Karnataka High Court
Lepakshi Kumariah vs The Bangalore Metropolitan Transport on 24 July, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
WRIT PETITION NOS.5515 TO 5524 OF 2012 C/W
WP NOS.5525 TO 5535 OF 2012 (S-K)
WP NOS.5515-5524/2012
BETWEEN:
1. LEPAKSHI KUMARIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O CHIKKAVEERAIAH
CONDUCTOR, TOKEN NO. 7052
DEPOT NO.11, BMTC,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE
2. YELLAPPA MARIYAPPA NAGANOOR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O MARIYAPPA
CONDUCTOR- TOKEN NO. 6807
DEPOT NO. 30, BMTC
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE
3. NANJUNDA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O RANGA SHETTY
CONDUCTOR- TOKEN NO. 7040,
DEPOT NO. 33, BMTC
POORNAPRAJNA LAYOUT
UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE
4. SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O PUTTAIAH
CONDUCTOR- TOKEN NO. 5905
DEPOT NO. 28, BMTC
SUBHASH NAGAR,
BANGALORE
2
5. B MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAVAPPA
CONDUCTOR- TOKEN NO. 6125
DEPOT NO. 14, BMTC
R T NAGAR, BANGALORE
6. C K RAVI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O KARIYAPPA
CONDUCTOR- TOKEN NO. 7302
DEPOT NO. 11, BMTC
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE
7. SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O LATE KONDAPPA
CONDUCTOR- TOKEN NO. 6802
DEPOT NO. 24, BMTC
I T I , DURAVANINAGARA
BANGALORE
8. ANANDMURTHY K S
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O ERAIAH
DRIVER, TOKEN NO. 7567
DEPOT -11, BMTC
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE
9. K L SHIVAYYA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LINGAIAH
DRIVER, TOKEN NO. 7518
DEPOT -14, BMTC
R T NAGAR, BANGALORE
10. JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
DRIVER, TOKEN NO. 8492
DEPOT -07, BMTC
SUBHASH NAGAR
BANGALORE ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.P C VINITHA, ADV.)
3
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE DIRECTOR ( TECHNICAL)
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINGAR,
BANGALORE
3. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINGAR,
BANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.)
---
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari quashing Annexures-F1 to F9 dated
26.12.2011 and etc.
WP NOS.5525-5535/2012
BETWEEN:
1. AZMATH ULLA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O SYED MOUIN PEER SHA KHADRI
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO 6998
DEPOT 28 BMTC
BANGALORE
2. MALAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O MAHADEVAPPA NAIKODI
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO. 6977
DEPOT-7 BMTC
BANGALORE
4
3. P NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O PATHALINGAPPA
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO. 6426
DEPOT- 9 BMTC
BANGALORE
4. M ABDUL KALEEN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O ABDUL MUJEEB
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO. 6985
DEPOT-26 BMTC
BANGALORE
5. T VARADARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O PATEL THIMMEGOWDA
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO. 7004
DEPOT-26 BMTC
BANGALORE
6. N G SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O GANGAIAH
DRIVER TOKEN NO. 8225
DEPOT- 7 BMTC
BANGALORE
7. MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O SIDDAPPA
DRIVER TOKEN NO. 8175
DEPOT- 7 BMTC
BANGALORE
8. B P SYED SALAMATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE BADESAB
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO. 6901
DEPOT 15 BMTC, BANGALORE
9. P SHIVAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO. 7290
DEPOT 20 BMTC, BANGALORE
5
10. P RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O K PARAMESHWARA UPADYA
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO. 7181
DEPOT 4 BMTC
BANGALORE
11. B G GUTTALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE GUTTLE GOWDA
CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO. 7342
DEPOT 12 BMTC
BANGALORE ...PETITIONERS
(SMT.P C VINITHA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE
2. THE DIRECTOR ( TECHNICAL)
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINGAR,
BANGALORE
3. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINGAR,
BANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.)
---
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari quashing Annexures-J1 to J11 and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
6
ORDER
All these petitioners have sought for quashing of Annexures-F1 to F10 in WP Nos.5515-5524/2012 and Annexures-J1 to J11 in WP Nos.5525-5535/2012.
2. The grievance of these petitioners is that, on 4.1.1992, the respondent had issued a notification to appoint 1499 conductors and 1589 drivers. The said appointments were on regular basis and status of all the appointed candidates was one and the same. The respondents had fixed the pay scale only in respect of 533 conductors as against 1499 selected and 723 drivers as against 1589 selected. The petitioners were not considered even though they were all similarly placed like those of 533 conductors and 723 drivers. Though the representations were given by the petitioners for re-fixation of their pay scale along with consequential benefits, the same have not been considered.
3. This Court, in writ appeal Nos.25472-484/2010 by order dated 23.8.2011 had issued a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners therein in accordance with Regulation 9(6) of the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982. However, the 3 rd 7 respondent by a general order has issued an endorsement inter-alia rejecting the request of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that Annexure-A, the notification issued on 4.1.1992 admittedly was only against temporary post and only in case if there is any need, such selected employees will be absorbed. No notification is issued for appointment of these petitioners or others for permanent appointment and the appointment was only for the temporary period. They were in the select list of 1499 conductors and 1589 drivers, but that itself does not confer any right on the petitioners either to claim regularisation or absorption against the permanent post. Since there were 533 vacancies in the cadre of conductors and 723 vacancies in the cadre of drivers, based on seniority and also applying the roaster point, the candidates have been absorbed.
5. This Court, neither in WP Nos.25472-84/2010 by order dated 23.8.2011 nor in WP No.5149/2012 and connected matters by order dated 17.4.2012, has not issued any direction to the Corporation to absorb the similarly 8 placed candidates or to extend the pay scale to such persons as their appointments were not permanent. The petitioners have not even worked on permanent basis and are also not entitled for the same.
6. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that the select list of these temporary conductors or drivers was prepared in pursuance of notification dated 4.1.1992. It is also not disputed by the Corporation that from amongst this selected list, as many as 533 conductors and 723 drivers have been absorbed against the permanent posts. Thereafter also, another notification was issued on 3.1.2012 in respect of 17 candidates. However, it is submitted that in respect of those 17 candidates, their seniority and reservation policy was overlooked and as such, they were considered again.
7. While disposing of WP No.5149/2012 dated 17.4.2012, this Court, considering similar grievance of the petitioners therein, has issued a direction as under:
"(ii) Respondent - corporation is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners as per Annexure-E dated 21.9.2011 and in case petitioners are found 9 to be entitled for necessary relief, Corporation shall pass appropriate orders accordingly or otherwise intimate the petitioners the reasons for not entertaining their claims or rejecting their claims.
(iii) Respondent - Corporation shall carry out entire exercise as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
8. Without going into the issue as to whether the petitioners have a right or not, it is suffice if the direction issued in WP No.5149/2012 is issued and further, it is also made clear that these petitioners are permitted to make appropriate consolidated representations of their grievances before the Corporation.
Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners as per Annexure-B dated 17.6.2010 and Annexure-F dated 29.9.2011, respectively and in case petitioners are found to be entitled for necessary relief, Corporation shall consider the same accordingly or otherwise intimate the petitioners the reasons for not entertaining their claims or rejecting their claims. Further, the Respondent - 10 Corporation shall carry out entire exercise as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV