The petitioner argues that this
Rule, which designates the State as the appointing
authority for Group A posts, contradicts the KMC Act and
the BBMP Act.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
Rule 4(a) is ultra vires of the provisions of Sections 82, 84,
89, and 69 of the KMC Act. According to the petitioner, the
KMC Act and the BBMP Act do not provide for the State
Government to appoint officers to Group A posts. The
petitioner refers to Sections 97 and 98 of the BBMP Act to
argue that the appointing authority for such posts should be
16
the Chief Commissioner or other officers, and not the State.
The petitioner asserts that their objections to the draft rules
were not thoroughly examined by the committee
constituted to review them. The petitioner emphasizes the
need for a harmonious reading of Section 69 of the KMC Act
with Section 105, so that the State cannot be the
appointing authority for Group A posts. The argument is
made that since the BBMP Act does not explicitly give the
State the power to appoint officers to such posts, it cannot
confer that power upon itself through subordinate
legislation. The petitioner acknowledges the presumption of
the validity of subordinate legislation but argues that this
presumption does not apply when the rule violates the
parent statute.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that
the BBMP is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore,
a certain degree of control, including over appointments, is
justified. They contend that the BBMP Act and Rules provide
17
for such control and that there is no violation of the KMC or
BBMP Acts in Rule 4(a).
16. According to the State, posts under Sections 97
and 98 continue to be filled by deputation, as reflected in
Schedule-I of the BBMP Rules. They argue that the State's
role in appointments is consistent with the scheme of the
BBMP Act, which envisions a high degree of State oversight.
The respondent also references the Supreme Court's
judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. P. Krishnamoorthy
(supra), stating that there is a presumption in favour of the
constitutional validity of subordinate legislation. They urge
the Court to refrain from interfering with the policy decision
of the State in framing these recruitment rules.
17. In the light of arguments advanced by the
parties, this Court will have to determine whether Rule 4(a)
of the 2018 Rules violates the statutory framework of the
KMC Act and the BBMP Act by vesting appointing authority
18
for Group A posts in the State. A key issue is whether the
State, in exercising its rule-making power, has overstepped
the provisions of the parent Statutes. The Court will also
need to examine the extent of State control permissible
under these Acts, and whether the State's authority to
frame cadre and recruitment rules justifies it assuming the
role of the appointing authority for such posts. The Court
must also weigh the principle of judicial review, as outlined
in State of Tamil Nadu vs. P. Krishnamoorthy (supra),
particularly the presumption of constitutional validity of
subordinate legislation unless clear evidence of statutory
violation is presented.
18. Before this Court delves further, it would be useful
to extract the relevant provisions of the BBMP Act and KMC
Act. The same are extracted in the table as under:
BBMP Act KMC Act
64(5) Subject, whenever it is in this 64(1) (a) perform all the duties and
Act expressly so directed, to the exercise all the powers specifically
approval or sanction of the imposed or conferred upon him by or
corporation or the standing under this Act or by any other law for
19
committee concerned and subject the time being in force;
also to all other restrictions,
limitations and conditions imposed by
this Act or by any other law for the
time being in force, the executive
power for the purpose of carrying out
the provisions of this Act and of any
other law for the time being in force
which imposes any duty or confers
any power on the corporation shall
vest in the Chief Commissioner, who
shall also, (a) perform all the duties
and exercise all the powers
specifically imposed or conferred
upon him by or under this Act or by
any other law for the time being in
force;
69. Control over Corporation 69. Control over Corporation
establishment.- Subject to the establishment.- Subject to the
provisions of this Act, rules and provisions of this Act, rules and
regulations, the Chief Commissioner regulations, the Commissioner shall
shall specify the duties of persons specify the duties of persons borne
borne on the Corporation on the Corporation establishment and
establishment and exercise powers of exercise powers of supervision and
supervision and control over them control over them and decide all
and decide all questions relating to questions relating to their conditions
their conditions of service of service.
