Karnataka High Court
Smt. K. N Roopa vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32411
WP No. 12998 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12998 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. K. N ROOPA
W/O M RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD
O/O AEE, N-2-1 SUB DIVISION
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU 560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A 2. THE BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
Location: HIGH AND SEWERAGE BOARD
COURTOF
KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009.
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SIDDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1:
SRI M S NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32411
WP No. 12998 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RELEVANT RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. BWSSB/CHAMP/9-
2017/ EST 32/1535/2023 DATED: 30.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE
R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE
SAME AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON PRELIMINARY HEARING, IN
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief/s:
"i) Call for relevant records relating to issue of the impugned endorsement bearing No. BWSSB/CHAMP/9-2017/EST32/1535/2023 dated 30.05.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-S and after perusal set aside the same.
ii) Direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the claim of Petitioner for promotion as Junior Engineer retrospectively with effect from 07.09.2010 the date on which the similarly placed persons have been promoted ineligible candidates and grant all benefits that she would be entitled to including the higher promotion to -3- NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR the post of Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer etc.
iii) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a holder of B.E. in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and was appointed as Junior Assistant on 22.01.2008 (Annexure- A). Since she belongs to Scheduled Tribe, she was eligible for reservation in promotion and was accordingly promoted to the post of Assistant on 11.09.2013 and again promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 15.12.2016 and later promoted to the post of Superintendent on 17.08.2022.
Respondent No.2-BWSSB amended its Cadre and Recruitment Regulations to provide that 10% of the posts of Junior Engineers shall be filled by promotion from the Ministerial Cadre staff (Group-C) of the Board, subject to their possessing the requisite qualifications i.e., 3 years -4- NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR Diploma in Engineering or Technology or equivalent, preferably in Public Health Engineering along with six months duration course in Computer Science. This was later revised on 07.03.2014 to increase the promotional quota to 25%.
The petitioner submitted a representation on 24.06.2010 (Annexure-D) for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. Though her name appeared in the eligibility list dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure-E), she was ignored in the promotion order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-F), while her juniors were promoted. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed W.P.No.35455/2010 (Annexure-H), which was withdrawn on 16.04.2012 with liberty to file afresh. She again submitted the representation on 18.09.2010 (Annexure-J) to consider her claim for promotion. However, the respondents, by endorsement dated 03.11.2010 (Annexure-K), rejected her claim on the ground that she was ineligible for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR Despite another representation dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure-N), her claim was not considered. Therefore, she filed W.P.No.55882/2014. This Court, by order dated 20.03.2023, directed the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks.
However, by impugned endorsement dated 30.05.2023 vide Annexure-S, respondent No.3 rejected her claim for promotion as Junior Engineer on the grounds that she possesses a qualification higher than the one prescribed and as per condition No.11(e) of the appointment order, any request for promotion would amount to misconduct. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's request for promotion has been rejected on two grounds: First ground is that the petitioner is seeking for change of cadre on the basis of her higher qualification. However, he submitted that the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR petitioner's request is only in respect of seeking for promotion on seniority and not for change of cadre based on her higher qualification. He further submitted that as per C&R Regulations, Group C employees, who are working as Junior Assistants are eligible to be promoted as Junior Engineers if they are having 3 years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or equivalent preferably in Public Health Engineering with 6 months duration course in Computer Science.
The second ground is that the petitioner has acquired a higher qualification. She holds a B.E. degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Her request for promotion was rejected on the ground that she possesses a higher qualification. He further submitted that the promotion cannot be denied on the ground that the candidate has a higher qualification. Such higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification and therefore, possessing the higher qualification may not be considered as disqualification.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of (1) JYOTI K.K. AND OTHERS vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS reported in (2010)15 SCC 596, (2) T.R.KOTHANDARAMAN AND OTHERS vs. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BD AND OTHERS reported in (1994)6 SCC 282, (3) JOMON K.K. vs. SHAJIMON P AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 711 and (4) MOHD.RIAZUL USMAN GANI AND OTHERS vs. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NAGPUR AND OTHERS reported in (2000) 2 SCC 606.
He further submitted that even the persons, who have B.E. Degree qualification, have been promoted as Junior Engineers. Such promotion orders are issued to the similarly placed persons such as one R.Jagadeesh vide Annexure-T, one Kumar A.S. vide Annexure-T1. But the respondents denied the promotion only to the petitioner. The same amounts to discrimination. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board has submitted that as per condition No.11(e) of the appointment order vide Annexure-A, the candidates cannot influence the Corporation to seek for change of cadre on the basis of higher qualification. Since the petitioner is seeking for change of cadre, the same is contrary to the condition mentioned in the appointment order. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is issued.
