Karnataka High Court
Megaraja S/O Late Yellappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 10 June, 2021
Bench: S.G.Pandit, M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.204828/2018 (S-KAT)
Between:
Megaraja S/o late Yellappa
Aged 53 Years, Occ: Armed Head Constable
No.77, Police Head Quarters
Bidar-585 401
R/o H.No.8-5-173, Labour Colony
Bidar-585 401
... Petitioner
(By Sri J.K. Bukka, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Home Department, Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore - 560 001
2. The Inspector General of Police
North Eastern Range
Kalaburagi - 585 101
3. The Superintendent of Police
Bidar - 585 401
2
4. Rajappa M.
Father's name not known to the applicant
ARHC 419 (Presently ARSI)
DAR Police Head Quarter
Bidar- 585 401
... Respondents
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1 to R3;
Notice to R4 dispensed with)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by
the KSAT in Application Nos.6989-99 of 2015 dated
28.08.2018 vide Annexure-A and issue writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the 1st to 3rd respondent to consider
the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2015 vide
Anneuxre-A2 in view of the provision made in Article 371 (J)
of the Constitution of India.
This petition having been heard and reserved for
orders on 04.06.2021, coming on for pronouncement of
orders, this day, M.G.S.Kamal J., made the following:-
ORDER
This writ petition is against the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the KSAT') by which the KSAT dismissed the application 3 filed by the petitioner seeking quash of order dated 04.07.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent promoting the 4th respondent and quash of endorsement dated 15.07.2015.
2. In the present petition, on 09.03.2021 the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would confine his prayer only to the non-consideration of his representation and would give up challenge in so far as promotion to the 4th respondent. Thus, the only issue which arises for consideration in this petition is with regard consideration of representations dated 27.01.2015 and 18.06.2015 given by the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the permanent resident of Bidar District which comes under the provisions of Article 371(J) of the Constitution of India providing reservation in recruitment, promotion, appointment and seniority to the local persons in the region of Bidar, Koppal, Kalaburagi, Raichur, Yadgiri 4 and Ballari. That he is the employee of the 3rd respondent discharging his duty as Armed Reserve Head Constable in Bidar District. That the 3rd respondent by order dated 04.07.2015 had promoted the 4th respondent herein from the post of Armed Reserve Head Constable to Armed Reserve Sub- Inspector from the list of non-local cadre. That the said order promoting the 4th respondent had caused prejudice and injustice to the petitioner inasmuch as he being a senior to 4th respondent had been discriminated in providing the promotion to the next higher cadre.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had given a representation on 27.01.2015 requesting to reconsider the list of seniority published pursuant to the scheme under Article 371(J) of the Constitution of India and that he gave another representation 18.06.2015 to include his name in the non-local cadre. That the 3rd respondent in response to the aforesaid 5 representation issued an endorsement dated 15.07.2015 stating that the provisional seniority list as on 01.01.2013 prepared in terms of Article 371(J) was published on 07.07.2014 and had called for objections which was to be filed within 15 days and that the petitioner had submitted the objection after expiry of the said period of 15 days. It is further stated in the said endorsement that the petitioner had exercised his option to include his name in the local cadre by submitting prescribed Form as per Annexure-'C' on 05.03.2014. Therefore, seniority list of Armed Head Constable as on 01.01.2013 was published carving out 80% to the local cadre and 20% to non-local cadre.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement, the petitioner along with 10 others filed Application Nos.6989-6999 of 2015 before the KSAT. The KSAT by its order dated 28.08.2018 dismissed the 6 said applications. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the KSAT erred in not appreciating the fact that the petitioner is senior to the 4th respondent and that the promotion of the 4th respondent by order dated 04.07.2015 to the next higher cadre was illegal. He further submitted that the petitioner had filed the representation before the 3rd respondent on 27.01.2015 objecting the non-local cadre list which was published on 06.01.2015 and again had submitted another representation on 18.06.2015 seeking inclusion of his name in the non-local cadre list which was not considered by the 3rd respondent. That the inaction of the 3rd respondent is violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 371(J) of the Constitution of India. The endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent on 15.07.2015 is against the provisions of law. He further 7 submits that the authorities ought to have included his name in the non-local cadre seniority list and the reasons assigned by the 3rd respondent in the impugned endorsement are untenable. As such, he seeks setting aside of the order passed by the KSAT and further seeks to issue writ of mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2015 and 18.06.2015 as per Annexures-A2 and A3 directing the 3rd respondent to include his name into non-local cadre list.