97. Appointment to certain posts 83. Appointment to certain posts
under the corporations to be made under the corporations to be made
from from Karnataka Municipal
Karnataka Municipal Administrative Administrative Service.- (1)
Service.- (1) Notwithstanding Notwithstanding
anything contained in anything contained in this Act or in
this Act or in any other law for the any other law for the time being in
time being in force such of the posts force
under the corporation such of the posts under every
as are included in the Karnataka corporation as are included in the
Municipal Administrative Service shall Karnataka
be filled by the Municipal Administrative Service shall
Government by appointment of be filled by the Government by
officers belonging to the Karnataka appointment of officers belonging to
Municipal Administrative the Karnataka Municipal
Service. Administrative
(2) Subject to the provisions relating Service.
to recruitment and conditions of (2) Subject to the provisions relating
service applicable to recruitment and conditions of
20
to them , the officers of the service applicable 1
Karnataka Municipal Administrative [to them]1
Service referred to in subsection (1) , the officers of the Karnataka
shall, for the period of their service Municipal
under the corporation, be governed Administrative Service referred to in
by the sub-section (1) shall, for the period of
provisions of this Act, the rules, the their service under the corporation,
regulations or the bye-laws framed be governed by the provisions of this
thereunder. Act, the rules, the regulations or the
(3) The Corporation shall contribute bye-laws framed thereunder.
such percentage of its revenues in 1. Substituted by Act 14 of 1990
such manner w.e.f. 2.4.1992 by notification. Text
and at such times as the Government of the
may by order determine, to meet the Notification is at the end of the Act.
expenditure in (3) Every corporation shall contribute
respect of salaries, allowances, such percentage of its revenues in
pension, provident fund, gratuities such manner and at such times as
and other necessary the Government may by order
expenses payable to the officers of determine,
the Karnataka Municipal to meet the expenditure in respect of
Administrative Service shall be salaries, allowances, pension,
made by the Commissioner under the provident fund, gratuities and other
corporation. necessary expenses payable to the
(4) If the Corporation fails to pay the officers of the Karnataka Municipal
amount required to be paid under Administrative Service referred to in
subsection (3), section 82 shall be made by the
the Government may direct the Commissioner under the corporation.
officer having custody of the (4) If the corporation fails to pay the
corporation fund to pay such amount required to be paid under
amount or so much thereof as is sub-section (3), the Government may
possible from the balance of the direct the officer having custody of
corporation fund in his thecorporation fund to pay such
hands. amount or so much thereof as is
possible from the balance of the
corporation fund in his hands.
98. Appointment of Engineer, Health 82. Appointment of Engineer, Health
Officer etc.- (1) The Government Officer etc.- (1) The
shall Government shall appoint for every
depute for the corporation such corporation such officers of the State
officers from the respective Civil Services as it considers suitable
departments of the State Civil to be the Engineer, Health Officer,
Services as it considers suitable to be Revenue Officer, Chief Accounts
the Engineer, Town Planner, Health Officer and Council Secretary for the
Officer, Revenue efficient functioning of the
Officer, Chief Accounts Officer and corporation and such officers shall be
Council Secretary for the efficient heads of
functioning of the their respective departments in the
21
corporation and such officers shall be corporation and they shall be
heads of their respective departments subordinate to the Commissioner.
in the corporation The Government may also appoint
and they shall be subordinate to the one
Chief Commissioner. The Government or more Deputy Commissioners and
may also depute Assistant Commissioners who shall
such number of Deputy exercise such powers and discharge
Commissioners and Assistant such functions as may be specified in
Commissioners, as may be required, the rules. They shall be subordinate
who shall exercise such powers and to the Commissioner.
