Karnataka High Court
Bhagyashree D vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 831, 2021 (3) AKR 448
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.14591/2015 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
1. BHAGYASHREE D
D/O K.SANJEEVA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN (LINEWOMEN)
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
GANGOLLI KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
2. B.RADHAKRISHNA
S/O SANNAYA SHEREGAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
BYNDOOR, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
3. H.MANJAPPA
S/O HANMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
2
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
KOLLUR, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
4. JAFARSAB MAKANDAR
S/O RAJEHUSENSAB,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
TALLUR, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
5. PRAVEEN.B
S/O BACHHA DEVADIGA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
KUNDAPUR, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
6. JYOTHI
W/O SHRINIVAS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN (WOMEN)
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
GOPADI, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
7. SURESH A. ODEYAR
S/O AMAKA SIDDAPPA,
AGED AOBUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.
3
(MESCOM), HALADI,
KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
8. DINESH SHETTY
S/O JAGANATH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
HALADI, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
9. BHAVYA
D/O RAMA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
(LINEWOMEN) IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM), ,
KALLYANPUR, UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
10 . RAJESH U.P.
S/O PADMANABHA.U,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
BRAMMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK.
11 . BHAGYALAKSHMI H.K.
D/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
(LINEWOMEN) IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
4
COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
BRAMMAVAR, UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
12 . THIPPESWAMI T.R.
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
BRAMMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
13 . VASANTH.K
S/O AANGARAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
BYILOOR, KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
14 . RAJESH KUMAR.K.V.
S/O VENKAPPA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
VAGGA, UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
15 . SHILPA
D/O VENKAPPA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
5
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
VAGGA, BANTWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
16 . M.SATHISHA
S/O MAHADEVAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
VITLA, BANTWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
17 . NINGAPPA S GHALI
S/O SHIDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
UKKUDA, BANTAVALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
18 . MAHESHA.K
S/O RAMA MULYA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
UKKUDA, BANTAWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
19 . CHANDRANATH BANGERA
S/O NARAYANA SUVARNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
6
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
UKKUDA, BANTAWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
20. NALINI.N
W/O SUNDARA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
SALETHUR BANTAWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
21 . GRACY LASRADO
D/O PEETER LASRADO,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
(LINE WOMEN) IN
SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
VAGGA, BANTAVALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
22 . RAMACHANDRA.D
S/O BABU GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
BELLARE, PUTTURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
7
23 . HARISH D
S/O RAMANNA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
BELLARE, PUTTURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
24 . SIDDA KULAL
S/O ANNU KULAL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA ALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT
25 . ABHILASH B.A
S/O AANANDA B.K.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM)
GOPADI, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT
26. LAKSHMAPPA POOJAR
S/O KALLAPPA POOJAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM)
MUDARANGADI, UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
8
27. REKHA SHETTY
S/O SHANKAR SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN (LINEWOMEN)
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD(MESCOM)
BYNDOOR,KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT
28. RAFIC N
S/O MOHIDD KUINJNEE HAJ,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
BELLARE, PUTTURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
29. SURYAKANTHI
D/O KITTA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
BRAMMAVARA,UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
30. GANESH B
S/O TAJA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
9
BRAMMAVARA,UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
31. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY
S/O RAMANNA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
GOPADI, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
32. CHANDAN
S/O VEERE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
KUNDAPUR, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
33. VASANTH M. NAIK
S/O MAHADEV NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM),
BYNDOOR, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
34. V. VENKATESH
S/O ANJAINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
10
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM),
BRAMMAVARA,UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
35. KRISHNAYYA ACHARYA
S/O HERIYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
KOLLUR, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
36. VARKY K.V.,
S/O JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
KOLLUR, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
37 . GUDNESH
S/O SHANKRAPPA DRIVER,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
KOLLUR, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
38. KRISHNA BOBATI
S/O YALLARI BOBATI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
11
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
TALLURU, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
39. CHANDRASHEKAR B.,
S/O BURADDI SANNA JADEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
TALLURU, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
40. RAGHAVENDRA NAIK
S/O ANANDA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
PERDOOR, UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
41. SUKUMAR SHETTY H.,
S/O KUSAL SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
BRAMMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
42. PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O MALLIKARJUNA SWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
12
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
VITLA, BANTAVALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
43 . NAVEEN SHENAY N.,
S/O GANESH SHENAY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
VOGGA, BANTWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
44 . SUDAKARA KARAKERA
S/O VENKAPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (MESCOM),
SIDDAKATTE, BANTWALA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
45 . APPANNA GOWDA A. PATIL
S/O AANDAN GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM),
SALETHOR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
46 . NITHYANAND H.,
S/O MAHABALA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
13
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
HALADI, KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT.
47 . SHWETHA N. NAIK
D/O NARAYANA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
(LINEWOMAN) IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
MANIPAL, UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT.
48 . ARCHANA N. HALAGERI
D/O FAKEERAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA HALAGERI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS MECH-G2
IN SECITON OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM),
BYILOORU, KARKALA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT.
49 . LILAVATHI K.,
D/O KUNJNIPPA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN (LINEWOMEN)
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
MADANTHARU, BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANANDA DISTRICT.
50 . SACHIN
D/O VASANTH BELCHADA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
14
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
MADANTHARU, BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANANDA DISTRICT.
