Karnataka High Court
Sri S R Purushotham vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
Ce eek aed Sw VME WT RAR MM OWA! UP RANNALARA HIG COUKI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK A AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF MAY 2003 : PRESENT _ -- THE HON'BLE MR, P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF 3 USTICE, Ms, AND: - : | THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. G. SABHANTT WRIT PETITION Nos.13 SRI S RY URUSHOTHAM _ AGED 50 YEARS, . Ce S/O.SREK, RONESS. SHETTY ASSISTANT ENGINEER - | MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, io MYSORE ea a a a He me 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 2 THE COMMISSIONER, VI RARIVAGAIA THIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR "hina Nest Mood IE, AND: MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER SRLK.ANAGARAIU , MAJOR ASSISTANT ENGINEER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE ee RESPONDENTS IN WP, Noi3900/2008 THE STATE OF KARN ATAKS _-- REP.BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN D EVELOPMENT "DEPARTMENT VIKASA . SOUDHA, BS BANGALORE MYSORE ern /eonpe RATION, MYSORE REP, BYITS . COMMISSIONER. "THE COM ISSIONER:, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE > REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER = RLK, A.NAGARAIU ,MAIOR MYSORE CITY CORPORATION --EBy Sri: _V LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV, MYS SORE RESPONDENTS IN W.P. Nos. 13901 mM? LEQDe OF 2009 AVARAI KAREDDY, AGA, SESSA Wena Be Kad SARE SR TLR UE Ble RL ee OR APA A Bt oe he Were a4 Cie ARN ATAICA HIGH cour SORE MPALTE EGG EAT hg THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED PRAYING TO:- CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO CONCERNING "AND CONNECTED WITH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DT. -- 17.4.2009 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE . LIN APPLICATION NOS. 1160 AND 1560/2 '007 AND 1139/2008. VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND. UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THESE WRIT PETITI TONS "COMING UP FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING CN THIS DAY, SABHAHIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING : ORDER
_ These writ Petitions are filed by the applicant in "Application No. 4560/2007, 1160/2007 and 1139/2008 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, = Bangalore, (hereinafter calied 'the Tribunal'), being ~ aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2009, wherein the Tribunal has held that the applications filed by the petitioner are not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed AS SS BE Ee Rah aT ae KARNATAKA HIGH COUR "See he SH A See TL OE MPO UES PEE Ha Shad HL SY CA PO ie ECR Le SLA ee bee OCU ELA the applications filed by the petitioner herein with liberty to the applicant to approach the proper forum. ae
2. The essential facts of the case leading up te these writ petitions are as feilows:-_ 2.1 The petiti ioner herein + applicant before the Tribunal was working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. He was S workin ng as 'Assistant Engineer No.2, Varuna Ca nal Construction Division, Mysore, during 2005. He was, "appointed cn | deputation as Assistant Engineer, Mysore City Corporation, in place of one Sri 1.G. Jadhav, Assistant "Engineer, whose services were "repatriated to the | parent department. The applicant ~-continued te work in the said post. 22 There was a proposal to absorb Sri K. Nagaraju : (respondent No.3 in Application No.1160/2007 and ; _ raspondent No.4 in Application Nos.1560/2007 and 1138/2008 before the Tribunal) Assistant Engineer, Karnataka Land Army Corporation, in the services of Vg ee Tel ha zwras Er PE Sa PNT EPR EPR PEE ETE a ted Lot TF a POPE EE EW EE ERY E YD Rage ee? A a" PR MO UR ie hal Sid Ral EO A UR SORE Gee Tiel Ht Se MRE a Municipal Corporation, Mysore, as Assistant Engineer. The sreposai was approved by the Government in its. order dated 27.02.2007. The applicant gave « rapresantaton, dated 12.03.2007 praying that his name may : be recommended for absorption -- 'n Muni ipal Corporation, Mysore, and that the services reridered by Dia in the:
Municipal Corporation, Mysore, on ~ deputation oe considered for the pu pose of seniority and further prametion. The sald" preys er was rejected by the Municipal Cerporation, Mysore and the: appli icant was informed by endorsement deted 92.04. 2007,
23 *s Application No. 1160/2007 was filed by the appella nt herein: before the Tribunal contending that the oe | recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineers in the
- office of the Municipal Corporation, Mysore, provide for "appointment by 25% on deputation frarn the public works s department of equivalent grade officers ang 75% by : _ prémetion of junior angineers and that in view of the decision taken by the Munkipa! Corporation, Mysore, on 36.01.2004 not to fill up the poste of Assistant Engineers \yQ> TM YMNT WE SARINAIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR WR ue eo by absorption, the recommendation made by the Commissioner of Mysore Municipal Corporation for absorption of Sri &. Nagaraju (Respondent No.3) was bad :
in law. Applicant has sought for quashirg of the said. letter :
issued by the Commissioner of Mysore "Municipal | Corporation dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure A in AL No, 1160/2007) requesting the Government te give approval for absorption 'of Sri K, Negaraju in the Mysore Municipal Corporation.
24> Application. No.156C/2007 was filed to quash the order. duted 27.02.2007 for which approval was granted. by the Government for abserption of Sri EK. Negaraju, Assistant Engineer, Karnataka Land Army Corporation, '#8 Assistant Engineer in the City Municipal '. Corporation.