discharge such functions as may be (2) The Government shall, in
prescribed in the consultation with the Mayor, appoint
rules. They shall be subordinate to an
the Zonal Commissioner. officer not below the rank of an
(2) The Government shall depute a Assistant Commissioner to be the
Chief Town Planner of the rank of the council
Director of secretary. The officer appointed shall
Town and Country Planning who shall be on deputation ordinarily for a
be subordinate to the Chief period of three years and if the
Commissioner and Zonal corporation by two thirds majority of
Town Planner at Zonal office not its
below the rank of Deputy Director of members so desire he shall be
Town and Country withdrawn earlier and another person
Planning and such other officers from appointed. It shall be the duty of the
the Department of Town and Country council secretary to attend every
Planning qualified meeting of the corporation and the
in Town and Country Planning who standing committees and he shall
shall be subordinate to the Zonal perform such other duties as are
Commissioner, to assist imposed on him by or under this Act.
the corporation in the matter relating (3) The officers appointed under sub-
to Town Planning. section (1) shall be whole-time
(3) The Government shall, in officers of the corporation and shall
consultation with the Mayor, appoint not undertake any work unconnected
an officer not with their offices.
below the rank of an Assistant (4) Every officer of the Government
Commissioner to be the council appointed under sub-sections (1)
secretary. The officer appointed and (2) shall be paid by the
shall be on deputation ordinarily for a corporation such salary as may be
period of three years and if the determined
corporation by two thirds by the Government from time to time
majority of its members so desire he which shall be met out of the
shall be withdrawn earlier and corporatrion fund and shall be
another person shall be entitled to leave and other privileges
appointed. It shall be the duty of the in
council secretary to attend every accordance with the rules and
meeting of the regulations applicable to the
corporation and the standing Government
22
committees and he shall perform service to which he belongs and in
such other duties as are force for the time being, and the
imposed on him by or under this Act. corporation shall make such
(4) The officers appointed under sub- contribution towards his leave,
section (1) shall be whole-time allowances,
officers of the pension and provident fund as may
corporation and shall not undertake
any work unconnected with their
offices.
100. Special appointments.- The 85. Special appointments.- The
Corporation may appoint,- corporation may appoint,-
(a) special health officers for the (a) special health officers for the
purpose of making investigations and purpose of making investigations and
proposing proposing preventive or remedial
preventive or remedial measures with measures with special reference to
special reference to the occurrence of the
any occurrence of any unusual mortality
unusual mortality or the prevalence or the prevalence or apprehended out
or apprehended out break of any break of any dangerous disease
dangerous within the city;
disease within the city; (b) engineers, architects or experts in
(b) engineers, architects or experts in town improvement or town
town improvement or town planning planning for the purpose of preparing,
for the executing or supervising any scheme
purpose of preparing, executing or of work undertaken by the
supervising any scheme of work corporation;
undertaken (c) special revenue officers for the
by the corporation; purpose of introducing a new tax or
(c) special revenue officers for the discharging any duty connected with
purpose of introducing a new tax or the revenue administration of the
discharging corporation:
any duty connected with the revenue Provided that,-
administration of the corporation: (i) no such special office shall be
Provided that,- created without the sanction of
(i) no such special office shall be the Government;
created without the sanction of the (ii) the period of duration of any such
Government; officer, the salary, the
(ii) the period of duration of any such allowances and the conditions of
officer, the salary, the allowances and service attaching thereto shall be
the fixed by
conditions of service attaching the corporation, subject to the
thereto shall be fixed by the sanction of the Government, and
corporation, shall not be
subject to the sanction of the varied without the like sanction.
Government, and shall not be varied
without
the like sanction.
23
19. In assessing the challenge to Rule 4(a) of the
Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2018, it is important to
consider the principles of judicial review in relation to
subordinate legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in State of Tamil Nadu vs. P. Krishnamoorthy (supra),
laid down the guiding parameters for Courts when
reviewing subordinate legislation. The Court emphasized
that there is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality
of such Rules, and unless there is a clear violation of the
parent Statute or the rule-making authority has acted
beyond its powers, Courts should refrain from interfering.