51 . A.G.SHIVA
S/O A GUNDAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
52 . YUVARAJ K B
S/O BASVANTHAPPA B
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKED AS MECH G2 IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
(MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
53 . KANTHARAJ B
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKED AS LINEMAN IN
SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
54 . NAGAPPA K L
S/O LAXMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKED AS LINEMAN
15
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
55 . MAHALINGA APARAJ
S/O RAMU APARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKED AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
56 . VINAYAKA
S/O CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YERS
WORKED AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
57 . MAHAMAD RAFIK H.K.,
S/O HUSENSAB KALADAGI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKED AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
58 . HOLIKATTI M.P.,
S/O HOLIKATTI P.H.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKED AS LINEMAN
16
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
59 . KOTAYAPPA M.,
S/O MALLESHAPPA B.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKED AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (MESCOM)
ANAVATTI SUB DIVISION
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA.
60 . ARUN B.,
S/O BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINE MAN IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC)
JYOTHINAGAR, MYSORE
MYSURU DISTRICT.
61 . ASHOKA A S
S/O SOMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC)
R K NAGAR, MYSURU
MYSURU DISTRICT.
62 . SURESH M
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN
17
IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC),
SHANTHINAGAR, MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
63 . JAGADEESH J.,
S/O SHARANAPPA J.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC),
SHANTHINAGAR, MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
64 . SANDEEP B.S.,
S/O SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC)
SHANTHINAGAR, MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
65 . DHANPRAKASH M S
S/O SIDDE GOWDA M K
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN METER TESTING DIVISION
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC)
JYOTHINAGAR, MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
66 . SAVILOHITH K
S/O KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
18
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC)
N R MOHALLA, MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
67 . ASEEB REHMAN
S/O SYED BURAN SAB
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (CESC)
UDAYGIRI, MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
68 . RAGHAVENDRA C
S/O CHIKKANNA.J
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
CHAMUNDIPURAM VV1
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
69 . VISHNU PRASAD.V
S/O THIMMAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
SIDDARTHA NAGAR,
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
70 . MANJUNATH N.S
S/O SWAMY. N
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
19
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
SIDDARTHA NAGAR,
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
71 . MANJUNATH.S
S/O SOMACHARI.H.P
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
MEGALAPURA
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
72 . MADHU.S
S/O SIDDAPPAJI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
SOSALE T. NARASIPURA,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
73 . SOMA
S/O VEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
SOSALE, T. NARASIPURA
MYSURU DISTRICT.
74 . RAVI S.M
S/O MARASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
20
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
BANNIMANTAPA,
MYSURU.
MYSURU DISTRICT.
75 . MANJUNATHA G.B
S/O BASAVARAJU.G.B
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN,
METER TESTING DIVISION
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
JYOTHINAGAR,
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
76 . K.S. LAKSHMI
W/O NAGARAJ SINGH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD,(CESC)
JYOTHINAGAR,
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
77 . SHANKAR MURTHY.S
S/O SHIVAMARANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD,(CESC)
METAGALLI
MYSURU DISTRICT.
21
78 . KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O HOSURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPLY COMPANY LTD,(CESC)
M.G. KOPPAL
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
79 . BASAPPA HUGAR
S/O GOUNDAPPA HUGAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
M.G. KOPPAL, MYSURU
MYSURU DISTRICT.
80 . VISHWANATH.M
S/O BASAPPA.M
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
JAYALAKSHMI PURAM
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
81 . SALMANI KALAPPA
S/O S. BANNEPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
JYOTHINAGAR, MYSURU
MYSURU DISTRICT.
22
82 . BASAVARAJ
S/O YALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CESC)
UDAYGIRI, MYSURU
MYSURU DISTRICT.
83 . KIRAN KUMAR
S/O NARYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
SECTION OFFICE
UNIT NO.-5, GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (GESCOM),
URBAN DIVISION HOSPETE,
HOSPETE TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
84 . BEENA BALRAJ
D/O A.J. BALRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN (LINEWOMEN)
IN SECTION OFFICE
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (GESCOM),
HOSPETE, HOSPETE TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
85 . LAKSHMIKANTH
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
LTD.(GESCOM),
UNIT NO-3, URBAN DIVISION HOSPETE,
HOSPETE TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
23
86 . B.MOUNESH
S/O B.DEVANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS AG-1 IN L.T.
RATING RURAL SUB- DIVISION,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD. (GESCOM),
HOSPETE, HOSPETE TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
87 . SATHISH KUMAR
S/O S. KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD. (GESCOM),
UNIT NO-5 URBAN DIVISION HOSPETE,
HOSPETE TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
88. KHASIMPEERAN.N.T.
S/O BUDEN SAB.N.T,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.(GESCOM),
UNIT NO-4, URBAN DIVISION HOSPETE,
HOSPETE TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
89 . H RAMANNA
S/O KENCHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE
UNIT NO.1, GULBARGA
24
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (GESCOM),
URBAN DIVISION HOSPET,
HOSPET TALUK,
BALLARY DISTRICT.
90 . MAHAMADSABEER MAKANDAR
S/O GOUSAMODIN M MAKANDAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
(LINEWOMEN) IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBALLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (MESCOM),
KALGHATIGI, KALGHATIGI TALUK,
SIRISI DISTRICT.
