Karnataka High Court
Bharath Kumar S vs Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage ... on 15 December, 2020
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, Nataraj Rangaswamy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT APPEAL No.432/2020 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. BHARATH KUMAR .S
S/O. SHIVALINGAIAH G.N.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.62, PUNNYAKOTI,
6TH MAIN, DATTATREYA NAGAR,
HOSKERHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HEBBAL STP, BWSSB.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS:
INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HEBBAL STP, BWSSB.
2. NAVNEET .K.L
S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA .K
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT #53, MOSQUE ROAD,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WWM-H-3, OPP. LUMBINI GARDENS,
HEBBAL STP PREMISES, BENGALURU.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS:
INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WWM-HEBBAL VALLEY DIVISION.
3. ASHOK GOWDA .T.P
S/O. PRAKASH .T.S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT 135, MALOO PARK ROYAL APARTMENTS,
3RD FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
-2-
VINAYAKA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WEST-2, R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS:
INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WEST DIVISION.
4. SUHAS .H.P
S/O. PUTTASOMAPPA .H.S
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT #301, SRISHTI VANASIRI APARTMENT,
KRISHNA GARDEN MAIN ROAD,
R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NORTH WEST-5, PEENYA, BENGALURU.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS:
INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NORTH WEST DIVISION.
5. SRINIVAS .R
S/O. RAVINDRA .D
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT #115/8, SWATI HOME,
3RD FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
CANARA BANK COLONY,
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 72.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
K-4-2, MALLESHWARAM.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS:
INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
K-4 DIVISION. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHIVAPRASAD
SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD,
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
ADMINISTRATOR AND SECRETARY.
-3-
2. SRI DINAKAR .A.S
S/O. LATE A. YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, WWM (K&C)-2,
KAPILA BHAVAN, JAYANAGAR BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
3. SRI B.M. NAGENDRA BABU
S/O. B.V. MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, CAUVERY-4 DIVISION,
MALLESHWARAM, KASHI MUTT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 055.
4. SRI NARAYAN SWAMY B.M.
S/O. MUNIKADIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NO.3 SUB-DIVISION, BWSSB,
D-BLOCK, 8TH MAIN, SAHAKAR NAGAR,
BENGALURU.
5. SRI BALAKRISHNA .M.P
S/O. LATE N.M. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, CAUVERY HEAD WORKS,
N-4 SUB-DIVISION,
T.K. HALLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
6. SRI ANAND K.M.
S/O. LATE MAHESHWRAPPA .K
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, DCW-1 SUB-DIVISION,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
7. S.T. SURESH
S/O. S. THIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BWSSB, STP, ARKAVALLI VALLEY,
SUB-DIVISION-1, SHIMSHA BHAVANA,
46TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 082. ... RESPONDENTS
-4-
(BY SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. ASHWINI
OBULESH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHARADA BAI, ADVOCATE FOR
R-2 TO R-7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 10/08/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NOS.41266-71/2019 (S-PRO) AND FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2020.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1/Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ("BWSSB/Board") as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 who are the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.41266-271/2019.
2. The private respondents herein have filed the writ petitions, inter alia, assailing the seniority list prepared by respondent No.1/BWSSB . The background to the same is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavitra vs. Union of India [(2017)4 SCC 620) (B.K.Pavitra I) and B.K.Pavitra vs. Union of India [AIR 2019 SC 2723) (B.K.Pavitra II). In the writ petitions, by an interim order dated 04/09/2019, the final seniority list -5- dated 13/08/2019 was stayed. Thereafter, it appears that the Board has taken steps under Rule 32(a) and thereby, placed the appellants herein (respondent Nos.2 to 66 in the writ petitions) in the in-charge post. The same was subject matter of the controversy and by the impugned order dated 10/08/2020, the learned single Judge directed re-doing of the in-charge arrangement. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by five such officers.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. During the course of submission, it was brought to our notice that the main writ petition is pending adjudication. That in this appeal, by interim order dated 17/08/2020, has directed that the direction contained in the impugned order shall not be acted upon insofar as these appellants are concerned.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/BWSSB submitted that insofar as two other officers are concerned, their in-charge arrangement has been withdrawn, but in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the in- -6- charge arrangement in respect of these five appellants has been continued.
6. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal by reserving liberty to respondent No.1/BWSSB to file an appropriate application before the learned single Judge with regard to any in-charge arrangement to be made and seek directions in the writ petitions pending before the learned single Judge. In the meanwhile, the in- charge arrangement made insofar as these five appellants are concerned, shall continue until further orders to be made in the writ petitions.
7. It is needless to clarify that the in-charge arrangement made with regard to these five appellants is only by way of a temporary arrangement and would not in anyway confer any advantage to them and shall be subject to the orders to be made in the writ petitions.
8. All contentions on both sides are left open to be urged before the learned single Judge.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents herein states that the writ petitions could be disposed of at an early date. -7-
10. If such a request is made, learned single Judge may consider the same.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending applications stand disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE S*