Karnataka High Court
Sri H Anjaneya vs The Karnataka Power Transmission on 17 January, 2018
Equivalent citations: 2018 (1) AKR 735, 2018 (3) KCCR SN 316 (KAR)
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 27699 OF 2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI H ANJANEYA
SON OF LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YERAS,
RESIDING AT KARIKERE VILLAGE AND POST,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B G FAYAZ SAB, ADV.)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL) BESCOM
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECOTR,
ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY)
BESCOM,
CHITRADURGA CIRCLE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA - 577501.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E)
VA.KA AND SHA DIVISON,
BESCOM,
-2-
HIRIYUR - 577501
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA PATIL, ADV. FOR
SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1-R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD:07.08.2007 ISSUED BY THE R-
3 STATING THAT IF VACANCY ARISES WILL CONSIDER THE
SAME, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH FOR THE KIND
PERUSAL OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-K IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND
OPPOSE TO THE PRINCIPALES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND
WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND THE SAME ARE PASSED
WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER TO RE-INSTATE AS
PER DIRECTIONS ISSUED IN W.P. NO.34259 TO 34288/1997
DTD:06.03.1998 AND ORDER PASED IN W.P.NO/33275-
33277/2001(S-RES) DTD:13.09.2001.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought the relief from this Court that he should be appointed on the post of Gangman, or equivalent post, with the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('KPTCL' for short). He has also sought the relief that the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's case for -3- reinstatement as per the order dated 06.03.1998, passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 34259-34288/1997, and as per the order dated 13.09.2001, passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 33275-33277/2001.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed, as a daily wage worker, in 1997, on the post of Gangman in Chitradurga Division of KPTCL. Having worked for two months, his services were terminated by order dated 20.06.1997. However, subsequently, it seems he was again hired for a period of two months. And his services were again terminated by order dated 08.01.1998. Subsequently, his services were also engaged for urgent temporary work. However, by order dated 30.09.1997, his services were terminated by the respondents. Although the respondents had held an interview on 20.07.2000, the petitioner was not selected for the post of Gangman. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition, namely, W.P.Nos.33275- -4- 33277/2001 before this Court. By order dated 13.09.2001, this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application in light of the judgment of this Court dated 06.03.1998, passed in W.P.Nos.34259-34288/1997. The petitioner further claims that after the order dated 13.09.2001, was passed, he has repeatedly represented, before the respondents, for his reinstatement on the post of Gangman. But, by endorsement dated 07.08.2007, he has been informed that his case will be considered as and when vacancies arise. Despite the lapse of many years, the petitioner has never been reinstated by the respondent. Hence this petition before this Court, filed in the year 2015.
3. Mr. B. G. Fayaz Sab, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that by order dated 06.03.1998, passed by this Court, in the aforementioned writ petitions, this Court had given -5- clear-cut direction to the respondents, namely, that they shall maintain a list of temporary employees who have worked intermittently for more than two calendar years; whenever the temporary need for services of Gangmen/helpers arise, the Board may choose the employees from such list instead of replacing them by a fresh set of new temporary employees. Despite the direction issued by this Court by the said order, and despite the direction issued by this Court vide its order dated 13.09.2001, the petitioner has never been reinstated by the respondents. Thus, the respondents are flouting the orders passed by this Court.
Secondly, repeatedly vacancies have arisen with the respondents, but the respondents have refused to consider the petitioner's case. Thus, by endorsement dated 07.08.2007, merely a placebo has been given to the petitioner that his case will be considered as and when the vacancy arises. However, the petitioner -6- continues to be in animated suspension. Since he is facing financial crises due to unemployment, the learned counsel submits that this Court should direct the respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Smt. Girija Patil, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that after the passing of the order dated 06.03.1998, and the order dated 13.09.2001, on 21.03.2006, the KPTCL had notified, and had amended the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recruitment & Service Conditions of Probationary Mazdoors) Regulations, 1997 ('Regulations of 1997' for short). According to the amendment, only those Gangmen would be appointed who had continuously worked for six years as on 01.04.2005. Since the petitioner does not fall within the said category, as his services were rendered only intermittently between 1997 and 1999, the petitioner's case could not be considered for appointment. -7- Secondly, even if an endorsement has been issued by the respondents on 07.08.2007, the said endorsement cannot be read as an estoppel. For, there is no estoppel against a statute. Therefore, the respondents cannot be expected to violate the amended Regulations of 1997.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the endorsement.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has worked for the respondents only intermittently from 1997 to 1999. His services were terminated with effect from 30.09.1999. Undoubtedly, by order dated 06.03.1998, this Court had passed a direction to the respondents. Moreover, by order dated 13.09.2001, this Court had also passed a direction that the benefit of the directions issued in order dated 06.03.1998, should be extended to the petitioner as well. However, after the passing of the order dated 13.09.2001, the petitioner never approached this Court for implementation of the said -8- order. Meanwhile, in 2006, the respondents amended the Regulations of 1997. Once the Regulations of 1997 have been amended, naturally the petitioner's case would have to be considered under the terms of the said Regulations. According to the amended Regulations of 1997, a Gangman who has worked continuously for a period of six years as on 01.04.2005, would be eligible for being appointed as a probationary mazdoor. Admittedly, the petitioner has never worked continuously for a period of six years prior to 01.04.2005. Therefore, the petitioner's case does not fall within the amended Regulations of 1997. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement.
7. Even if the endorsement has been issued on 07.08.2007, giving a hope to the petitioner that his case would be considered as and when the vacancy arises, the said endorsement is clearly in violation of the amended Regulations of 1997. Thus, the endorsement -9- cannot be read as creating an estoppel in favour of the petitioner. After all, there is no estoppel against a statute. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in relying upon the endorsement dated 07.08.2007.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE RD