91 . ABUDDUL RAZAK M NABIWALE
S/O MEHABOOB NABIWALE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBALLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
(HESCOM),
GURUR, BAGALKOTE TALUK,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.
92 . SUDHAKAR VISHNU RANE
S/O VISHNU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
93 . ASHOK PUTTU NAIK
S/O PUTTU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
25
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
(HESCOM), HONNAVAR,
HONNAVAR TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT.
94 . RAJESH MAHABALESHWAR NAIK
S/O MAHABALESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
95 . HEMANNA BASAPPA GADGIN
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
96 . ANTONI RUJAR HORATA
S/O RUJAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2
IN SECTION OFFICE
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
97 . MANJUNATH MOHAN NAIK
26
S/O MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,(HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
98 . RAJU BHEEMAPPA
S/O BHEEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (HESCOM),
BHATKAL, BHATKAL TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
99 . SOMAPPA GURUSHANTAPPA LAMANI
S/O GURUSHANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (HESCOM), KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
100. SANTOSH HANUMAPPA LAMANI
S/O HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD., (HESCOM), BHATKAL,
BHATKAL TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
27
101 . SHEKHAR NARAYAN NAIK
S/O NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD, (HESCOM), KUMTA,
KUMTA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT
102 . MABUSAB RAJESAB HATALGERI
S/O RAJESAB,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM), KUMTA,
KUMTA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT
103 . JAKLIN HAPOLNAR DAYAS
D/O HAPOLNAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
104 . KANCHANA RAJARAM CHAWHAN
D/O RAJARAM,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
28
105 . DEEPA NARAYAN NAIK
D/O NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (HESCOM),
ANKOLA, ANKOLA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
106 . NAGESH DHAKAPPA LAMANI
S/O DHAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (HESCOM),
BHATKAL, BHATKAL TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
107 . SATISH BHEEMANAGOUDA PATIL
S/O BHEEMANGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
108 . RAGHU LAXMAN NAIK
S/O LAXMAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD, (HESCOM), KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
29
109 . BANDAGISAB KHARJGI
S/O KHARJAGI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
110 . ARAVIND VIRUPAKSHA KAMAJI
S/O VIRUPAKSHA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD, (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
111 . RAGHAVENDRA VITTAL NAIK
S/O VITTAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH.GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
ANKOLA, KARWAR DISTRICT.
112. MADHU KENCHAPPA K
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH.GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
30
113. ASLAM BAPPARAGI
S/O NABI SAHEB BAPPARGI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH.GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (HESCOM), ANKOLA,
ANKOLA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
114. RAGHAVENDRA MANOHAR PATRAD
S/O MANOHAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
(HESCOM), KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
115. GAJAVARDHAN CHANDRAKANTH BHANT
S/O CHANDRAKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
ANKOLA, ANKOLA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
116. SANDESH NAGENDRA NAIK
S/O NAGENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
31
117 . DAYANAND MANOHAR PEDNEKAR
S/O MANOHAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (HESCOM)
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
118 . SHRINATH SUBRAY PATAGAR
S/O SUBRAY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
KUMTA, KUMTA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
119 . SATISH MAHADEV NAIK
S/O MAHADEV
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
MRT DIVISION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
120. MARUTI GANAPAYYA GUNAGA
S/O GANAPAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
MRT DIVISION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
32
COMPANY LTD (HESCOM), KARWAR
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
121 . RAVI A D
S/O DEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
122 . SHIVAKUMAR SHANTARAJU
S/O SHANTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
123. MANJUNATH H BANGARAPPA
S/O BANGARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
124. SHRIDHAR BALINDRA NAIK
S/O BALINDRA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
33
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
BHATKAL, BHATKAL TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
125. SANDEEP SHADDU MIRASHI
S/O SHADDU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
KUMTA, KUMTA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
126. SMT. DEEPA BUDDU GOUDA
D/O BUDDU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN, (WOMEN),
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD (HESCOM), KARWAR
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
127. VINAYAK L GUNAGA
S/O LAXMAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
KUMTA, KUMTA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
128. PRASAD M NAIK
S/O MARUTI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
34
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
HONNAVAR, HONNAVAR TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT.
129. SANTOSH R NAIK
S/O RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
MRT DIVISION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT.
130 . JAYARAM D NAIK
S/O DEVIDAS
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
ANKOLA, ANKOLA TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT.
131. JEEVANPRAKASH Y RATI
S/O YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (HESCOM),
KARWAR, KARWAR TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT.
132 . SUJATA HARIKANTRA
D/O KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN (WOMEN)
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
35
(HESCOM), KARWAR
KARWAR TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT.
133. CHANDRAPPA A N
S/O ANTARAVALLAPPA MAGGAD
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
(HESCOM), SIDDAPUR
SIDDAPUR TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT.
134. MAHAMMAD GOUSU P MULLA,
S/O PEER AHAMMAD MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD., (HESCOM),
SIDDAPUR, SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
135 . DEVARAJ NAIK
S/O RAMA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.(HESCOM),
SIDDAPUR, SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
136. PRAKASH M L
S/O LAXMAN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINEMAN,
IN SECTION OFFICE,
HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.(HESCOM),
36
SIDDAPUR, SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
137 . SAMPATH KUMAR,
S/O MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN 220 KV STATION,
KPTCL KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
138 . RAMESH MORE,
S/O MASHNU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
139 . CHANNAPPA BIDNAL,
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
140 . MAHESH PATGAR,
S/O ISHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL, ANKOLA
ANKOLA TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT.
37
141 . KRISHNA MURTI K.M.,
S/O MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL KUMTA,
KUMTA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
142 . KUMAR NAGEKAR,
S/O DIWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL KUMTA,
KUMTA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
143 . KENCHMANAVAR MANJUNATH
S/O SAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL MURUDESHWARA,
BHATKAL TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
144 . RAVINDRA HIREMANI,
S/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
WORKING AS MECH. GR-2,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL MURUDESHWARA,
BHATKAL TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
145 . RAMA PUJARI,
S/O JALIVENKTA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
38
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL MURUDESHWARA,
BHATKAL TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
146 . BASANGOWDA BIRADAR,
S/O SANGANGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 220 KV STATION,
KPTCL KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
147 . SANDEEP ACHARI,
S/O VINAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
148 . SHANMUKHA GOWDA,
S/O VINAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL KARWAR,
KARWAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
149 . NAGARAJ NAIK
S/O PURUSHOTTAM,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL HONNAVAR,
39
HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
150 . SATISH NAIK,
S/O MAHADEV,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL HONNAVAR,
HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
151 . BALACHANDRA NAIK,
S/O GHANSHYAM,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL HONNAVAR,
HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
152. RAJU NAIK,
S/O ISHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL HONNAVAR,
HONNAVAR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
153 . NARAYAN NAIK
S/O MAHADEV,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS S.A. GR-1,
IN 110 KV STATION,
KPTCL KUMTA,
KUMTA TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT.
40
154. CHIDANANDAPPA K S,
S/O LATE K SHIVARUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINE MECH GR-II,
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM,
CSD O & M II UNIT CHITRADURGA DIST.
155. DAKSHINA MURTHY
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS LINE MECH GR-II,
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM,
CSD O & M II UNIT CHITRADURGA DIST.
156. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI K.C.,
W/O SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MECH-GRII(WOMEN)
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M II UNIT CHITRADURGA DIST.
157. G.K.DIVAKARA
S/O LATE BADANAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AG-1, IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
M T SUB DIVISION
CHITADURGA DISTRICT
158. K. MANJAPPA
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MECH-GR II,
IN SECTION
OFFICE BESCOM
HOLALKERE SUB DIVISION
BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
41
159. G. MANJULA
W/O LATE UMESH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN(WOMEN),
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M II UNIT,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
160. SOMASHEKAR N
S/O LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN SECTION OFFICE
SRIRAMPURA
HOSADURGA SUB DIVISION
BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
161 . B. THIPPESWAMY
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN,
RSD SUB DIVISION
BESCOM
PANDARAHALLI SECTION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
162 . GIRISH R
S/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M II UNIT CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
163 . R. THIPPESWAMY
S/O R REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
42
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M I UNIT
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
164 . G. BASAVANAGOWDA
S/O VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
RSD SUB DIVISION BESCOM
HIREGUNTNUR SECTION
CHITRADURGA.
165 . T. PARAMESHA NAIK
S/O THOTHYANAIK
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKLING AS LINEMAN,
RSD SUB DIVISION BESCOM
PANDARAHALLI SECTION
CHITRADURGA.
166 . RAJAPPA C.,
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
HOLALKERE SUB DIVISION
BESCOM
SHIVGANGA SECTION
CHITRADURGA.
167 . B.K.HALESHA
S/O B KOTRESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
MT SUB DIVISION BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
168 . MANJUNATHA T.C.,
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
43
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M II UNIT
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
169. S.D.RAJANNA
S/O DUGGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN THURUVANUR
SECTION, RSD
CTA DIVISION BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
170 . T.HARISH
S/O THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M II UNIT
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
171 . SMT.D.P.MADHU
W/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEWOMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M I UNIT
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
172 . SMT.PARVATHIBAI
D/O RANGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE WOMAN
SHIVAGANGA SECTION
HOLALKERE SUB DIVISION
BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
173 . B.A.ANWAR HUSAIN
44
S/O AMEER
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M I UNIT
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
174 . P.MANOHARA
S/O SANNAPPA P L
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
RSD BHEEMASAMUDRA SECTION
BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
175 . R RANGANATHA
S/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
SRIRAMPURA SECTION BESCOM
HSD, CTA DIVISION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
176 . YOGESH KUMAR M.S.,
S/O B SUBBARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MEC-GR II
IMANGALA SECTION BESCOM
HIRIYUR DIVISION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
177 . SANTHOSH NAIK U.,
S/O UMAPATHINAIK
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
BHARAMASAGARA SECTION BESCOM
RSD CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
45
178 . MADHUPATEL
S/O PARAMESHWARAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
RSD SECTION BESCOM
PANDARAHALLI SECTION
CHITRADRUGA DISTRICT.
179. GIRISH K.,
S/O KUMARAPPA S.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
SHIVAGANGA SECTION BESCOM
HOLALKERE SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
180. N. ANANDA
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
IN SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M I UNIT
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
181 . H. THULASIDHARA
S/O HEMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN,
MT SUB DIVISION BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
182 . K. MANJU NAIK
S/O KRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
RSD PANDRALLI SECTION
BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
46
183. DRUVESH K
S/O KUMARSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
TLM SUB DIVISION
KPTCL
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
184 . NAGESH G.V.,
S/O VEERANNA G.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
TLM SUB DIVISION
KPTCL
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
185. ASHOKA K.R.,
S/O RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS STATION MECH-GR I
TL & SS , KPTCL
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
186. LOKESH H.,
S/O LATE HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS STATION
ATTENDENT-GR II
TL & SS, KPTCL
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
187. DHANANJAYA REDDY
S/O GOVINDAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS STATION MECH-GR II
TL & S S, KPTCL
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
47
188. A. ONKARAMURTHY
S/O ANANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
SRIRAMPURA SECTION BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
189. SMT. CHAITANYA C.,
W/O DRUVESH K.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN
TLM SECTION KPTCL
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
190. SMT.T.GEETHA
W/O H MADHU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN
SECTION OFFICE BESCOM
CSD O & M II UNIT
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
191. E. RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MECH
GR II PARUSHURAMPURA SECTION,
BESCOM, HIRIYUR DIVISION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
192. K. SHRINIVASA
S/O KESHAVAMURHTY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MEC-GR II
PARUSHURAMPURA SECTION
BESCOM
HIRIYUR DIVISION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
48
193. MOHAMMED MASTHAQ A.,
S/O ABDUL SAHIB SAB
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MECH-GR II
RAMPURA SECTION BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
194. DUNDAPPA KORI
S/O SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN
CHIKKAJAJUR SECTION
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
195. B.R. DAYANANDA
S/O LATE B N RAMOJIRAO
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MECH-GR II
SRIRAMPURA
HOSADURGA SUB DIVISION
BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
196. D.D.NAGARAJAPPA
S/O DURGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MECH-GR II
MALLADIHALLI SECTION BESCOM
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
197. B K THIPPESWAMY
S/O KENCHAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS SAG I KPTCL
HOLALKERE.
198. ARAVIND R.V.,
S/O VITTAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN
49
IN SECTION OFFICE
S3 SUB DIVISION
MARATAHALLI
BANGALORE, ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
(BESCOM), BENGALURU.
199. NAGARATHNA V.,
D/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN(WOMEN)
IN SECTION OFFICER
MARATALLI
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD(BESCOM),
BENGALURU.
200. PRIYA ACHARYA
D/O RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WOKRING AS LINE MAN (WOMEN),
IN SECTION OFFICE, H.A.L. BANGALORE,
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.,(BESCOM)
BENGALURU.
201. GANGADHAR S.
D/O SURYANARAYANA SWAMI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN SECTION OFFICE, E8S/D,
BW-2, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.
BESCOM, BANGALORE
202. MANJUNATH T.N.
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN SECTION OFFICE,
E8S/D, BW-2, BANGALORE,
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.(BESCOM)
BENGALURU.
50
203. RAJENDRA KUMAR
S/O RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
S7 S/D, BANGALORE,
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.(BESCOM)
BENGALURU.
204. SHASHIDHAR R.
S/O RAMAYYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN
SECTION OFFICE, BELLANDUR S-11,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.
LTD.(BESCOM)
BENGALURU.
205. SATISH KUMAR
S/O CHANNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.
LTD.(BESCOM)
BENGALURU.
206. BHOJANNA T.
S/O THIMMAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN IN SECTION OFFICE,
C.K. NAGAR, S-11,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.
LTD.(BESCOM)
BENGALURU.
207. MANJUNATH P.
S/O PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN
IN SECTION OFFICE, D.K.HALLI S-11,
51
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO.
LTD.(BESCOM), S- 11, D.K. HALLI
BENGALURU.
208. ANURADHA S.
D/O SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN(WOMEN) IN SECTION
OFFICE, W-5, O & M-5,
BANGALORE EELCTRICITY SUPPLY CO.
LTD.(BESCOM), BENGALURU.
209. ARVIND KUMAR S.
S/O G.SHEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS LINE MAN(C.K. NAGAR, S-11 IN
SECTION OFFICE, BANGALORE EELCTRICITY
SUPPLY CO. LTD.(BESCOM),C.K. NAGAR
S-11, BENGALURU.
210. JAYARAJ D.
S/O DHALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS SAG-2, 66/11,
KV MUSS ELECTRONIC CITY, KPTCL,
BENGALURU.
211. TIPPESWAMI P.
S/O POMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS SMG.2, 66/11
KV MUSS R.B.I. LAYOUT, KPTCL,
BENGALURU.
212. S.M. VIJAYA KUMARA
S/O MUNICHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE, CHINTAMANI,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
52
SUPPLY CO. LTD (BESCOM),
KOLAR.
213. S.R PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O S.C.RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS MECH GR-2,
IN SECTION OFFICE, O & M- 1, CHINTAMANI,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD
(BESCOM), KOLAR.
214. SREEDHAR K.N.
S/O NARAYANASWAMI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS SMG-2, 66/11 KV MUSS,
CHINTAMANI, KPTCL, KOLAR
215. MURULIDHAR K.N.
S/O NARAYANASWAMI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS SMG-2, 66/11 KV MUSS,
CHINTAMANI, KPTCL, KOLAR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 009.
