Karnataka High Court
Shri Siddalingappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2020
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.30034/2015 c/w
W.P.No.17274/2014 (S - RES)
IN W.P.No.30034/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O SHIVRAYA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT POST HALLI SALGAR, TQ.ALAND,
DIST:KALBURGI (GULBARGA)-585302.
2. SHARANABASAPPA,
S/O KARABASAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT POST:KHAJURI,
TALUK-ALAND,
DISTRICT-KALBURGI-585 302.
3. VIJAYKUMAR,
S/O BASAVANAPPA, (HATTARKI)
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT NO.11/328,
SHAHA HUSSAIN CHILLA,
BRAHMPUR, KALBURGI-585 102.
4. DATTU UDABAL,
S/O MALLIKARJUN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT BENCHINACHOLLI,
-2-
TQ.HUMMNABAD,
DIST:KALBURGI-585 404.
5. MURGENDRA,
S/O NAGENDRAPPA (SAJJAN),
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT SAGAR B VILLAGE,
TALUK-SHAHAPUR,
DIST:YADGIR-585 323
6. RAJU,
S/O SHANMUKHA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT SHARANABASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
WARD NO.1, KEB ROAD,
SHAHAPUR, TALUK-SHAHAPUR
DISTRICT-YADGIR-585023
7. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O RAVANAPPA, (BHANDARI),
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT MINKERA POST,
TALUK-HUMNABAD
DISTRICT-585 227
8. YALLALING M.M.,
S/O MALKANNA K.M.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT TADKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK-ALAND,
DISTRICT-GULBARGA-585 302
9. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O BHAVANRAO (LAVATE)
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT JANAWARD VILLAGE AND POST,
TALUK AND DISTRICT-BIDAR-585 402
-3-
10 . SHIVKUMAR,
S/O RAJENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H NO.3-1-5, PANSAL TALIN
FATDAJ VILLAGE AND POST,
TALUK AND DISTRICT-BIDAR-585 402
11 . BASAWARAJ
S/O MALLAPPA (SONDENOR)
AGED ABOTU 27 YEARS,
OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT BASAVATIRTH VILLAGE,
TALUK-HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT-BIDAR-588 330
12 . KRISHNARAJ
S/O RAJKUMAR, AGE: 28 YEARS,
OC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H.NO.18/3/80,
SANGAMESHWAR COLONY,
CHIDNI ROAD, GANDHI GUNJ POST,
TALUK & DISTRICT BIDAR-585 330,
13 . ANAND MUNOLI
S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA,
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H.NO.9/362, KABADGALLI,
GULBURGA (KALBURGI)-585101.
14 . RAVI
S/O BABU (GUTTEDAR)
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H.NO. MIG 156, KHB COLONY,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
TALUK & DISTRICT BIDAR-585 330.
15 . SHAMEERMIYA
S/O FAKRUDDIN, AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H.NO.1-949, NEAR NIMRA MASJID
RAHMAT NAGAR, OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
GULLBURGA (KALBURGI)-585101
-4-
16 . JAYA
S/O CHANDRU (RATHOD)
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/O AT MADBOOL THANDA,
TALUK-CHITAPUR,
DISTRICT-GULBURGA (KALBURGI)-585 317.
17 . KALYANRAO
S/O GURULINGAPPA (MALIPATIL)
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT MATHALA VILLAGE,
TALUK-BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT-BIDAR-585 401
18 . PRASHANTA PUJAR
S/O JEEVARAJ
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT AT MAKARI, RATTIHALLI,
TALUK-HIREKERUR,
DISTRICT-HAVERI-581 116.
19 . SHIVAPPA GAJI
S/O MUKKANNA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT MADBOOL THANDA,
TALUK-CHITAPUR,
DISTRICT-GULLBURGA (KALBURGI)-585 317.
20 . ALTAF MAKANADAR
S/O NOORAHAMAD,
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT C/O M.A.KHANAPATIL NIVAS,
GURUNATH NAGAR, II STAGE,
GUDIHALLI ROAD, OLD HUBLI,
HUBBALLAI,
DISTRICT-DHARWAD-580 020.
21 . DAVALSAB GANGUR
S/O BASEER AHMMAD
AGED 26 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H NO.G-8, KPTCL QUARTERS
KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI
DISTRICT- DHARWAD-580020
-5-
22 . BHARAT RONAD
S/O BASAVARAJ
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/O AT GANDHI NAGAR
MACHEGAR ONI, B.B.ROAD
BADAMI, TALUK-BADAMI
DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 201
23 . SALEEM NADAF
S/O RAJESAB NADAF
AGE 26 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT HALLIKERI ROAD
ADIKAVI PAMPA NAGAR
ANNIGERE VILLAGE
TALUK NAVALGUND
DISTRICT DHARWAD-582 201
24 . TYAGARAJA S.,
S/O SIDDAVEERACHARA
AGED 30 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT GAYATHRI NILAYA
C BLOCK, 11TH CROSS,
VIDYANAGAR, HARIHAR
TALUK & DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 601
25 . RIZWAN MIRJI
S/O MEHABOOBSAB
AGED 28 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/O PLOT NO.195
HOYSALA NAGAR, HALIYAL ROAD
DHARWAD-580008
26 . NAGARAJA B.,
S/O BASANNA
AGED 24 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT RAMPURA VILLAGE
TALUK MOLAKALMURU
DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 540
27 . ISHWAR SIRASANGI
S/O VIRPAKSHAPPA
AGED 26 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
-6-
R/AT RAMDURG, TALUK RAMDURG
DISTRICT BELGAUM-591 123
28 . RAVI M.,
S/O RUDRAPPA
AGED 32 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H NO.31/1
SURAVONNE VILLAGE
TALUK HONNALI
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 223
29 . YATHEESHA S.B.,
S/O MAHESWARAPPA B.,
AGED 32 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT GOWDARA STREET
SURAVONNE VILLAGE
TALUK HONNALI
DSITRICT DAVANAGERE-577 223
30 . NAGARAJAPPA K.P.,
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA K.G.,
AGED 32 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/AT ARABAGATTE VILLAGE
TALUK HONNALI
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 217
31 . BRAHMA CHARI.B.P.,
S/O PARAMESHWARA CHARI B.,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT ARABAGATTE VILLAGE,
TALUK-HONNALI,
DISTRICT-DAVANAGERE-577217
32 . RAMPURADA KHADARALINGA P.,
S/O SHEKSHAVALI P.R.,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H.NO.269, VEERAPURA VILLAGE
TALUK & DISTRICT BELLARY-583113
33 . ANILAKUMAR V.,
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT ARLAHALLI VILLAGE,
BYADANUR POST,
-7-
TALUK-PAVAGADA,
DISTRICT-TUMKUR-561 202
34 . ANIL KUMAR
S/O RAMESH,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/O NO.4/88, WARD NO.30
NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE,
RAMPUR (D) VILLAGE,
DIST: RAICHUR-584101
35 . CHANDRAKANT P.S.,
S/O PRABHULING M.S., (SHEREKHANE)
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT GHODKE GALLI,
BIRBAND CROSS, OLD HUBBLI
HUBBALI-580 024
36 . VINAYAK TUMMARAMATTI
S/O MALLAPPA TUMMARAMATTI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT M R B C C COLONY,
HOLE ALUR VILLAGE,
TALUK-RON, DISTRICT-GADAG-582203
37 . SIDDAGIRAPPA BANAKAR
S/O SHANKAR BANAKAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT H NO.4/88, WARD NO.30,
NEAR MARREMMA TEMPLE,
RAMPUR, RAICHUR-584 101
38 . MANJUNATH GHODKE
S/O RAMANNA GHODKE
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC:UNEMPLOYED
R/AT H NO.77, HIREPETH,
GHODKE GALLI, OLD HUBBLI,
HUBBALLI-580 024
39 . SHRISHAIL CHOURI
S/O SHIVARAYA
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC:UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT TODAL BAGI VILLAGE,
-8-
TALUK-JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 322
40 . SANTOSH SING
S/O RAMA SING
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT NAGARI, NEAR S.R.TEMPLE KILLA,
MUDGAL VILLAGE,
TALUK-LINGSUGUR,
DIST-RAICHUR-584125 ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI V.R.DATAR, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT,
DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
KAUSHALYA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE, HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 029
3. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL)
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM),
CORPORATE OFFICE,
NEAR K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001
REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.)
-9-
5. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC
SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (CESCOM),
CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.927,
L.G.AVENUE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEW KANTHARAJ ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE-570 009
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6. MANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED (MESCOM),
CORPORATE OFFICE, PARADIGM PLAZA,
A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE-575001
7. HUBLI ELECTRIC SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED (HESCOM),
CORPORATE OFFICE,
NAVANAGAR, P.B.ROAD,
(HUBLI) HUBBALLI-580025
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
8. GULBURGA ELECTRIC SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED (GESCOM),
CORPORATE OFFICE, MAIN ROAD,
GULBURGA (KALBURGI)-585002
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R-3 TO R-5;
SMT.SONA M. BADIGER, ADV. FOR R-6;
SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R-7;
SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R-8.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND/OR 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO R-3 TO AMEND THE KEB
RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION REGULATIONS NOTIFICATION
DATED 30.12.2013 BRINING AMENDMENT OF KEB
RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION REGULATION AT ANNEXURE-
II TO THE REGULATIONS IN THE ANNEXURE-II PARA 7 AT
ANNEXURE-BB SO AS TO INCLUDE THE CANDIDATES
- 10 -
POSSESSING TWO YEARS ITI COURSE AND WHO HAVE
UNDERGONE ONE YEAR/TWO YEAR TRAINING IN ELECTRICIAN
TRADE AT THE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRES RUN BY THE
R-3 TO 8 (KPTCL/ESCOMS) AS AGAINST 30% QUOTA
PRESCRIBED FOR INTERNALLY TRAINED APPRENTICES AND
PERMIT THEM TO APPLY FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF
ASSISTANT LINEMAN IN R-3 TO 8 EMPLOYMENT.
IN W.P.No.17274/2014:
BETWEEN:
1. PREMA KUMARA S.,
S/O SRI SIDDESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.720, 2ND FLOOR,
6TH CROSS,
MAHESHWARI NAGAR,
T. DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560057
2. MALLIKARJUN
S/O SRI SANGASHETTY CHAMBOLE
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT H-112, MARKHAL VILLAGE & POST,
BIDAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-585402
(DELETED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED 29.04.2014)
3. MANJUNATHA H.,
S/O SRI HANUMANTHARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT DHANDAPALYA VILLAGE,
GUNDLAHALLI POST,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR 561202
4. SANTHOSH
S/O SRI GAUSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT GUNNALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BIDAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-585403
- 11 -
(DELETED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED 29.04.2014)
5. VISHVANATH
S/O SRI NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT GUNNALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BIDAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-585403
(DELETED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED 29.04.2014)
6. SANTHOSH B.,
S/O SRI BASAVANNYPPA BADIGARE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT TUMARIKOPPA,
JADE POST, SORABA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
7. RAMACHANDRA
S/O SRI NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.195, YERAMARUS POST,
RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-584134
(DELETED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED 29.04.2014)
8. BALAKRISHNA
S/O SRI RAMANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.176, MARKET STREET,
MEDIGESHI POST,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572133
9. MALLIKARJUN
S/O SRI VEERABHADRAPPA NAVILA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT SINGNAL VILLAGE AND POST,
GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPALA DISTRICT-584130
- 12 -
(DELETED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED 29.04.2014)
10 . BASAVANA GOWDA S.,
S/O SRI SHIVANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT SURAGIHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427
11 . RAGHAVENDRA
S/O SRI SHEENAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT KALLUGUDDI HOUSE,
HOSANGADI POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576282
12 . ALL INDIA YOUTH FEDERATION
GHATE BHAVANA,
G.D. PARK EXTENSION,
VYALIKAVAL, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560002
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI K.B.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
ENERGY DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001
2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL)
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. BANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED,
- 13 -
CORPORATE OFFICE,
NEAR K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560001, REP. BY
ITS GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.) ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR C/R-3.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE R-2 TO AMEND THE KEB RECRUITMENT & PROMOTION
REGULATIONS AS AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 13.12.2013 SO AS
TO INCLUDE THE CANDIDATES POSSESSING TWO YEARS ITI
COURSE & WHO HAVE UNDERGONE ONE YEAR TRAINING IN
ELECTRICIAN TRADE AT THE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRES
RUN BY THE KPTCL/BESCOM AGAINST 30% QUOTA
PRESCRIBED FOR INTERNALLY TRAINED CANDIDATES.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, IS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since similar and akin issues are involved in these matters, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The respondent Nos. 3 to 8, Electric Supply and Transmission Companies, being State of Karnataka undertakings, run Training Centres at each ESCOM to train selected candidates in the Electrician Trade as Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961. Initially
- 14 -
such training in the Industrial Training Centres (ITC) was given for a period of 3 years to SSLC passed candidates. Respondents had provided 30% quota in the vacant posts of the Assistant Lineman for the candidates with 3 years training under the Apprenticeship Training Programme at the ITCs run by them.
3. The respondent Nos.3 to 8 replaced 3 years training course by one year apprentice training course for NCVT ITI trained persons and two years apprentice training course for SCVT ITI trained persons at their ITCs. The respondents are governed by the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Employees (Probation) Regulations and Employees (Seniority) Regulations ('Regulations' for short). These Regulations prescribe the method of recruitment and the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Lineman and the same are as under:
- 15 -
Category Existing
of
Post
Method of Minimum Qualification
Recruitment
Assistant a) 50% of the i) Should have a pass certificate of
Lineman sanctioned posts 18/24 months course in
by Direct "Electrician/Electronics/Electronic
Recruitment of ITI Mechanic" Trade from Industrial
qualified Training Institute (ITI's) recognized
candidates. by the Government of Karnataka.
b) 30% of the i) Should have passed 10th
sanctioned posts Standard examination
by Direct and
Recruitment of Should have a pass certificate of
candidates three years "Lineman
possessing a pass Trade/Electrician Trade" imparted
certificate of three by the Industrial Training
years "Lineman Institution of KEB/KPTCL.
trade/Electrician
Trade" imparted
by the Industrial
Training
Institutes of
KEB/KPTCL.
c) 20% of the i) Should have satisfactory
sanctioned posts physical fitness and mental ability.
by promotion ii) Should be suitable and should
from the cadre of have experience for the job
Junior Lineman requirement.
on the basis of iii) Should have experience in the
seniority-cum- type of work connected to the post
merit. of Junior Lineman and should be
capable to carry out the work
required for the post of Assistant Lineman.
iv) These should be assessed and reported by the official superiors through reports.
- 16 -
The said regulations were amended as per the Notification dated 17.8.2010 and the said amended Regulations reads as under:
Category Amended as
of
Post
Method of Recruitment Minimum Qualification
Assistant a) 40% of the i) Should have a pass
Lineman sanctioned posts by certificate of 18/24 months
Direct Recruitment of course in "Electrician" Trade
ITI "Electrician" from Industrial Training
qualified candidates. Institute (ITI's) recognized by
the Government of Karnataka.
b) 40% of the i) Should have a pass
sanctioned posts by certificate of 18/24 months
Direct Recruitment of course in
ITI "Electronics" "Electronics/Electronic
qualified candidates. Mechanic" Trade from
Industrial Training Institute
(ITI's) recognized by the
Government of Karnataka.
c) 20% of the i) Should have satisfactory
sanctioned posts by physical fitness and mental
promotion from the ability.
cadre of Junior ii) Should be suitable and
Lineman on the basis should have experience for the
of seniority-cum-merit. job requirement.
iii) Should have experience in
the type of work connected to
the post of Junior Lineman
and should be capable to carry
out the work required for the
post of Assistant Lineman.
iv) Should have put in a
minimum service of three
years as Junior Lineman.
v) These should be assessed
and reported by the official
superiors through reports.