He further submitted that as per C&R Regulations, the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer is that one should have three years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or equivalent preferably in Computer Science and with six months duration course in Computer Science. Since the petitioner is over qualified, her case has not been considered. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Learned AGA has submitted that just because the employees having higher qualification, the higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of the lower -9- NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR qualification prescribed for the post, he cannot be denied for the promotion unless there is specific provisions for restrictions to scope for promotion.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ petition papers.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a holder of BE in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and appointed as Junior Assistant on 22.01.2008. It is also not in dispute that for the post of Junior Engineer, 10% shall be filled by promotion from the Ministerial Cadre staff (Group-C) of the Board, who possess the requisite qualification. To fill up 10% promotion quota in the cadre of Junior Engineer, the respondent-Board sought for list of eligible candidates in Group-C to be considered for the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer as per Annexure-E dated 12.08.2010. In that list, the petitioner's name has been placed at Sl.No.17. The qualification prescribed to the post for the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, one should have three years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR equivalent preferably in Computer Science and with six months duration course in Computer Science. The petitioner is holding BE in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. The qualification held by the petitioner presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Engineer. Just because the petitioner is holding a higher qualification, her case for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer cannot be denied, unless if the rules restrict such promotion.
8. In this case, neither the Rules restrict for promotion to the post of Junior Engineers, who possessed higher qualification nor even in the objection filed by the Corporation, it is stated that there is any restrictions for promoting the Junior Engineers, who are having higher qualification.
9. The Apex Court in the case of 'JYOTI K.K.' (supra) has held that if a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR for the post, she cannot be denied for appointment on the ground she has secured higher qualification. The relevant paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 is extracted as follows:
"7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far.
8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognized or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.
9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma-holders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree/holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same Faculty, it becomes clear that the Rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory Rules have been
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR published and those Rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware of the Rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of the appellants would amount to fraud on the public."
10. The Supreme Court in 'JOMON K.K.' (supra) has held in paragraph No.36 is as follows:
36. We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other factors. It has to be remembered that, at times, the employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of decisions holding that
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR over-qualification cannot be a disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand and on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national Interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or inflexible rules or norms. Lack of public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain unemployed for ever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled up by such degree holders? What happens if the Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for sub-serving the common good? Does not the State have the obligation to strive to ensure that all citizens have
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no Court can afford to ignore. We end by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post."
11. The Supreme Court in 'MOHD.RIAZUL USMAN GANI '(supra) has held in paragraph No.20 is as follows:
"20. If an employee does not perform the duties attached to the post disciplinary proceedings can certainly be taken against him. An employer cannot throw up his hands in despair and devise a method denying appointments to a person who otherwise meets the requisite qualifications on the ground that if appointed, he would not perform his duties. Qualification prescribed is minimum. Higher qualification cannot become a disadvantage to the candidate."
12. The Supreme Court in 'T.R.KOTHANDARAMAN' (supra), has held that the higher qualification can be
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR restricted for the promotion, but the restriction cannot go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion. The relevant paragraph No.16 of the said judgment is extracted as follows:
"16. From what has been stated above, the following legal propositions emerge regarding educational qualification being a basis of classification relating to promotion in public service:
(1) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
(2) Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion.
(3) Restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion. To decide this, the extent of restriction shall have also to be looked into to ascertain whether it is reasonable. Reasons for this are being indicated later. "
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR
13. In the case on hand, no such restriction has been placed either in the C&R Regulations or stated in the endorsement or in the objection filed by the respondents.
14. The specific case of the petitioner is that she is seeking promotion under 10% quota reserved for Group 'C', and not seeking any change of a higher cadre on the basis of higher qualification. The reason given in the impugned endorsement is contrary to the material available on record. Therefore, the impugned endorsement dated 30.05.2023, vide Annexure-S, is liable to be quashed.
15. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed.
b) The impugned endorsement dated 30.05.2023 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-S is hereby quashed.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32411 WP No. 12998 of 2023 HC-KAR
c) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, if she is otherwise eligible for promotion, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from today.
All pending I.As. in this writ petition, if any, are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30