53
3. MANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
CORPORATE OFFICE
PARADIGM PLAZA,
AB SHETTY CIRCLE,
MANGALURU - 577 001.
4. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CO. LTD.
(BESCOM), REP. BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU -560 001.
5. HUBLI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CO. LTD. (HESCOM)
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
P.V. ROAD, NAVANAGAR,
HUBLI - 580 025.
6. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CO. LTD.,(GESCOM)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
STATION ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 102. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R-1,
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4,
SRI PRASHANTH T PANDIT, ADVOATE FOR R-5
SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE
54
PETITIONERS; QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DT.19.1.2013
VIDE ANNX-E AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES
14, 16 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO IS
DISCRIMINATORY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.02.2021, COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :-
ORDER
Petitioners in this writ petition have sought the following prayers:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the notification bearing No.5607/2000-2001 dated 19-01-2013 produced at Annexure-E as the same is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and also is discriminatory.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 11-02-2014 produced at Annexure-K and consider the cases of the petitioners for stepping up of their pay in the cadre of Assistant Lineman above that of the Junior Meter Readers pay scales at least 2 stages higher having regard additional educational qualification prescribed for them ever since the date of their 55 appointment and grant them all the consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice.
And
(c) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The petitioners were all applicants in a recruitment process initiated by the 2nd respondent/KPTCL and other ESCOMS to the post of Assistant Lineman. The petitioners were all recruited through five notifications issued from the year 1998 to 2008. It appears that on 26-03-2007 the KPTCL issued a notification amending the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations by creating a new cadre - Junior Meter Reader. Educational qualification prescribed for the said post in terms of the said amendment was SSLC. It 56 further transpires that KPTCL prescribed to the said post a higher pay scale to that of the petitioners which according to the petitioners is not in consonance with the educational qualification possessed.
3. The petitioners' claim to be in possession of higher qualification and doing more onerous and strenuous job than that of the Junior Meter Reader, which post was created on 26.03.2007 but allege that Junior Meter Reader is given higher pay scale than that of the petitioners despite doing a desk job. The grievance of the petitioners as pleaded are as follows:-
"(a) The minimum qualification prescribed to the post of Assistant Linemen is SSLC and 2 years ITI or 3 years ITC Certificate.
Whereas, the educational qualifica-tion prescribed to the post of Junior Meter Reader is only SSLC.
(b) The difference in pay scale in the cadre of Assistant Linemen with SSLC+ITI/ITC qualification is Rs.7950-150-8100-190- 9050-240-10250-300-11750-360-16790 whereas the pay scale prescribed to the post of Junior Meter Reader with only 57 SSLC qualification is Rs.8480-190-9050- 240-10250-300-11750-360-13910-420- 16850-510-18890-570-20600.
(c) A candidate who is appointed under fortuitous circumstances is in a better advantageous position with lesser educational qualification over the educationally better qualified Assistant Lineman in respect of pay and in respect of promotional avenues.
(d) 975 Junior Meter Readers get 20% of the vacancies in the cadre of Meter Reader, Operator and Overseer numbering 4827 vacancies, whereas 10,177 Lineman get only 30% of the vacancies and the Assistant Lineman have to get promoted to the post of Lineman and Mechanic Grade-II and wait for several years. Hence, Junior Meter Readers are in an advantageous position compared to the Lineman cadre which is the basic feeder cadre to the post of Meter Reader and other equivalent posts.
(e) An Assistant Lineman is required to earn 2 promotions to go to the cadre of Meter Reader, whereas Junior Meter Reader get immediate promotion on completion of 4 years of service. An Assistant Lineman has to wait for more than a year to get a promotion to the post of Lineman depending on the vacancies.
58
4. Heard Sri. Narayana Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1; Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4; Sri Prashanth T. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri M. Narayana Bhat would submit that despite cadres of both the petitioners and Junior Meter Readers being different in terms of the Rules, they are persons who are less qualified as they hold the qualification of SSLC whereas the petitioners are holders of the qualification of SSLC+ITI/ITC and placed in a pay scale of Rs.7950-16790 and Junior Meter Readers are placed in a pay scale of Rs.8480-20600. It is his case that such disparity has resulted in gross injustice to Assistant Linemen - petitioners. 59
6. The further grievance is that Junior Meter Reader despite being only 975 in number get 20% of the vacancies for promotion to the post of Meter Reader, whereas Assistant Linemen despite being 10,177 in number get only 30% of vacancies and Assistant Linemen is required to earn two promotions to go to the cadre of Meter Reader wherein Junior Meter Reader would get promotion on completion of 4 years to the cadre of Meter Reader. Broadly speaking the learned counsel would allege violation of Article 14.
7. On the other hand, Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned counsel appearing for KPTCL would submit that it is for the employer to decide as to what post should carry a particular pay scale and avenues of promotion to the said post. It is his contention that since large number of people are working in the cadre of Assistant Lineman, promotional avenue is restricted to 30% which would be equivalent to that of Junior Meter Reader 60 which is at 20% for promotion to the cadre of Meter Reader. He would submit that petitioners cannot raise a challenge to the pay scale or avenues of promotion as long as there is one stage of avenue available to the petitioners as well. He would further submit that under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court should not interfere with the policy of recruitment or promotion or fixation of pay scales according to the nature of work performed. He would further submit that the petitioners have also sought a prayer for consideration of their representation dated 11-02-2014, which the respondent/KPTCL would consider in accordance with law, if any of the grievance submitted by the petitioners in the said representation is redressable.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged by the parties and perused the material on record.