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the representations submitted by the petitioner was to merge his name in the local cadre seniority list which cannot be considered. It is further submitted that subsequent to the Government Notification No.DPAR 06 PLX 2012, Bangalore dated 06.11.2013, all the staff of district through were informed through e-mail message dated 8 26.02.2014 to implement the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, in that employees opting the local cadre were asked to submit their willingness in Annexure-'C'. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner along with others submitted willingness in Annexure-'C' willing to join the local cadre. The application in prescribed form submitted by the petitioner is as per Annexure-R5 dated 05.03.2014. After receiving the willingness in the prescribed format from all the staff, two separate cadre (Rank-wise) were formed in accordance with the provisions of law and the rules and published their rank-wise provisional seniority list vide official letter dated 07.07.2014 as per Annexure-R14 and called for objections if any to be filed within 15 days thereof. No objections were filed to the said provisional seniority list by the petitioner. Only two persons had filed objections. After considering the said objections, the seniority list was published on 9 19.09.2014. The petitioner has not challenged the said seniority list. It is further submitted that the main grievance of the petitioner is to include his name in the non-local cadre seniority list which cannot be considered. It is further submitted that once the option is exercised opting for the local cadre or otherwise, the same is final and irrevocable. As such, the representations of the petitioner for inserting his name in the non-local cadre seniority list cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that the rank-wise gradation list of both cadre is being published every year in the month of January. Accordingly, the provisional gradation list- 2015 was published in the month of January. It is further submitted that the entire process of forming the cadres was completed in 2014 and two separate seniority list were published in the year 2014. Hence, submitted that the order passed by the KSAT does not require any interference.
10
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent - State and perused the records.
9. It is necessary to note relevant portion of para 3 Chapter-II, para 6 of Chapter-IV and para 7 of Chapter-V of Notification-1, No.DPAR 49 HKC 2014, Bangalore dated 29.01.2014 which read as under;
Chapter-II
3. Organisation of local cadres:-
(1) Pursuant to paragraph 3 and 13 of the order the controlling Authority may identify by notification the number of posts in each cadre within jurisdiction of the cadre constituting local cadre in the manner specified below. The posts notified and constituted as local cadre shall be reserved for local persons in accordance with the respective rules of recruitment for promotion or direct recruitment as the case may be.
(2)....
Chapter-IV Allotment of persons to a Local Cadre
6. Application for local cadre post:
(1) The Cadre Controlling Authority after having formed and notified the local cadre with roster 11 points shall call for the option through a general circular, from the existing employees satisfying the criteria of local person and who are willing to join the cadre, to exercise their option within 30 days in the format specified in Annexure-C. In case of eligible employees who do not exercise their option within 30 days it shall be deemed that they are not interested in joining a local cadre."
Chapter-V
7. Seniority and Related issues:(1) The Competent Authority shall maintain separate seniority, in the local cadre and Residuary Parental Cadre.
(2)...."
10. Further, in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 10.04.2014 issued by the Government of Karnataka for the purpose of balancing of roster points and operation of roster consequent to formation of local cadre, allotment and transfer of local persons to the local cadre, in implementing Article 371(J) of Constitution of India specifically emphasizes "that the option once exercised opting for local cadre or otherwise is final and is irrevocable". 12
11. It is seen that as per Annexure-R5, the petitioner has filed application in prescribed form on 05.03.2014, exercising his option to include his name in the local cadre as provided in Chapter-IV hereinabove. Having exercises his option to include his name for local cadre, which once exercised would be final and irrevocable, the petitioner cannot seek to reconsideration of his option. Consequently, the representations dated 27.01.2015 and 18.06.2015 given by the petitioner objecting the seniority list issued for the local cadre and further seeking to include his name in the non-local cadre cannot be considered.
12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition. There is no irregularity, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the KSAT. The representations of the petitioner dated 27.01.2015 and 18.06.2015 cannot be considered as the petitioner has no right to seek inclusion of his name 13 in the non-local cadre seniority list. As such, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed .
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BL