2.5 Application No.1139/2008 was filed by the ~ applicant - petitiener herein seeking for quashing the endorsement dated 02.06.2007 issued by respondent No.3
- Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore, by Var ; (hereinafter referred to as the Ar Ea Rl NE ENTE ER ORI EEA Sie Sie Sei ATE oe BPR ERR RS PED MP Ws al ad HE aad a" WIS RG EU RUE RG EE ane Seo Bao Ph She ER DR UE OR Se Maw DP A Na OAT RSE Be i NT which the applicant wes intimated that as per the recruitmnent rules, there wae no provision fer absorption af the apoicant in Municipal Corporation, Mysore, "and alse sought for direction te respondent No.3 te send recommendation to the Government for hig atsorptibn® a. Notice was issued te the respondents on the said applications.
On. appearance, 4 learned Advacate apoearing for Sri. KA. Nagarais, pF vate 'respondent im all the three appli jeationg and the learned Government Pieader appearing for the other respondents raised e@ preliminary objection contending that tee Tribunal had mo jurisdiction | te. determin As the dispute raised by the apolicant in all the : three zeplientions gincé none of the prayers @ covered by €°).
5. The Tribunal heard the learned counsel fer the parties on the preliminary objection and held that there \gt SS a eo) OTT EPUNES FEU GLE GP RAKRNATAKA HIGH COUR!
- for the writ petitioner and the learn:
Additional Governmant Advocate ap was merit in the orelirninary objection raised . by the respondents as the contentions raised in the. three applications referred to shove and the redie af BOk ight for | therein did not fall within the armbit of Section +25(1) of the . . Act. The Tribunal further held thet no" notification had been issued under Sectian 152). or oe "Act. making oreveion of sub-section(3). af Section 15 of the Act applicable to Mysore Munieipal Corporation and wherefore, the appl ications before the Tribune i we re not maintainable and the s ppl cant had ) approach appropri iate Forurn to work. out his samedy_ anti accordingly, dismissed olf the thy res aoplications ag not maintainable with Hoerty to the apg cart te approach the oroper Forum, by order dated } 12. OM, 2008. That being aggrieved by the sald order, the . appli icant ha 8 preferred these Writ Petitions. : 6. " We have heard the arned counsel appearing ad counsel appearing im for the fourth respondent-Caveator and the 'sarned aring for respondent No.1.
Yo FRR wD FE Le TR RO, SN UR GP Re CO AA re Ge OW Re ey
7. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the reliefs sought for by: the writ petitioner sefera the Tribunal fall within the. ambit of Section 1501) of the Act and the-T ribunal was not justified :
in rejecting the appl cations Be nat "maintainabie as the | writ petitioner @ a person appointed in the. civ vit sarvices of the Stete Government. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is lieble te be set avid B. "the: "other: rand, laarned Additional Government: Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the order r pease by the Tribunal is justified ang dows net suffer gin any error or jlegelity as to call for interference | in these writ petitions.
2). We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and ecrutinized the material on record.
10, The material on recerd would clearly show that though the applicant before the Tribunal is holding a Civil \o+ eg ge ae Se EOE OLE PRO FREE LPR oe RB RARNATAKA HIGH COUR: -10-
service post under the State as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department, he wee deputed as Assistant Engineer in the office of the Mysore City Corporation. - The:
averments made in Application Nos. 1160/2007, 1560/2007 . . and LLS°O/2008 woud clearly shove 'thet the. 'pati tener 18 | aggrevec by the absorati on of Serves | "of. SH KA. . Nagaraiu, Ageistant Engineer, Kernataka Land Army orporation in the servic a5 of the: Municipal Corporation, Mysore, and reject len of nM is app heat ion for absarption in the services "of the Municipal Corporation, Mysore. Admittediy, ocnotiidetion bas been issued under Section 15(2) of the Act, making the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the 'ct applicable to Mysore Municipal Corporation et Mysore. The averments made in the applications and the reliefs sought for therein would clearly "show that the grievance of the petitioner is regarding his non-absurption and absorption of Sri K. A. Nagaraju in the os services of the Municipal Corperation, Mysere, and im wherefore, the impugned order did not in any way affect the rights of the writ petitioner as a persen in Civil Services of the Stete. In the absence of notific Wha BOR Sera "Rent Nae tha? BA Sah RS a PR, EEE he a I Ra PE RR TREE ee he OE QE RR EET Se et GR
-~ij-
Section 15(2) of the Act making provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act applicable to the. "Mysore 2 Municipal Corporation, the Tribunal has righty hold ti that the reliefs sought for by tha- wi rat petition erin the : -
applications did not fall within the ambit oF Section 1 15(1) of the Act and has accord! ng, dismissed the appli ications as not maintaina bie with. fiberyy, to the applicant - petitioner to approach proper ferver a he decision relied upon by the 'earned: counsel for the pati itioner in ILR 1989 AAR B16 {H, oMBaL LALaH va ZILLA PARISHAD} 6 mot heipful.to the: petitionar in in hace writ petitions in view of the above gait n mater! ral on record, Having regarg to the above said madera i record, ib ig clear that the order net suffer Frarr passed by the Tribunal i is justified and does "any error or legality a6 to call for interference in exercise " of verit jue risdction of this Caurt. Accordingly, we hold that writ petitions and pass the there is no merit in the following Order: -
The Writ Petitions are ciemissed. However, disrnissal of the writ petitions would not preclude the writ petitioner Noh