Karnataka High Court
Mr. Yoganandh vs The Managing Director on 11 July, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.123 OF 2021 (S-RES)
IN
W.P.No.800 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. YOGANANDH
S/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
C/O M. GOPINATH
BHGAWANTH RAO LAYOUT
WEAVERS COLONY, NELEMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 562 123.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SAGAR B.B. ADV.,)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
MML LIMITED, FIFTH FLOOR
TTMC BUILDING
(BMTC BUILDING)
A BLOCK, SHANTHINAGARA
BANGALORE - 560 027.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV.,)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
2
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.800/2017 DATED 14.10.2020 (S-RES)
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY QUASHING
THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.10.2016 BEARING
NO.PER/110/GEN/(2005)/2016-17/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE Q IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal arises out of an order dated 14.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was recruited in the year 1985 in Mysore Minerals Limited (MML) as unskilled worker on contract basis. By an order dated 10.06.1988, services of the appellant were regularized. From perusal of the representation dated 04.06.2013 submitted by the appellant himself, it is evident that he was promoted as Assistant Operator, Mate Assistant and Sale Assistant on 01.05.1987, 3 01.07.1993 and 01.04.2006 respectively. The appellant has acquired the qualification of PG Diploma in Marketing Management in the year 2001 and PG Diploma in Human Resources in 2002.
3. The appellant, on the basis of Circular dated 18.07.1996 claimed further promotion. The appellant submitted representations on 29.10.2002 and 13.06.2007 to MML, which were rejected by an order dated 06.10.2007 and 13.07.2009 respectively on the ground that there is no provision in the cadre and recruitment rules for granting further promotion to the appellant. The appellant, thereafter, filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.28394/2009 seeking a writ of mandamus to consider the representation submitted by the appellant. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to assail the orders dated 06.10.2007 and 13.07.2009. 4
4. The appellant therefore, filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.26845/2010, in which aforesaid orders dated 06.10.2007 and 13.07.2009 were challenged. In the said writ petition it was inter alia held that MML has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant for promotion and the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant thereafter, again filed a writ petitions seeking quashment of endorsement dated 03.10.2015 as well as a writ of mandamus to MML to promote the appellant by creating suitable post. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 14.10.2020 has dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if some post is upgraded in the cadre, the same does not amount to promotion. It is further submitted that the appellant is entitled to further 5 promotion in view of the higher qualification acquired by him. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has been made to decision of Kerala High Court in 'N.G.PRABHU AND ANR. VS. CHIEF JUSTICE AND ANOTHER', 1973(2) SLR 251.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent submitted that three promotions have already been given to the appellant and the appellant has no further right to claim promotion in the absence of any provision in cadre and recruitment rules. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has been made to decision of Supreme Court in 'STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS VS. K.K.ROY', (2004) 9 SCC 65.
7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. Undoubtedly, an employer is under an obligation to provide promotional avenues to its 6 employees and absence of prospects of promotion has been deprecated. However, in the instant case, the appellant has already been given the benefit of time bound promotion. The appellant was recruited as unskilled worker. Thereafter, from perusal of his representation dated 04.06.2013, it is evident that he has been promoted as Assistant Operator, Mate Assistant and Sale Assistant on 01.05.1987, 01.07.1993 and 01.04.2006 respectively. The claim for further promotion cannot be granted in the absence of any provision in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Even otherwise, the claim of the appellant for promotion has already been adjudicated by an order dated 07.04.2015 passed in W.P.No.26845/2010. Three promotions have already been given to the appellant.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the 7 learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SS