Karnataka High Court
Sri Sudhakar S B vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.5063 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUDHAKAR S.B.,
S/O BYRAPPA,
AGED 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF
LEGAL METROLOGY,
RAJAJINAGAR SUB DIVISION II,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
R/A NO.27, SHUBHIKSHA,
OPP. BEST APARTMENT,
5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT,
R.R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL
SUPPLIES CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND
LEGAL METROLOGY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY,
NO.1, MAPAN BHAVAN,
ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA M., AAG A/W
SRI. B.RAJENDRAPASAD, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR
RECRODS RELATING TO THE ORDER OF KSAT AT BENGALURU,
AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MADE IN
APPLICATION NO.4405/2021 DATED 14.02.2022 VIDE
ANNEXURE - A AS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND
VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG - Sri Subramanya M., for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, who is working in the cadre of Group C staff of the Department of Legal Metrology, is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 14/02/2022 passed in Application No.4405/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal was pleased to reject the challenge mounted by the 3 petitioner to orders dated 29/06/2021 and 16/08/2021 produced and marked at Annexures-A1 and A3 to the application.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the order of the Tribunal has no legs to stand and relies on the law laid down by this Court in the case of M.V.Dixit Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2004 ILR KAR 3803 and further he would also press into service other rulings to contend that there cannot be an abolition or creation of posts or up-grading and down-grading of posts without resort to amendment of the cadre and recruitment rules. That the Tribunal erred in upholding the notifications impugned as Annexures-A1 and A3, by which, the Government sought to create and abolish post and also to upgrade and downgrade certain existing posts. He would in fact, contend that about 40 new posts have been newly created and 93 existing posts have been abolished.
4. At this juncture, we have queried the learned AAG as to whether the Government has implemented or is in the process of implementing the Government Orders impugned before the Tribunal at Annexures-A1 and A3. Learned AAG fairly submits that the State brought about the notification pursuant to a 4 representation to the State Government, wherein it was contended that the officers in the said cadre of the Department were languishing without any promotional avenues and the same was considered and in that view of the matter, the State has taken a policy decision to restructure the Department in order to avoid such stagnation and lack of promotional avenues and also to abolish certain posts/cadre.
5. He would further submit that, the impugned Annexures-A1 and A3 are nothing but a reflection of the Government's thinking on these lines and that the Government orders have not been implemented and in fact the impugned Government order dated 29/06/2021 clearly would demonstrate that the Government is aware of need to resort to amendment of the cadre and recruitment rules for the purpose of implementation of the policy. He would submit that the impugned Government Order itself is reflective of the fact that the Government is alive to the law holding the field and that the proposal of the Government to restructure and to make optimal use of it's resources is being postponed on account of the litigation resorted to by the petitioner. 5
6. He would submit, that it is not the case of the petitioner that the Government order has been implemented in any manner and the instant litigation is in the nature of a pre- emptive strike to prevent the State from implementing its policy decision which is reflected in the impugned annexures.
7. Having heard the learned AAG, we are inclined to appreciate the fair submissions made by the learned AAG. That being the case that has also been canvassed before the Tribunal, then it causes consternation as some of the observations by the Tribunal are unacceptable. The observation that the law laid down in M.V. Dixit's case (supra) is inapplicable to the present Government Orders is far-fetched and highly erroneous and unsustainable.
8. The further reasoning that the State is entitled to implement the impugned Government Orders perse without resort to the manner specified under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') is also unsustainable. It would not suffice unless it is demonstrated that the power existed in the Act. It is also the mandate of the law that if the power is to be exercised in a particular manner, then that power can be exercised in that manner alone. Merely 6 because the State is vested with the power to create or alter or abolish or add posts would not imply that the said exercise can be carried out in any manner whatsoever.
9. In that view of the matter, we disagree with the findings of the Tribunal. Be that as it may. In view of the submissions made by the learned AAG we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself could be disposed off by placing his submission on record. As rightly contended by the learned AAG, the very Government Order itself reflects the intent and approach of the State to comply with the mandatory process stipulated under the statute.
10. In that view of the matter, the above writ petition is disposed off by placing the submissions of the learned AAG on record.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MKM