- 17 -
4. The said amended Regulations were
challenged by some of the apprentices in
W.P.No.1249/2012 and connected matters. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.2.2012 allowed the writ petitions. The amended Regulations as per the Notification dated 17.8.2010 were quashed. The Regulations as it stood prior to the date of amendment was restored. It was declared that the ITC certificate holders from the respondent institute are eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Lineman as per the Notification dated 12.12.2011, in addition to the other directions issued.
5. On the challenge made to the said order by the KPTCL, the Division Bench of this court disposed of the appeals W.A.Nos.3074-3083/2012 [D.D.26.11.2013] with the following directions.
- 18 -
"12. In the light of the statements made in the aforesaid memos dated 8th November 2013 and 26th November 2013, the writ appeals filed by appellants/Corporation are disposed of with the following directions:
I) The impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th February 2012, in Writ Petition No.1249/2012 c/w W.P.Nos.2843-
45/2012 and W.P.Nos.1250-55/2012 (S-RES) is hereby set aside only in so far as it relates to direction Nos.(V) to (VII); II) Direction Nos.(II) to (IV) issued by the learned Single Judge are directed and hereby confirmed.
III) In addition to the said directions, the appellant/Corporation is further directed to provide age relaxation from 12.12.2011 to these respondents as and when employment Notification is issued for filling up the post of Assistant Lineman, in the light of the memos filed by the Appellant/Corporation'
- 19 -
IV) Further, the appellant/Corporation is directed to refund the amount collected towards filling up of the said posts as per the Notification dated 12.12.2011, expeditiously, if the respondents have paid the prescribed fee;
V) It is made clear that the aforesaid direction No.(III) issued in these appeals shall not be made precedent to other cases."
6. Pursuant to the said order, KPTCL has effected amendment to the method of recruitment and minimum qualification is prescribed in Sl.No.7- Assistant Lineman under Chapter-II (Transmission Lines, Operation and Maintenance) of Chapter-IX of the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations. The amended Sl.No.7 relevant for the purpose of present cases reads as under:
- 20 -
Sl. Category of As Existing As Amended
No. Post
7 Method of Minimum Method of Minimum
Recruitment Qualification Recruitment Qualification
Assistant a) 40% of i) Should have a) 50% of i) Should have a pass
Lineman the a pass the certificate of 18/24
sanctioned certificate of sanctioned months course in
posts by 18/24 months posts by "Electrician/Electron
Direct course in Direct ics/Electronic
Recruitment "Electrician" Recruitment Mechanic" Trade
of ITI Trade from of ITI from Industrial
"Electrician" Industrial qualified Training Institute
qualified Training candidates. (ITI's) recognized by
candidates. Institutes the Government of
(ITI's) Karnataka.
recognized by
the
Government
of Karnataka.
b) 40% of i) Should have b) 30% of i) Should have
the a pass the passed 10th Standard
sanctioned certificate of sanctioned examination
posts by 18/24 months posts by and
Direct course in Direct Should have a pass
Recruitment "Electronics/E Recruitment certificate of three
of ITI lectronic of years "Lineman
"Electronics Mechanic" candidates Trade/Electrician
" qualified Trade from possessing Trade" imparted by
candidates. Industrial a pass the Industrial
Training certificate of Training Institution
Institute (ITI's) three years of KEB/KPTCL.
recognized by "Lineman
the trade/Electr
Government ician Trade"
of Karnataka. imparted by
the
Industrial
Training
Institutes of
KEB/KPTCL
.
- 21 -
Subsequently Recruitment Notification dated 3.3.2014 has been issued by the KPTCL.
7. The said amendment effected vide order dated 30.12.2013 is challenged herein inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 to amend the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations at Annexure-II to the Regulations, in Annexure-II para.7 so as to include the candidates possessing two years ITI course who have undergone one year/two years training in Electrician Trade at the ITCs run by the respondent Nos.3 to 8 (KPTCL/ESCOMs) as against 30% quota prescribed for internally trained apprentices and permit them to apply for the recruitment of Assistant Lineman in respondent Nos.3 to 8 employment.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent Nos.3 to 8 having stopped imparting three years training in Electrician Trade for candidates with SSLC qualification at their
- 22 -
ITCs being replaced by selecting candidates with pass in SSLC + pass in ITI course of two years in Electrician Trade + one year training (apprenticeship) in Electrician Trade at their ITCs, it was imperative on them to amend the KEB Recruitment and Promotion Regulations so as to make the candidates with two years ITI course and one year training at their ITCs also eligible for the post of Assistant Lineman against 30% quota.
