Sri. S Ananda Murthy vs The Commissioner on 15 June, 2018

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. S Ananda Murthy vs The Commissioner on 15 June, 2018

Bench: A S Bopanna

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

           WRIT PETITION No.7298/2017(S-PRO)

BETWEEN:

Sri. S.Ananda Murthy,
S/o Sri.Somappa
Aged About 49 years,
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil),
Solid Waste Management,
Dasappa Hospital,
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike,
Bengaluru-560002.
R/o No.229, 14th "A" Cross,
5th Main Road, II Block,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-560032.               .....Petitioner

(By Sri.M.V.Hiremath, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The Commissioner,
       Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
       N.R.Square, Bengaluru-56002.

2.     The Secretary
       Department of Urban Development,
       Government of Karnataka,
       Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.     .....Respondents

(By Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, Advocate for R1,
 By Sri. B.J.Eshwarappa, AGA for R2)
                                 2


      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the constitution of India praying to direct R-1 to
consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the
post of Executive Engineer under the provisions of PWD
Representation Act, 1995 dated 31.8.2016 and 4.1.2017
at Annexures-F and G forthwith.

     This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:

                              ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer under the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995 as per the request made by the petitioner in the representation at Annexures 'F' and 'G' to the petition.

2. Petitioner claims to be a person belonging to Schedule Caste and also physically challenged who was selected to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the quota reserved for physically handicapped. Petitioner thereafter has been discharging his duties. That being the position petitioner despite his unblemished service has not been considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer 3 by making a provision for physically challenged persons. In that regard, a reference no doubt is made to the provisions as contained in Sections 32 and 33 of the PWD Act. Petitioner therefore has made representations as at Annexures F and G seeking consideration.

3. Respondent no.1 has filed detailed objection statement referring to the manner in which provision has been made under the Act for reservation to physically handicapped persons as required in law. In that regard it is contended that the petitioner having thus been recruited, in any event is discharging his functions. Insofar as the present promotion which has been sought by the petitioner, reference is made to the rules governing respondent no.1 and it is pointed out that the said rules of BBMP does not provide for reservation in promotion for physically handicapped and in that light, the consideration of the request as sought in the representation cannot be made by them. It is pointed out that if respondent no.2 makes any 4 provision in the relevant rules for reservation in promotion, only in such event an implementation thereof can be made.

4. Having taken note of rival contentions, though petitioner has relied on the provision as contained in the PWD Act and to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision produced at Annexure 'H' to the petition, the same relates to the provision for physically handicapped person in the process of recruitment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that even otherwise the petitioner having rendered long service has not been considered for promotion in the normal course despite request and certain persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted. In that regard, a conclusion cannot be reached in this petition unless appropriate details in that regard are available. In that view, though in the representations which are produced along with the petition a direction is sought, it does not require consideration in view of the stand taken by the respondents in the objections statement. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to 5 file a fresh representation seeking consideration of the same, if there is any grievance in that regard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such representation has been submitted by the petitioner.

5. Since, there is nothing available on record at this point, the petitioner may submit one more copy of the representation along with all supporting documents to respondent no.1.

6. If such copies are submitted respondent no.1 shall take note of the same, take a decision in accordance with law and convey the decision taken to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months from the date on which the representation is submitted.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE brn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court