This presumption stems from the understanding that the
rule-making body, being familiar with the subject matter, is
best suited to determine the necessary regulatory
framework, and the judiciary should respect the autonomy
of the legislative and executive branches in policy matters.
20. The petitioner in the present case contends that
Rule 4(a) is ultra vires to the Karnataka Municipal
24
Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) and the Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Act, 2020, particularly pointing
to the absence of any express provision in these statutes
that allows the State to appoint officers to Group A posts.
The argument hinges on a technical reading of Sections 97
and 98 of the BBMP Act and various provisions of the KMC
Act, where the petitioner asserts that the appointing power
is vested exclusively in the Chief Commissioner or the
Corporation, not the State. However, the petitioner
overlooks the broader legislative scheme that allows the
State a certain degree of control over local bodies, such as
the BBMP, which functions as an extension of the State's
governance at the local level.
21. It is well-established that local bodies, such as
municipal corporations, are creations of the Statute and
derive their powers from the State Legislature. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board vs. B. Heera Naik (supra), observed that municipal
25
corporations, while enjoying a certain level of autonomy,
are still under the supervisory control of the State
Government. The Court highlighted that these bodies, being
financially dependent on the State for grants and funds, are
subject to the policy direction and control of the State,
especially in critical matters like recruitment and
administration. This control is necessary for the efficient
functioning of local bodies and to ensure that they serve the
public interest in alignment with State policy.
22. In the present case, Rule 4(a) aligns with this
principle of State oversight. The BBMP Act does not
explicitly exclude the State's role in the appointment of
certain posts, particularly in relation to Group A officers.
While Sections 97 and 98 of the BBMP Act outline specific
provisions for appointments, they do not preclude the State
from exercising control over significant appointments that
impact the functioning of the municipal corporation.
Furthermore, the petitioner's contention that Section 69 of
26
the KMC Act should be read harmoniously with other
provisions does not establish a clear legislative bar against
the State's involvement in appointments. The rule-making
power under the KMC Act and the BBMP Act empowers the
State to frame rules regarding recruitment and cadre
management, and the fact that the State has not explicitly
removed itself from the appointment process for Group A
posts reflects the legislative intent to maintain a
supervisory role.
23. It is crucial to recognize that Rule 4(a) of the
Cadre and Recruitment Rules does not create a new
appointing authority outside the legislative framework but
rather formalizes the State's role, which is already implicit
in the Acts governing local bodies like the BBMP. The
Court, while reviewing this subordinate legislation, should
give due regard to the principle that policy decisions,
especially those involving administrative control and
governance, fall within the realm of the executive. As held
27
in State of Tamil Nadu vs. P.Krishnamoorthy (supra),
judicial interference is warranted only when there is
manifest illegality or a clear conflict with the parent statute.
In the absence of such a conflict, Rule 4(a) must be seen as
a valid exercise of the State's rule-making power.
24. Additionally, the petitioner's argument that their
objections were not adequately considered by the
committee before finalizing the rules does not in itself form
a sufficient ground for striking down the rule. The
procedural aspects of how the objections were handled,
though relevant for administrative fairness, do not establish
that the rule violates statutory provisions. The committee's
discretion in reviewing objections is subject to the broader
goals of governance and efficiency in administration, and
unless there is evidence of malice or arbitrariness, Courts
should be reluctant to interfere in such processes.
28
25. The constitutional validity of Rule 4(a) of the
Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2018, must be upheld
because it operates within the legal framework established
by the KMC Act, 1976 and the BBMP Act, 2020. As affirmed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs.
P.Krishnamoorthy (supra), there is a presumption in
favour of the constitutional validity of subordinate
legislation, especially when the rule is part of a broader
regulatory scheme crafted by the government to manage
public institutions. Rule 4(a) deals with the appointment of
Group A officers, which is a policy decision entrusted to the
State Government, as BBMP is a municipal body under the
administrative and financial purview of the State. Local
bodies like the BBMP, though empowered to perform certain
municipal functions, are not entirely autonomous and
require the oversight and guidance of the State to ensure
effective governance. The retention of authority by the
State to appoint officers to Group A posts reflects this need
29
for a coordinated approach between the State and its
instrumentalities in executing significant administrative
responsibilities.