9. It was argued that the purpose of imparting training in the Electrician Trade by the ITCs run by the respondent Nos.3 to 8 is to create trained and skilled workforce which would be available to the respondents relating to the recruitment of 30% quota would become redundant in view of the amendment effected vide Notification dated 30.12.2013.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have referred to the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 to contend that the training
- 23 -
imparted to them as apprentices and their legitimate expectation of securing employment in the quota reserved would be defeated if their requests are turned down.
11. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam1.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 8 submitted that the Regulations were amended pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.3074-3083/2012, as such the challenge to the impugned Regulations is not sustainable. The relief claimed by the petitioners to direct the respondents to amend the Regulations altering the qualification prescribed for the recruitment of Assistant Lineman is untenable. The amended qualification was necessary in 1 (1995)2 SCC
- 24 -
view of the various developments including the fact that ITC was discontinued from the year 2002 itself and the last batch trained was in 2005. It was argued that the persons who have two years training certificate from ITI are eligible to apply to the post of Assistant Lineman under clause (a) wherein, 40% reservation is provided. The petitioners being eligible under the said category of 7[a], without opting for the same, are claiming a separate quota of reservation, in view of undergoing 1 year training with ITC as an apprentice. It was contended that no vested right has been accrued to the apprentice in view of the training imparted. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments.
1. Mallikarjuna Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (1990)2 SCC 707.
2. J. Ranga Swamy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1990)1 SCC 288
3. V.K.Sood Vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation & others reported in JT 1993(3) S.C. 520.
4. State of Rajasthan Vs. Lata Arun reported in (2002)6 SCC 252
- 25 -
5. Mohd. Rafi Kodagali Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.3611/2006).
6. Chairman/MD, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited & others Vs. Sadashib Behera and others reported in (2005)2 SCC 396.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the respondents to modify the amended regulations vide Notification dated 30.12.2013 prescribing the qualification for the recruitment of Assistant Lineman?
2. To what extent the petitioners are entitled to the relief if any, in furtherance of one year apprentice training certificate obtained by them?
Re: Point No.1:
14. It is well settled law that ordinarily the power of the executive cannot be exercised by the courts. No directions or advisory sermons to the executive can be issued in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within the domain of the executive. This view is fortified
- 26 -
by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Rao, supra, whereby their Lordships have held as under:
"11. The observations of the High Court which have been made as the basis for its judgment by the Tribunal were only of advisory nature. The High Court was aware of its limitations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such the learned Judge deliberately used the words 'advisable' while making the observations. It is neither legal nor proper for the High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions or advisory-sermons to the executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within the domain of the executive under the Constitution. We are bound to react scowlingly to any such advice."
15. Qualifications for appointment would certainly come within the domain of the employer. It is not for the court to assess the comparative merits and decide or direct what should be the qualification to be prescribed for the post called by the employer. The
- 27 -
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J. Ranga Swamy, supra, at para.6 has observed thus:
"6. So far as the second plea is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner does not have, while the respondent has, a doctorate in nuclear physics. The plea of the petitioner is that, for efficient discharge of the duties of the post in question, the diploma in radiological physics (as applied in Medicine) from the Bhabha Atomic Research center (BARC) held by him is more relevant than a doctorate in nuclear physics. It is submitted that in all corresponding posts elsewhere, a diploma in radiological physics is insisted upon and that, even in the State of Andhra Pradesh, all other physicists working in the line, except the respondent, have the diploma of the BARC. It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. The post in question is that of a Professor and the prescription of a doctorate as a necessary qualification therefor is nothing unusual. Petitioner also stated before us that, to the best of his knowledge, there is no doctorate course anywhere in India in radiological physics. That is perhaps why a doctorate in nuclear physics has been prescribed. There is nothing prima facie
- 28 -
preposterous about this requirement. It is not for us to assess the comparative merits of such a doctorate and the BARC diploma held by the petitioner and decide or direct what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for the post in question. It will be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to move the college, university, Government, Indian Medical Council or other appropriate authorities for a review of the prescribed qualifications and we hope that, if a doctorate in nuclear physics is so absolutely irrelevant for the post in question as is sought to be made out by the petitioner, the authorities concerned will take expeditious steps to revise the necessary qualifications needed for the post appropriately. But, on the qualifications as they stand today, the petitioner is not eligible to the post and cannot legitimately complain against his non-selection."
16. In the case of Latha Arun supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the eligibility qualification for admission in General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Courses has held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a
- 29 -
course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is observed that these matters relate to matters in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the state government or the authority vested with power under any statute. It is not for the Courts to determine whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent qualification to the prescribed qualification in the case.
17. In Mohd. Rafi Kodagali supra, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicating upon the challenge made to the notification effecting amendment to Regulation 6[a][iii] under Chapter I of the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Employees [Probation] Regulations and Employees [Seniority] Regulations which had altered the minimum prescribed regulations, held that in all public
- 30 -
employment, opportunities are not available to all persons. Unless there is something radically wrong in prescribing the very qualification which is one of a person possessing a certificate issued by ITI, recognized by the State Government in certain subjects, not permitting the other qualifications, does not amount to an act of discrimination. Thus the job qualification prescribed by the employer does not warrant any interference by the Court.
18. In the case of U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of the training imparted to the apprentice vis-à-vis the object of enacting the Apprentice Act, 1961, held that the legislature did desire and make adequate provision to see that the competent persons receive due training to cater to the need of increasing demand for skilled craftsman on one hand and to improve the employment
- 31 -
potential of the trainees on the other. What is indeed required is to see that the nation gets the benefit of time, money and energy spent on the trainees which would be so when they are employed in preference to non-trained direct recruits which would also needs the legitimate expectation of the trainees.
19. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, what emerges is prescribing the minimum qualification for a post lies in the domain of the employer. Such discretionary powers coming within the realm of policy decision of the employer-corporation and more particularly, such amendment to the notification impugned being made pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as aforesaid, neither the notification impugned can be held to be illegal or arbitrary nor this Court can issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent - Corporation to prescribe a qualification which in the opinion of the court is
- 32 -
suitable. Thus, no writ of mandamus could be issued to the respondents to amend the regulations to modify the qualifications for the direct recruitment of Assistant Linemen.
Re: Point No.2:
20. However, considering the training imparted to the petitioners for one year, the same requires to be considered by the respondents to extract the skill and work craft of the petitioners keeping in mind the time, money and energy spent on those trainees. The prime request of the petitioners is to change the qualification criteria relating to 30% of the sanctioned posts by direct recruitment of candidates possessing one year ITI certificate i.e., SSLC + 2 years ITI programme and one year ITC in view of the training of ITC being discontinued from 2002 itself.
21. Inviting applications from candidates having three years ITC training prima-facie appears to be not in
- 33 -
consonance with the changed pattern of imparting ITC training of one year by the respondents. It is true that such trainees are qualified to recruitment of Assistant linemen in terms of 7-(a) of the amended qualification, if they possess two years ITI training but their one year training under ITC becomes futile. At most certain weightage could be given to the trainees who have undergone the ITC training.
22. No doubt the affidavit filed by Deputy General Manger, KPTCL depicts total number of posts notified for three years ITC candidates as 662 for which total 5026 applications are received from the candidates of three years ITC (KEB/KPTCL) trained candidates for the post Assistant Linemen, the same would not preclude the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners to provide them some priority giving weightage for the ITC training which they have undergone by investing the precious time of their life.
- 34 -
23. The employer being the competent authority to take a decision in the matter, the petitioners are at liberty to file representations before the respondents 1 to 3 and if such representations are filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with law keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation, supra, and such decision shall be taken in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representations.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr/NC.