61
9. Before embarking upon consideration of submissions made by the petitioners, it is germane to notice the line of law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to judicial review concerning fixation of qualification, pay scale or manner of promotions. The Apex Court in the case of P.U. JOSHI v. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL -reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 has held as follows:-
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any 62 rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any 63 employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
(emphasis supplied) Subsequently a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. DAYANAND -reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 has held as follows:
"59. The creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection, etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although the decision of 64 the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and laying down the qualification, etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the exercise of discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of recruitment. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides."
(emphasis supplied) Again the Apex Court in the case of T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD v. T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA SANGAM - reported in (2008) 3 SCC 359 has held as follows:-
65
"8. Therefore, channel of promotions for these Helpers was in technical side. It was submitted that this was a policy decision taken by the Board in pursuance of the Office Order dated 23-5-1986 on recommendations of the Government. Henceforth the post of Helper i.e. Fitter, Turner, Machinist, etc. will be recruited out of the persons who possess NTC or NAC awarded by the National Council for Training and Vocational Trade. Consequent to this resolution of the Board the T.N. Service Regulations were amended and Note 3 was inserted in those Regulations. Therefore, after the insertion of Note 3 the criteria for selection for the post of Helper is that the incumbent should have NTC or NAC issued by the National Council for Training and Vocational Trade and it was also clearly stipulated in the Resolution of the Board dated 23-5-1986 that "the candidates holding NTC/NAC recruited as Helpers shall not be eligible for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistant and Typist including Steno- Typists". This resolution of the Board was 66 incorporated in the Regulations in the same terms. Note 3 reads as under:
"National Trade Certificate /
National Apprentice-ship Certificate
candidates recruited as Helpers shall not be eligible for internal selection to the posts of Junior Assistants and Typists including Steno-Typists."
9. Therefore, this is a matter of policy decision taken by the Board that henceforth the persons holding NTC/NAC appointed as Helpers will have the channel of promotion to the technical post and not to the administrative post. It is true that prior to 1986 the persons who were appointed as Helpers were also appointed as Junior Assistants and Technicians in the office. After the decision taken by the Board, Helpers have been appointed who only possess NTC/NAC. The Board has now channelised the promotions of these persons in the category of technical 67 posts and not in the administrative posts.
11. In this connection, our attention was invited to the decision of this Court in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 191] and this Court has very categorically stated that:(SCC p. 639, para 10) "10. ... There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
(emphasis supplied) 68 Elaborating interference by Constitutional Courts insofar as rule making power of the Appointing Authority, the Apex Court in the case of CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. USHA KHETERPAL WAIE - reported in (2011) 9 SCC 645 has held as follows:
"22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (See J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. [(1990) 1 SCC 288: 1990 SCC (L&S) 76] and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632: 2003 SCC (L&S) 191]. In the absence of 69 any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of PhD is unreasonable."
(emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, again reiterating the very view and elaborating the same as in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. ARVINDKUMAR T.TIWARI - reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 has held as follows:
"10. The appointing authority is competent to fix a higher score for selection, than the one required to be attained for mere eligibility, but by way of its natural corollary, it cannot be taken to mean that eligibility/norms fixed by the statute or rules can be relaxed for this purpose to the extent that the same may be lower than the ones fixed by the statute. In a particular case, where it is so required, relaxation of even educational 70 qualification(s) may be permissible, provided that the rules empower the authority to relax such eligibility in general, or with regard to an individual case or class of cases of undue hardship. However, the said power should be exercised for justifiable reasons and it must not be exercised arbitrarily, only to favour an individual. The power to relax the recruitment rules or any other rule made by the State Government/authority is conferred upon the Government/authority to meet any emergent situation where injustice might have been caused or, is likely to be caused to any person or class of persons or, where the working of the said rules might have become impossible. (Vide State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Mar-waha [(1974) 3 SCC 220:1973 SCC (L&S) 488:AIR 1973 SC 2216], J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1990) 2 SCC 189:1990 SCC (L&S) 218:(1990) 12 ATC 745] and Ashok Kumar Uppal v. State of J&K [(1998) 4 SCC 179: 1998 SCC (L&S) 1055] .).71
11. The courts and tribunal do not have the power to issue direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention thereof. In State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir [(1998) 6 SCC 165: 1998 SCC (L&S) 1459], this Court while dealing with a similar issue rejected the plea of humanitarian grounds and held as under:
(SCC p. 175, para 31) "31. ... The courts as also the tribunal have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential educational qualifications, should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution."72
12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service, for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of "fair play", "good conscience" and 73 "equity". (Vide State of J&K v. Shiv Ram Sharma [(1999) 3 SCC 653: 1999 SCC (L&S) 801: AIR 1999 SC 2012] and Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 8 SCC 633:
2001 SCC (L&S) 62]."
(emphasis supplied) One common factor that runs through the stream of all the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, as afore-
extracted, is the judgment in the case of P.U.Joshi (supra) which is reiterated time and again. Therefore, facts obtaining in the case at hand will have to be considered on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi.