26. Moreover, in Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board v. B. Heera Naik (supra), the Supreme
Court acknowledged that municipal corporations, although
independent in certain functions, remain financially and
administratively reliant on the State government. The
State's authority to frame cadre and recruitment rules,
including Rule 4(a), aligns with its broader administrative
control over BBMP. By retaining the power to appoint key
administrative officers, the State ensures that high-level
posts in BBMP are filled with personnel who can implement
State policies and maintain coherence in governance,
particularly in a city as significant as Bengaluru. This
control is essential for ensuring that decisions affecting the
city's governance, infrastructure, and public welfare are
30
consistent with State policies and broader developmental
goals.
27. Additionally, the petitioner has failed to provide
substantial material evidence that would justify judicial
intervention or review of Rule 4(a). The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. P.Krishnamoorthy
(supra) has laid down that Courts should not interfere with
policy decisions made by the government unless the rule-
making process is shown to be arbitrary or in direct
violation of the parent statute or constitutional principles. In
the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated how
Rule 4(a) exceeds the State's powers under the KMC Act or
the BBMP Act. Furthermore, there is no indication that the
rule contradicts specific provisions of these Acts. The
petitioner has merely argued that the rule is inconsistent
with the statutory scheme but has not provided concrete
evidence or legal arguments to show that the State has
31
overstepped its authority or violated any statutory
provisions by framing Rule 4(a).
28. Without evidence showing that the rule
undermines the legislative intent or violates constitutional
principles, judicial review is unwarranted. Courts have
consistently held that it is not their role to substitute their
judgment for that of the government in matters of policy,
especially when the legislature has delegated authority to
the State to frame rules governing local bodies. Since the
petitioner has not provided sufficient material evidence or
demonstrated that the rule is ultra vires the Statute, the
constitutional validity of Rule 4(a) must be presumed. The
Court should defer to the State's discretion in exercising its
rule-making powers, particularly in relation to significant
administrative matters like the appointment of Group A
officers.
32
29. Given the presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of subordinate legislation, the burden is on
the petitioner to show clear statutory violations, which has
not been sufficiently established in this case. The Court,
therefore, should respect the legislative competence of the
State in framing Rule 4(a) and recognize that the rule falls
within the ambit of permissible control and supervision over
local authorities like the BBMP. Thus, judicial restraint is
advisable, particularly in cases involving the governance
and administration of local bodies, where the State plays a
critical role in ensuring uniformity, accountability, and
financial stability across different municipalities.
30. Conclusions:
The Legal Justification for State Control Over
Group 'A' Appointments in BBMP
A. The State Government's reserved power to appoint
Group A officers under Rule 4(a) of the BBMP (General
33
Cadre and Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules,
2018 reflects a legal and constitutional framework designed
to ensure efficiency, accountability, and proper governance.
This power aligns with India's federal structure, which seeks
to balance local autonomy with state oversight. The power
to control senior appointments has been shaped by judicial
precedents, reinforcing the authority of State governments
in matters of public administration.
B(i) The State's authority over high-ranking positions
such as Group A officers in urban local bodies like the BBMP
finds its roots in the Constitution of India. The Seventy-
Fourth Amendment Act, 1992, which strengthened urban
local bodies, gave local governance institutions a degree of
autonomy but did not completely sever state control. The
amendment placed local governments under the framework
of State legislation, thereby ensuring that the State retains
supervisory powers over appointments of senior officers.
