Karnataka High Court
S.G. Krishna And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 12 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: ILR2002KAR3304, 2002(5)KARLJ1, 2002 LAB IC (NOC) 141 (KAR), 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2680, (2002) 5 KANT LJ 1, (2003) 1 SCT 216, (2003) 3 SERVLR 104
Author: S.B. Majage
Bench: S.B. Majage
JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 26427 to 26431 of 2001 and connected cases dated 19th July, 2001, wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions observing that the petitioners have no right whatsoever to question the correctness or otherwise of the endorsement issued by the respondents dated 15-12-2000.
2. The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short 'BWSSB') in 1998, took a decision to fill up 120 posts of Sanitary Workers for the purpose of cleaning and maintenance of the various works of the Board and the Employment Exchange sent the names of 1,200 candidates as desired. The appellants-petitioners appeared for interview, and thereafter, the Selection Committee selected 120 persons inclusive of the appellants-petitioners but no appointment orders were issued. On the application of one S.G. Krishna, a Social Worker, an endorsement was issued by BWSSB on 15-12-2002 and the appellants-petitioners came to know that the BWSSB in its meeting held on 17-11-2000 had taken a decision not to fill up the said posts. The appellants-petitioners submitted representations dated 18-12-2000 and 22-12-2000 to the Chairman and Managing Director of BWSSB but of no avail. The appellants-petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 3066 to 3115 of 2001. The learned Single Judge, on consideration found that the endorsement was not issued to the appellants-petitioners but to S.G. Krishna, a Social Worker, and the appellants-petitioners participation in the selection process by itself would not give them any right nor there was any obligation on the part of the respondent-Board to complete the selection process to complete selection and thereby rejected the writ petitions. Hence, these writ appeals.
3. The main contention of the learned Counsels for the appellants is that the appellants who appeared for the interview and were selected two years ago have not been given appointment orders and therefore, the appellants herein pray that necessary directions be issued to the respondents to appoint them, by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 26427 to 26431 of 2001 and connected cases dated 19th July, 2001. He further contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the case of the petitioners therein in the proper perspective. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P and T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., and Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors., He also relied on the decision in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,
4. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties, perused the materials on record and the cases cited above.
5. In the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour, supra, their Lordships while considering the case of equal pay for equal work held that the daily rated casual labourers in Posts and Telegraphs Department were doing work similar to that of regular workers of the Department and gave direction to the respondent to prepare a Scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Posts and Telegraphs Department.
6. In Jacob M. Puthuparambil's case, supra, their Lordships, while interpreting Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, consistently with the spirit and philosophy of the Constitution which is permissible to do without doing violence to the said rule, observed that employees who are serving in the establishment for long spell and who have the requisite qualifications for the job, should not be thrown out but their services should be regularised as far as possible.
7. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi's case, supra, removal of all District Government Counsels in the State was challenged as arbitrary and open to judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held that Article 14 covered the exercise of executive power, irrespective of the nature of appointment, and hence the impugned circular was quashed.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellants has not been able to substantiate how the appellants are entitled to claim appointment without issuance of any appointment order merely because the appellants-petitioners had appeared in the interview and stated that they were selected, that by itself would not give the appellants-petitioners any right or claim and this Court cannot go for the reasons whatsoever for non-issuance of any appointment order. Even empanelment of a candidate would not give any right for appointment. Admittedly, no appointment order was issued to anybody. The cases cited by the learned Counsels for the appellants are not helpful as they are not applicable to the facts of the given case.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the given case it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice, which calls for interference. The learned Single Judge by an elaborate order has not interfered. On consideration and as discussed above, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge so as to call for interference.
Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.