10. The Apex Court, has in unequivocal terms, directed that questions relating to conditions of service including avenues of promotions, criteria to be fulfilled on such promotion, method of recruitment, eligibility criteria for promotion, pay scale attached to the post are all in the domain of policy of the employer, except in a case where the policy is so arbitrary that it violates 74 Article 14 of the Constitution and without much ado, judicial interference in such cases is not called for. The Apex Court would further direct in the said case that addition or removal of qualification, abolition of posts, creation of posts, reconstitution and re-structure of posts would all be within the domain of policy. This view of the Apex Court is further reiterated in the judgment hereinabove.
11. The grievance of petitioners is that minimum qualification prescribed for Assistant Lineman and that of Junior Meter Reader are entirely different. This Court would not and cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the employer to prescribe qualification that is needed for a particular post depending upon the nature of duties that the employer wants from the hands of the personnel who get appointed to such posts. This Court would not pronounce on the grievance of the petitioners that their qualification for the post of Assistant Lineman 75 is higher than that of Junior Meter Reader, both of which, form feeder cadre for promotion to the cadre of Lineman.
12. The next grievance is that Assistant Lineman though having a qualification of SSLC plus ITI is placed in a lower pay scale and Junior Meter Reader who is required to possess a qualification of SSLC is placed in a higher pay scale. Here again, appointments to both the posts are different. Both the posts may be feeder cadres to the post of Lineman which would not give a right to the petitioners to contend that employees belonging to two different cadres cannot have two different pay scales. If both the petitioners and others who are appointed to a particular cadre have different pay scales then the contention of the petitioners would become acceptable, not in the manner it is now alleged. The petitioners entered the cadre of Assistant Lineman on the strength of various notifications by direct 76 recruitment. Junior Meter Readers have entered the cadre by different notification pursuant to an amendment for creation of the post of Junior Meter Reader on 26-03-2007. The qualification and percentage of vacancies for promotion vary by the impugned notification. Even then the petitioners, in my considered view, do not have any right to contend that the pay scale of a particular cadre should not be higher than their cadre.
13. The effect of allowing the prayer of the petitioners would be to non-suit several personnel of the KPTCL working and getting a particular pay scale in the cadre of Junior Meter Reader. Any variance in the pay scale of Junior Meter Reader on acceptance of the prayer of the petitioners would result in civil consequences upon those Junior Meter Readers who are not even parties to the writ petition. Hence, the 77 grievance of the petitioners with regard to pay scale is unacceptable.
14. The next grievance of the petitioners that a fortuitous appointment on compassionate grounds being made to several meter readers being in more advantageous position despite lesser educational qualification is also unacceptable, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi. Further, the petitioners contend that Junior Meter Readers get 20% of vacancies for promotion to the post of Meter Reader, Operator and Overseaor whose cadre strength is 4827 whereas for a cadre of 10177 Assistant Lineman, the petitioners get only 30% of the vacancies as promotional avenue to the post of Lineman from the cadre of Assistant Lineman, as it is divided among other cadres to be the feeder cadre to the post of Lineman. It is also not in dispute that petitioners now are all promoted and are working in the cadre of Lineman. This 78 again is a matter of policy of the employer with regard to structuring or re-structuring of the cadre and determination of particular percentage of vacancies for promotional avenue.
15. The policy, in my opinion, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The structuring of the cadre is done in accordance with the needs of the post, which cannot be termed to be arbitrary only because the cadre of the petitioners is given 30% of the vacancies as promotional avenue and the cadre of Junior Meter Reader which is altogether a separate cadre is given 20% of the vacancies for promotion to the post of Lineman.
16. The further grievance of the petitioners is that Assistant Lineman is required to earn two promotions to enter the cadre of Lineman whereas, Junior Meter Reader enters the cadre of Meter 79 Reader/Lineman within four years of completion of service in the cadre of Junior Meter Reader. It is the structuring of the cadre that is made as there are avenues of promotion to the post of Lineman viz., Assistant Lineman, Mechanic Grade-II and Junior Meter Reader. The petitioners herein again cannot have any grievance with regard to structuring of the cadre. Moreover, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the wisdom of the employer in structuring or re-structuring its cadre for its needs. Therefore, none of the grievances complained of by the petitioners' sound acceptance. The petitioners' grievances remain grievances and not a right that is taken away for judicial interference of the nature of the case that is brought before this Court.
17. The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are all inapplicable to the facts of the case at hand, as every one of them deal with arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the 80 State action and further hold that reasons must exist to justify such action at the hands of the State. Therefore, none of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are considered in the light of the fact that they are rendered on a totally different set of facts and circumstances. The judgments quoted supra in my considered view, cover the case at hand on all fours.
18. With regard to the other prayer that is sought in the writ petition for a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation for stepping up of their pay in the cadre of Assistant Lineman either on par with Junior Meter Reader or above Junior Meter Reader by two scales owing to their educational qualification is concerned, it is not in dispute that the respondent/KPTCL has not considered the representation on the ground that the writ petition is 81 pending consideration at the hands of this Court. Therefore, KPTCL is at liberty to consider the representation dated 11-02-2014 in accordance with law. Except the aforesaid observations none of the grounds urged sound acceptance.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition, lacks merit and is dismissed.
20. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