34
(ii) In State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas6,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State has a
legitimate interest in overseeing local governance to ensure
that local bodies function in a manner aligned with broader
state objectives. This case emphasized that local bodies
cannot be left to function in isolation from the State's
governance framework, especially for senior administrative
posts, since their decisions could have far-reaching impacts
on State governance.
C(i) Group A appointments ensures that senior roles
are filled based on merit and standardized recruitment
practices. In R.K. Jain vs. Union of India7, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court discussed the importance of recruiting high-
ranking officers based on a rigorous selection process. The
Court emphasized that such posts require skilled and
competent officers, as their decisions shape the public
service framework.
6
AIR 1969 SC 634
7
AIR 1993 SC 1769
35
(ii) Applying this principle to urban local bodies, the
State's involvement in appointing senior officers like Group
A employees guarantees that standards of competence,
experience, and skill are maintained. The BBMP, being a
critical urban authority, requires officers who can handle
complex administrative and policy-related matters that
align with both state and national interests.
D(i) Senior appointments, particularly for Group A
officers, have strategic importance. These officers influence
policy implementation, development projects, and
administrative decision-making. The State's control over
these appointments is essential for the coordination of
state-wide development policies, especially in a city like
Bengaluru, where urban development and governance are
crucial to the State's economic growth.
36
(ii) In Municipal Corporation of the City of Hubli
vs. Subha Rao Hanumantharao Prayag8, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court recognized that local bodies have
substantial autonomy in managing day-to-day operations.
However, the Court also noted that strategic oversight by
the State government is necessary for maintaining
consistency in governance and development policies. This
case supported the notion that the State government can
intervene in appointments when these affect broader
governance goals.
E(i) Another important aspect of State control over
Group A appointments is to safeguard these positions from
local political interference. The State government's direct
involvement ensures that appointments are based on
objective criteria rather than local political dynamics, which
may skew recruitment for short-term political gains.
8
AIR 1976 SC 1398
37
(ii) In Shamser Singh v. State of Punjab9, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the importance of
ensuring that appointments to key government posts are
not influenced by partisan politics. The Court emphasized
the need for maintaining the independence and neutrality of
civil servants in discharging their duties. This principle
applies to local bodies like BBMP, where senior
appointments must remain independent of local political
pressures.
F(i) The State's reserved power to appoint Group A
officers ensures uniformity and cohesion across various
public services. Senior officers often rotate between
different local bodies and departments, ensuring that
policies are implemented consistently across the State.
Without the State's involvement, there could be significant
variances in governance quality, which could disrupt overall
State administration.
9
AIR 1974 SC 2192
38
(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P.U. Joshi v.
Accountant General, Ahmedabad10, held that the power
of recruitment and appointment lies with the employer (in
this case, the State), and the judiciary should not interfere
unless there is a violation of statutory rules. This judgment
reaffirmed the State's role in ensuring uniformity in public
service appointments, emphasizing that recruitment for
senior positions must be centrally governed to prevent
discrepancies.
G. The State's reserved power to appoint Group A
officers under Rule 4(a) of the BBMP Recruitment Rules is a
constitutional safeguard that ensures efficiency,
competency, and alignment with broader state policies.
Judicial precedents have reinforced the State's supervisory
role over local bodies, ensuring that strategic, merit-based,
and non-partisan appointments are made to these senior
positions. This power preserves the delicate balance
10
AIR 2003 SC 2156
39
between local governance autonomy and State control
necessary for effective and uniform public administration.
31. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish
any grounds warranting interference with the constitutional
validity of Rule 4(a) of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules,
2018. The Rule, being a part of subordinate legislation,
enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, which the
petitioner has not successfully rebutted. Furthermore, the
petitioner has not placed any material evidence to
demonstrate that the State has exceeded its authority or
acted in contravention of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976, or the BBMP Act, 2020, in framing
Rule 4(a). The State's retention of power to appoint Group
A officers is in line with its statutory powers and
administrative control over local bodies like the BBMP,
which is financially and functionally dependent on the State.
40
32. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
No costs.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA