Karnataka High Court
Gurushanthappa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.45646 OF 2015 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.3830 OF 2014, 13970 OF 2014,
13978 OF 2014, 30020 OF 2014 AND 31115 OF 2015
IN WP NO.45646 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. GURUSHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O SANNOBA REDDY,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
TOWN PLANNING,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, R R NAGAR ZONE,
R. R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560098.
2. R. SHIVA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
WORKING AS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
2
R. R. NAGAR ZONE,
R. R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560098.
3. S. SURESH,
S/O K. L. SIDDAMADIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
4. M. C. KRISHNA,
S/O CHOWDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA,
PALIKE, UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560061.
5. SHABANA SULTHANA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O GOUHAR,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, MARATHHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
MARATHHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
...PETITIONERS
3
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR , ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
3. B. RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
4. SMT. B. LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
5. M. YESHVANTHARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
6. N. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
4
7. D.S. GIRISH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
8. N. ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
9. SATISH NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
10 . SMT. S. JYOTHILAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
11 . R. KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
12 . H.M. SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
13 . SMT. SHARANAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
14 . N. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
15 . K.S. ANAND,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
16 . H.L. GURUPRASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
17 . SMT. V. VASANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
18 . M. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
19 . S.V. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
20 . SMT. RADHA CHAM BADIGERA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
21 . P. NIRANJANA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
6
22 . B. VARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
23 . G.S. RAMPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
24 . K.N. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
25 . SMT. C. REKHA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
26 . N.G. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
27 . A.E. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
28 . M.R. ASHOK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
29 . SMT. MADHURI KOTAGI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
7
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
30 . M. MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
31 . K. NAVEEN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
32 . SMT. SHILPA S. BHARADWAD,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
33 . ADINATH CHOWGALA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
34 . SMT. L. REKHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
35 . D.K. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
36 . K. NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
8
37 . SIDDARAMA HALADAKI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
38 . M.V. KRUTHIKA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
39 . H. SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
40 . SANTHOSH KUMAR EJERI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
41 . SMT. JAYASHREE SO AMBIGERA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
42 . SMT. M.Y. KAVITHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
43 . SMT. J. NAGASHREE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
44 . CHANDRAPPA BIRAJJANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
9
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
45 . SMT. J.K. SHOBHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
46 . SMT. M.R. DEEPASHREE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
47 . N. SRINIVASAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
48 . SMT. K.S. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
49 . SMT. K. SAVITHA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
50 . SMT. NAGAVENI ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
51 . SMT. N.B. DEEPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
10
52 . RAJAKUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
53 . PRASAD KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
54 . H. M. MAHIBULLA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
55 . SMT. JAYA B. HARTHI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
56 . SMT. K. RASHMI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
57 . BASAVARAJ S. MAGI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
58 . MS. SAFINAZ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
59 . D.M. NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
11
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
60 . SMT. B.N. ANITHA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
61 . MAHESH K. SAVANTH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
62 . SMT. BHAGYASHREE HALLI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
63 . K.N. YUVARAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
64 . SMT. H. BHARATHI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
65 . H.B. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
66 . INDRAJIT LAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
12
67 . C. SUMA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
68 . SMT. A. CHITRALEKHA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
69 . SMT. C. ANITHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
70 . SMT. K.C. SUMATHI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
71 . SMT. NANDINI U. TAHSILDARA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
72 . SMT. ANJANA BANJANTHRI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
73 . B.E. VANI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
74 . JANARDHANA RAJURA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
13
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
75 . KADARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
76 . C. RENUKAPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
77 . SMT. SUNANDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
78 . G.V. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
79 . N. SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
80 . S.K. MOHANRAM,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
81 . K. VENKATESH,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
14
82 . MANJUNATH,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
83 . A. MOHAN,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
84 . K. VENKATESH,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
85 . SMT. P. MUNIYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
86 . SHETTY VIJAYAKUMAR RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
87 . C. RAVEESH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
88 . SMT. N. SUDHAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
89 . SMT. G.N. JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
15
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
90 . A. NALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
91 . H. DEVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
92 . R.V. SHANTHANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
93 . MANJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
94 . R. VIJENDRARAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
95 . B.M. VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
96 . B.K. SHAILESH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
16
97 . T. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
98 . N. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
99 . L. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
100 . V.T. MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
101 . A.N. PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
102 . N. ANJAJEYA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
103 . SMT. A. RATNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
104 . K.P. JOHN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
17
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
105 . SMT. SHAKUNTHALA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
106 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
107 . KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
108 . K. SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
109 . K. ANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
110 . SMT. M. PADMAVATHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
111 . N. HEMAMALINI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
18
112 . S. MANJUNATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
113 . SMT. SAROJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
114 . B.Y.SHIVAPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
115 . B.V.MURALI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
116 . R. RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
117 . R. VIJENDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
118 . C. YATHISH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
119 . N. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
19
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
120 . CHANDRA PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
121 . S. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
122 . L. PANKAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
123 . L. CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
124 . Y. KUPPASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
125 . SMT. R. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
126 . K. LAKSHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
20
127 . HAJIRA KHANAM,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
128 . SMT. B. PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
129 . SMT. RUKMINI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
130 . SMT. VEENA,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
131 . K. CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
132 . S. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
133 . V. RAGHAVENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
134 . SMT. A. GIRIJA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
21
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
135 . SMT. SHUBHAMANGALA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
136 . E. SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
137 . N. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
138 . SMT. B.S. SUMITRA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
139 . B.N. RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
140 . SMT. V. SRIDEVI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
141 . R. VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
22
142 . K.G. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
143 . R. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
144 . SMT. D. VARALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
145 . SMT. RAJASHREE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
146 . S. MOHANKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
147 . N. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
148 . R. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
149 . SMT. YESHODA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
23
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
150 . M. HEMANTHKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
151 . D. SANDEEP,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
152 . N. SANTHOSH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
153 . VENKATACHALAPATHY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 153 ARE
WORKING AS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA AND SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR,
ADVOCATES FOR R2;
SRI. T.P.VEVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R16, R17, R20 TO
R23, R31, R33, R38, R39, R40, R42, R45, R46, R48, R52, R55,
R62, R66, R68, R73 AND R74;
24
R3, R4, R10, R13, R14, R18, R24, R26, R28, R29, R34, R36, R41,
R43, R44, R47, R49, R50, R51, R53, R54, R56 - R61, R65, R67,
R69 - R72, R75 - R84, R90 - R92, R94, R95, R98 - R102, R105,
R107, R108 - R114, R116 - R124, R129 - R133, R135 -R137,
R139 - R153 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH [i] AMENDED
OFFICE ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 (VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE
WRIT PETITION); [ii] OFFICE ORDER DATED 09.09.2015 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-Q TO THE WRIT PETITION), BOTH ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT 2 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI INSOFAR AS IT CONCERNS THE PETITIONERS AND
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT 2 TO
REDO THE SENIORITY LIST IN THE CADRE OF FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN TERMS OF
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.01.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-D,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT 2 DATED 19.03.2011 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION), AND DIRECTION /
CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT ON 27.03.2015 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION), AND GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THAT WOULD FLOW FROM REDOING
OF THE SAID SENIORITY LIST AND CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONERS FOR FURTHER PROMOTIONS ALSO.
IN WP NO. 3830 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B. JAYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O A. HANUMANTHAPPA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU.
25
2. S.N. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O S.NARAYANAPPA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
YELAHANKA ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 092.
3. S. NANDANA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O B.H.RAJENDRA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, UTTARAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 061.
4. V.B. BHIMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O VEERANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
MARATHAHALLI,
MAHADEVAPUR ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 048.
5. MS. R. SUJATHA,
D/O K.T.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
26
DOMLUR,
EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.L. SUVARNA LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR
P1 AND P3 TO P5;
PETITION AGAINST P2 IS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER
DATED 19.04.2018.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KENGERI, RAJARAJESWARI DIVISION,
BANGALORE MYSORE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
4. G. LINGANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
27
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION, OPP:
SUB-REGISTRAR'OFFICE, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
5. R. NAGARAJ,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE WEST,
SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
6. H.R. SHIVAMMA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
MAHALAKSHMI LAY-OUT DIVISION,
R.T.O. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU -560 010.
7. R.S. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WEST DIVISION,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU -560 003.
8. SOHEL AHMED,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
VASANTHNAGAR DIVISION,
NEAR CONGRESS OFFICE,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
28
BENGALURU.
9. PANCHALINGEGOWDA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION,
MAJOR UNNIKRISHNA ROAD,
NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE,
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 075.
10 . KEMPARANGAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
MARATHAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
KRISHNA BHAVAN HOTEL BUILDING
II FLOOR, MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
11 . ESWARA PRASANNAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
VARAMAVU SUB DIVISION,
JAYANTHINAGAR CIRCLE,
VARAMAVU,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
12 . H.B. RAJANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
UTTARAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
UTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 061.
29
13 . SMT. B.N. SUDHA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION,
MAYO HALL, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5, R7 AND R9;
SRI. S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R10, R11 AND R12;
R13 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH FINAL SENIORITY
LIST PUBLISHED IN OFFICE ORDER DATED 28.12.2013 (UNDER
ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION & OFFICE ORDER DATED
18.01.2014 (UNDER ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION )
INSOFAR AS IT PLACES RESPONDENT-9 TO RESPONDENT-13 IN
THE PLACES HELD BY THE PETITIONERS PRIOR TO PASSING OF
THIS ORDER BOTH ISSUED & PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-
2/BBMP & GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING
RESTORATION OR RANKINGS OF THE PETITIONERS IN TERMS OF
LENGTH OF SERVICE AS WAS BEING DETERMINED IN EARLIER
SENIORITY LISTS NOTIFED I.E. ABOVE THE PRIVE RESPONDENTS
NO.3 TO 8.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.13970 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1 . SRI. G. LINGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O. LATE V. L. GANGAPPA GOWDA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
30
OFFICER,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
NO.135, NEAR BROTHERS BAKERY,
OUTER RING ROAD,WHITE FIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI. R. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O B.L. RAMACHANDRA SHASTRI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE (WEST),
BASHYAM PARK, SAMPIGE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3 . SRI. B. THIPPARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O P. BABU,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BTM LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4 . SRI. R. PRADEEP RATHOD,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE R.T. RATHOD,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
K. G. HALLI SUB-DIVISION,
QUEEN'S ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5 . SMT. VENKATALAXMI.
AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O. LATE HONNAIAH,
W/O. NANJUNDA REDDY,
WORKING AS ASST REVENUE OFFICER
31
KENGERI,
MYSORE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6 . SMT. H.R. SHIVAMMA,
AGED 57 YEARS,
W/O PANCHAKHARAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
RTO COMPLEX, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
7 . SRI. SUHAIL AHMED,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NAZEER AHMED,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
VASANTHANAGAR,
QUEEN'S ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
8 . SRI. R.S. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMASANJEEVAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
GALI ANJANEYA TEMPLE WARD,
BBMP, RPC LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
32
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SMT. B. JAYA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION,
YELAHANKA ZONE - 560 064.
BBMP, BENGALURU.
4. S.N. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,WELFARE SECTION,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
5. SMT. S. NANDANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,WELFARE SECTION,
SOUTH ZONE, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK
BBMP
BENGALURU- 560 001.
33
6. P.V. NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,WELFARE SECTION,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ORGANIZATION OFFICER
BENGALURU- 560 001.
7. V.B. BHEEMA SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,WELFARE SECTION,
YELAHANAKA ZONE
BENGALURU- 560 004.
8. SMT. R. SUJATHA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION,
DASARAHALLI ZONE - 560057.
BBMP, BENGALURU.
....RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. PUTTEGOWDA AND SRI, JAYANTH DEV KUMAR
ADVOCATES FOR R3 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE
34
ORDER DATED 18.06.2012 AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT-2 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO EQUATING THE
POST OF THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER WITH THAT OF THE
POST OF MANAGER.
IN WP NO. 13978 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. A.N. PRASAD,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (LAKES),
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. CHANDRAPRAKASH M.,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE JDTP (SOUTH),
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
W/O LATE R. MURTHY,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE JDTP (NORTH),
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. V.T. MAHADEV,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. THIMMEGOWDA,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
35
PADMANABHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. V. MANJUNATHA,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERANNA,
WORKING AS AMNAGER,
COUNCIL SECTION,
BBMP,N.R SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T. P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SMT. B. JAYA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT
KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATION OFFIER,
WELFARE SECTION,
YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
36
4. SRI S.N. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION OFFICER,
WELFARE SETION, MAHADEVAPURA
ZONE - 560 001 BBMP,
BENGALURU.
5. SMT. S. NANDANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HUSBAND"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION, SOUTH ZONE,
JAYANAGAR II BLOCK,
BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 011.
6. SRI. P.V. NARARYANA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER, WELFARE SECTION,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE,
BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
7. V.B. BHEEMA SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION,YELAHANKA ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 064.
37
8. SMT. R.SUJATHA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION,
DASARAHALLI ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 057.
...RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. S.H. PRASHANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. PUTTEGOWDA AND SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR
ADVOCATES FOR R3 TO R8 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE
ORDER DATED 18.6.2012 AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT 2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO EQUATING THE POST
OF THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER WITH THAT OF THE POST
OF MANAGER.
IN WP NO.30020 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. GURUSHANTHAPPA,
S/O SANNOBAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF TOWN PLANNING,
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
2. SHIV KUMAR R.,
S/O LATE H. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
38
FDA, TDR SECTION, (OOD)
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF TOWN PLANNING,
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU -560 098.
3. KRISHNA M.C.,
S/O SRI. CHOWDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
UTTARAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD,
P.O UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 061.
4. P. VENKATARAYAPPA,
S/O SRI. PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FDA, (WELFARE SECTION),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P., DASARAHALLI ZONE,
MEI LAYOUT, BAGALAKUNTE,
BENGALURU -560 073.
5. R.J. SOMASEKHARA,
S/O SRI. JAVARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BETARAYANAPURA BBMP DIVISION,
YELAHANKA ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 092.
6. RAVI RAJ R.M.,
S/O SRI. RAMAPPA MALIGEMANI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FDA (WELFARE SECTION)
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
39
BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
7. K.S. GOPALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE SUBBARAYA K.N.,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FDA (WELFARE SECTION),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P., MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
8. SURESH KUMAR K.P.,
S/O SRI. PARASHIVA MURTHY K.P.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P., MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
9. SMT. SHABANA SULTANA G.,
D/O SRI. GOUHAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FDA (WELFARE SECTION),
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER, B.B.M.P.,
BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
10 . S.SURESHA,
S/O LATE SRI. K.L. SIDDAMADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
REVENUE OFFICER, B.B.M.P.,
UTTARAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD,
P.O.UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 061.
..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.V. VEDA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
40
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
IVTH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU -560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P,
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B. L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE B.B.M.P/
R-2 DATED 26.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE -A; DIRECT THE
B.B.M.P/RESPONDENT-2 TO RESTORE THEIR SENIORITY IN THE
SENIORITY LIST PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE GOVERNMENT
ORDER DATED 10.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT AND AS PER RULE 6 OF THE KCS (SENIORITY)
RULES 1957 AND PUBLISHED ON DATED 10.01.2011 AND TO
GIVE PROMOTIONS ON THE BASIS OF SAID SENIORITY LIST
DATED 28.01.2013 PREPARED BY FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.
IN WP NO.31115 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. B. JAYA,
W/O A. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
41
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
AEROHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
R.R.NAGAR ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 062.
2 . S.N. NAGARAJA,
S/O S. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, DOMLUR
SUB-DIVISION, EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU.
3 . SMT. S. NANDANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O B.H. RAJENDRA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU.
4 . V.B. BHIMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O VEERANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KODIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 092.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. PUTTEGOWDA AND SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR,
ADVOCATES)
42
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALOE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, CHANDRA LAY-OUT SUB
DIVISION,
NEAR DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR STADIUM,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH ZONE,
BENGALURU- 560 002.
4. G. LINGANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALOE
MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION, OPP:
SUB-REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,
WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU -560 048.
43
5. R. NAGARAJ,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALOE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE WEST
ZONE, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
OPP: MANTRI MALL,
BENGALURU -560 003.
6. SMT. H.R. SHIVAMMA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALOE
MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
VIJAYANAGARA SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE SOUTH.
BENGALURU- 560 040.
7. SMT. DAKSHAYINI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALOE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE
9TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU -560 011.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA ADVOCATE FOR R3, R6 AND R7;
R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL
SENIORITY LIST IN THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICERS PUBLISHED IN OFFICE ORDER DATED 14.07.2015
(UNDER ANNEXURE-Z TO THE WRIT PETITION) BY THE
44
RESPONDENT-2 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO RESPONDENTS
NO.3 TO 7 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 BY ISSUE OF A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO REDO THE SENIORITY
LIST OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND IN TERMS OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 27.03.2015 (ANNEXURE-W) AND
CONSIDER THE CASES OF THE PETITIONERS FOR GRANT OF
PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF DEPUTY REVENUE OFFICER IN
TERMS OF THE RESTORED SENIORITY AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL BENEFITS.
IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this batch of writ petitions, broadly, the challenge has been made by the petitioners with regard to equation of posts and their seniority of the employees appointed under Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rojgar Yojana by the Department of Municipal Administration with that of the employees of respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, hereinafter referred to as BBMP) issued by the respondent-BBMP.
2. For the sake of convenience, the employees of the erstwhile SJSRY scheme are referred to as petitioners and employees of the BBMP are referred as respondents.
453. Facts in nutshell in these writ petitions are that, the State Government introduced a scheme called "Swarna Jayathi Shahari Rojgar Yogana (SJSRY) (hereinafter after referred as 'Scheme') pursuant to the direction issued by Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, New Delhi in the Urban Local Bodies. In order to effectuate the SJSRY Scheme, applications have been called for appointment to various posts. Petitioners in W.P.No.45646 of 2015, W.P.No.3830 of 2014, W.P.No.30020 of 2014 and W.P.No.31115 of 2015 were appointed as Community Organizers, Community Affairs Officers etc., after following the regular recruitment process. Thereafter, these petitioners entered service of the Department of Municipal Administration under the aforesaid Scheme. The State Government by notification dated 28.10.2005, absorbed these petitioners into service as per Karnataka Municipalities (Absorption of Employees appointed under the Scheme of Swarna Jayathi Shahari Rojgar Yojana (SJSRY) in Urban Local Bodies) Rules, 2005. These petitioners were working in the Municipalities surrounding the City of Bangalore. In the meanwhile, the State Government has issued notification dated 16.01.2007, forming BBMP and included 07 City 46 Municipal Councils, 01 Town Municipal Council and 111 Urbanized Villages. These petitioners who were functioning as Community Affair Officers etc., in the merged 07 City Municipal Councils, which came under the Department of Municipal Administration, merged with the services of BBMP, coming under the Department of Urban Development. In the meanwhile, State Government, by proceedings dated 13.07.2007, accepted the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission and same was made applicable to the petitioners. It is also averred in these writ petitions that, the issue relating to merger and conditions of service of erstwhile employees of SJSRY Scheme along with the employees of BBMP was considered by the State Government and Government Order dated 10.01.2011 was issued, taking into consideration the nomenclature and designation of the employees. In the meanwhile, the Circular dated 12.01.2007 was issued by the State Government providing merger of employees of City Municipal Council into BBMP and same was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8523 of 2007 and connected matters. This Court, by order dated 17.08.2010 allowed the writ petitions in part and the State Government was directed to commence the process of absorption 47 and integration of employees of City Municipal Council and other local bodies into BBMP in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra and another vs. Chandrakanth Ananth Kulkarni reported in (1981) 4 SCC 130. Pursuant to the same, State Government issued Government Order dated 10.01.2011, wherein, these petitioners were placed above the contesting respondents (employees of BBMP) by taking into consideration their entry into service, during 2005 and as the contesting respondents entered the service during 2007 onwards. Thereafter, the respondent-
BBMP, by its letter proceedings dated 19.03.2011, discussed the matter pertaining to seniority of its employees as well as the employees who have been absorbed pursuant to the notification dated 16.01.2007 pursuant to the enlarging jurisdiction of Bangalore Corporation as BBMP. In the said proceedings, decision was taken to follow the Karnataka Civil Service (Seniority) Rules, 1957 and accommodate these petitioners in their equivalent posts in the BBMP. Pursuant to the same, the respondent-BBMP has issued provisional Seniority list dated 12.05.2011 placing these petitioners above the contesting respondents herein. It is the 48 case of the petitioners that, the private respondents were persons lower in rank than that of the petitioners, as the petitioners entered service on 28.10.2005 and these private respondents entered service with effect from 17.12.2005, almost two months later to that of these petitioners. The objections to the provisional list was called for and as the petitioners were placed above the contesting respondents, the petitioners have not filed objections.
Thereafter, the respondent-BBMP has issued Final Seniority list dated 30.09.2011 placing the petitioners above the contesting respondents. When the things stood thus, the respondent-BBMP has issued provisional Seniority List dated 16.08.2013, whereby the petitioners were placed above the contesting respondents.
Subsequently, the objections were called from the aggrieved parties. The petitioners have not filed objections as the Provisional Seniority list dated 16.08.2013 has been prepared as per law. It is the case of these petitioners that, to the surprise, the respondent-
BBMP has issued Final Seniority List dated 28.12.2013, based on the legal opinion from the concerned section of BBMP, which distorted the entire Seniority list and the petitioners were pushed back and placed below the contesting respondents. Feeling 49 aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions.
4. In W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and W.P.No.13978 of 2014, the petitioners claim to be working at respondent-BBMP. It is the grievance of these petitioners that, pursuant to the absorption of the employees of Swarna Jayathi Shahari Rojgar Yojana in urban local bodies, subsequent to the Notification dated 16.01.2007 into the service of the respondent-BBMP, the equation of posts which has to be made on the basis of four criteria referred to in the judgment of G.Gopalaiah's case, has not been considered, in the right perspective. It is the case of the petitioners that, while doing the equation of posts, the basis of salary would have given effect to as the salaries of petitioners is higher and no way equivalent to salary of the employees of SJSRY and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court, challenging the order dated 18.06.2012 issued by the respondent-BBMP. It is the categorical contention of the petitioners that, the equating of the post of Community Affairs Officers with that of the post of Manager in the respondent-BBMP is contrary to law and therefore, the petitioners 50 sought for setting-aside the order passed by the respondent-BBMP with regard to equation of the posts.
5. I have heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar for the petitioners in W.P.45646-50 of 2015; Sri P.S. Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt M.L.Suvarna Lakshmi, Sri.K.Puttegowda and Sri Jayanth Dev Kumar for the petitioners in W.P No.3830 of 2014. Further, heard W.P.No.31115 of 2015; Sri Vedamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.30020 of 2014 and Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and W.P.No.13978 of 2014 and Sri N. Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State. Sri M.A.Subramani, Sri K.N.Puttegowda and Sri S.H.Prashantha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BBMP.
6. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.45646 of 2015 argued that, the petitioners have been absorbed as per notification dated 28.10.2005 and thereafter, pursuant to the notification dated 51 16.01.2007, the petitioners were inducted into respondent-BBMP.
He further contended that, the petitioners were senior most employees in respondent-BBMP and the ranking has been disturbed by issuing the impugned Final Seniority list and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. He further contended that, the petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs.7275-13350 on acceptance of 5th Pay Commission and the petitioners were absorbed into service much earlier, to that of the contesting respondents herein (employees of BBMP) and therefore, as per Rule 6 of the of the Seniority Rules, the determinative factor would be the length of service in the case of absorption in public interest and said aspect has not been considered by the respondent-BBMP while altering the ranking assigned to the petitioners. He further contended that, the objections filed by the petitioners has not been considered by the respondent-BBMP in the right perspective, before issuing the order of Final Seniority List. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this court.
527. Sri P.S Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.3830 of 2014 and W.P.No.31115 of 2015 argued that, the impugned Final Seniority List has been passed by the respondent-BBMP which unsettled the entire seniority list as well as the respondent-BBMP has not obeyed order passed in W.P.No.8523 of 2007 dated 17.08.2010 whereby, the four guidelines laid down by this Court relating to determine the seniority between the employees of the respondent-BBMP and the employees of erstwhile SJSRY Scheme - petitioners herein and have not been given effect to the said order. It is the categorical submission of Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel that, the impugned Seniority List issued by the respondent-BBMP is contrary to Government order dated 10.01.2011. Referring to the four reasons said to have been made in the aforesaid Government order, he argued that, the petitioners herein have been absorbed into service on 16.01.2007, and much before appointment of the contesting respondents. The petitioners have been absorbed as per Government Order dated 28.10.2005 and therefore, he contended that, the Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority) Rules, 1957 has not been considered while issuing the 53 impugned Seniority List and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
8. Nextly, referring to the report of the legal section, Sri P.S.Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel emphasized on reference No.9 in the impugned Final Seniority List and contended that, the decision taken by the respondent-BBMP distorts the entire settled principle in law and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of RAMASWAMY G.T. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (1986) 1 KLJ 1. Referring to paragraphs 22, 23 and 40, Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel argued that, the impugned Final Seniority List would lead to disastrous results as observed by this Court in identical matters. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER VS.
RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL SONI AND OTHERS reported in (1983) 2 SCC 33 and argued that, placing the contesting respondents, who are the employees of respondent-BBMP above the petitioners is contrary to the declaration of law made by the 54 Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. ATHUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 10 SCC 432 and argued that, birth mark of public servants are obliterated on entry into common pool and therefore, the determinative factor in the common pool will be their entry into service and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. He further contended that pursuant to, publication of provisional list, receiving objections from the contesting respondents and based on their objections the impugned Final Seniority List is announced.
In this regard, he submitted that, the respondent-BBMP, before altering the ranking of the petitioners by keeping the petitioners below the contesting respondent herein, ought to have heard the petitioners herein, and therefore, the impugned Final Seniority List is liable to be quashed in all respects as the same is suffers from legal infirmity. Sri. P.S. Rajgopal, learned Senoir Counsel submitted that, the impugned gradation list is contrary to the order dated 10.01.2011, which has reached finality and the principle of equation of posts determined by this court in G. 55 GOPALIAH'S case has not been appreciated by the respondent-
BBMP and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
9. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel invited the attention to the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the respondent-BBMP produced at Annexure-Q in W.P.No.45646-50 of 2015 and contended that, while regularizing the provisional list of Seniority, the respondent-BBMP, has not considered the letter dated 27.03.2015, (Annexure-M) and argued that, the State Government has categorically stated that while determining the seniority, the observations made in the Government order dated 10.01.2011 alone is the basis for formal absorption and placement of the petitioners in the respective cadre to be taken into consideration. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUB- INSPECTOR ROOPLAL AND ANOTHER VS. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI AND OTHERS, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644 and contended that, the equivalent cadre has to be considered in tune with the length of service in the parent Department. He also refers to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 56 Court in the case of STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER VS.
RAGHAVA RAJGOPALACHARI, reported in (1972) SLR 915 and RAMESH RANGASHAMAIAH VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2013 (4) AKR 787.
Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, he argued that, while considering the equivalency of two posts, the pay is least criterion to be considered and the nature of duties, responsibilities and minimum qualification etc., are the vital factors to be accepted.
Hence, Sri P.S. Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel sought for setting-aside the impugned Final Seniority List.
10. Sri M.V. Veda Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.30020 of 2014 contended that, the Seniority List dated 26.12.2013 issued by the respondent-BBMP is contrary to law as the persons already in service are transferred from one Department to another Department to a equivalent post and the said exercise has been made in the public interest. Accordingly, he sought for direction to the respondent-BBMP to re-determine the Seniority List in accordance with the provisions contained under the Karnataka Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957.
5711. Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13970 of 2014 and 13978 of 2014, (Employees of BBMP) argued that, equation of posts of Community Affairs Officers with that of the Manager post in the respondent-BBMP is contrary to law as the respondent-BBMP has not considered the nature and responsibility of posts, powers to be exercised by such officers vis-a-vis the minimum qualification required for those posts are different and as such, he submitted that, the equation of posts categorized by the respondent-BBMP is incorrect. He also referred to the pay scale of the employees of the respondent-BBMP and the employees of erstwhile SJSRY Scheme and argued that, the salary of Community Affairs Officers could not have been equated even to the post of First Division Assistant of respondent-BBMP and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
12. Sri M.A. Subramani and Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsels appearing for the respondent-BBMP sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent-BBMP with regard to equation of posts as well as the impugned Final Seniority List. It is 58 their categorical submission that, the respondent-BBMP, after considering the factual aspects on record, has arrived at a conclusion which cannot be disturbed in these petitions.
13. Sri M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government argued in similar lines with learned counsel appearing for respondent-BBMP and submitted that, the absorption of the employees from SJSRY Scheme is much earlier to the employees of respondent-BBMP and accordingly, he submitted that, the Seniority List has to be prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 6 of Karnataka Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957.
14. In reply to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners (Employees of erstwhile SJSRY scheme) contended that, the writ petition filed by the employees of the BBMP is not maintainable as the petitioners in W.P.No.45646 of 2015 were appointed on 16.01.2007 and the petitioners in W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and in W.P.No.13978 of 2014 were appointed on 25.06.2007 and the said aspect of the matter 59 relating to appointment of the petitioners in W.P.No.45646 of 2015 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.20055-64 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 26.08.2011, dismissed the writ petition. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that, the argument advanced by Sri T.P. Vivekananda, justifying the impugned Seniority List cannot be accepted on the simple ground that, the respondent-BBMP has considered the length of service of respective employees as well as equivalence of post based on pay scale of the employees of SJSRY scheme and the employees of respondent-BBMP. In this regard, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel contended that, the criterion for promotion is the date of appointment by the employees of the SGSRY scheme and not as contended by Sri T.P. Vivekananada as the Government order dated 03.06.2010 wherein 5th Pay Commission was recommended to the employees of erstwhile SJSRY Scheme.
15. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the facts are not disputed. The petitioners in W.P.No.45646 of 2015, W.P.No.3830 of 2014, 60 W.P.No.30020 of 2014 and W.P.No.31115 of 2015 were appointed initially as per the scheme evolved by State Government called as "Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rojgar Yogana (SJSRY), pursuant to the direction issued by Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, New Delhi in the Urban Local Bodies. In order to effectuate the said scheme, applications have been called for appointing various post under the scheme. The petitioners were appointed and later absorbed as Community Organizers, Community Affairs Officers etc., after following the regular recruitment process, as per notification dated 28.10.2005. In W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and W.P.No.13978 of 2014, the petitioners are the employees of respondent-BBMP.
16. It is the grievance of the petitioners, who were employed under the scheme that, they have been merged with the service conditions of the employees of respondent-BBMP as per Government order dated 10.01.2011, however, such employees of the scheme, though placed above the employees of the respondent-BBMP till the passing of provisional list dated 16.08.2013 however, they have been placed below the employees 61 of the respondent-BBMP pursuant to the impugned Seniority List issued on 28.12.2013.
17. The core question to be answered in these writ petitions is, whether the Final Seniority List dated 28.01.2013 is sustainable under law or not?. Petitioners are appointed by the State Government for the purpose of effectuating the SJSRY scheme in urban local bodies on contract basis, fixing the consolidated pay and these petitioners entered service in the Department of Municipal Administration as Community Organizers/ Community Affairs Officers, etc. These petitioners have been appointed by the Government through regular process of selection in the said Department. These petitioners were absorbed into service of the State Government as per Notification dated 28.10.2005 as per the Swarna Jayanthi Sahari Rojgar Yojana (SJSRY) in Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2005. In the meanwhile, the Government has issued Notification dated 16.01.2007, declaring the local area around the Bengaluru, restructuring of merger of 110 villages, 7 City Municipal Councils and one Town Municipal Council into Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The petitioners herein were 62 functioning in the 7 merged City Municipal Councils, and their services were taken into the newly formed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike as per Notification dated 10.01.2011. The said Notification was issued pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.8523 of 2007 decided on 17.08.2010. Paragraphs 9 to 15 reads as under:
9. The grievance of the petitioners is that in to give effect to the merger, a decision was taken to reckon the payscales as criteria and work out the formula for fitment of officers and officials. In the meeting held on 2.9.2008, it was decided to fix the seniority of the employees absorbed as per Rule 6 of the K.C.S (Seniorities) Rules, 1957. In the meeting held on 30.01.2009 the Committee constituted for integrating the employees, post merger, from the CMC's and other Local Bodies notices difference between the posts and pay scales in the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of officers and employees) Rules 2004 and the City of Bangalore Municipality Corporation Services (General Cadre and Recruitment Regulation), 1971 by reasons of which difficulty having arises in absorption, decided to effect absorption on the basis of the original pay scale of the post. Hence, the petition for the relief fo the a writ of prohibition prohibiting the second respondent BBMP from publishing the list of officers of the servants CMCs, TMCs and Grama Panchayat to be absorbed it the service of BBMP in the absence of provisions made in that behalf 63 under the Act and for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceeding dated 08.09.2008 Annexure C and 30.01.2009 Annexure D.
10. Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1352-53/10, claim to be appointees under the second respondent BBMP. This petition is preferred, aggrieved by the decision taken in the proceedings dated 31.01.2009 in the matter of merger of employees of City Municipality Council into BBMP, in so far as it relates to the publication of the gradation list within 30 days and to withdraw all the promotions made on and after 16.01.2007 by the second respondent and not to effect any promotion until merger process is competed; the decision taken by the first respondent and directions issued as per Annexure F and for a mandamus to respondent 2 and 3, to consider the case of promotion to Revenue Inspector Grade II. The BBMP is said to have issued and order dated
10.05.2010 effecting promotions to petitioners and others subject to the result of the writ petition.
11. Having heard Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the first batch of petitioners, Sri P.S. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the second batch of petitioners and Sri S.B. Mukannappa, learned Counsel for the third batch of petitioners, indisputedly on the merger of the various Local Bodies referred to supra into the larger Urban Local Body to constitute the BBMP under the 'Act', involves integration of the said Local Bodies into the BBMP.
6412. Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct in their submission that consequence of merger and the effect of absorption requires to be regulated in terms of Section 501 and 501(1) of the Act. The statue admittedly does not provide for the principles governing absorption of the employees on integration and merger. It is needless to state that the BBMP is required to adhere to the well established principles laid down by the Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra VS Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni reported in 1981 (4) SCC 130 and as extracted in S.P. Shivaprasad Pipal Vs. Union of India & others at para 5, which is reads thus:
"However, when different cadres are merged certain principles have to be borne in mind. These principles were enunciated in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni (SCR at P. 678) while considering the question of integration of government servants allotted to the services of the new States when the different States of India were reorganized. This court oted with approval the principles which had been formulated for effecting integration of services of different States. These principles are; In the matter equation of posts, (1) where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on the basis but (2) where there no such similar cadres, the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts:65
(a) Nature and duties of a post;
(b) Powers exercised by the officers holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(c) The minimum qualification, if any prescribed for recruitment to the post and;
(d) The salary of the post.
This Court further observed that it is not open to the court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong. This was a matter exclusively within the province of the Central Government. perhaps the only question the court can enquire into is whether the four principles cited above had been properly taken into account. This is the narrow and limited field within which the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court can operate."
13. Learned Counsel are further correct in their submission that the committee constituted to carry out the absorption considered only one principle i.e., the salary of the post and did not consider three other principles referred to supra, as is animated in the proceedings of the meeting dated 08.09.2008; and 30.01.2009, and 31.01.2009. Thus the said decisions cannot but be said to be inconsistent with the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Sri B. V. Muralidhar, and Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned Counsel for the respondent- BBMP would not seriously contest the 66 submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. That the decision making authority did not take into consideration all the four principles laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra, in the matter of integration and absorption of employees, cannot be disputed.
14. Thus, the promotions effected in respect of employees requires reconsideration after completion of the process of absorption and integration, and during the interregnum the order dated 10.05.2010 promoting petitioners in W.P.Nos. 1352-53 of 2010 and others are directed not to be disturbed.
15. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part. The proceedings of the meeting dated 08.09.2008 and 30.01.2009 Annexures C and D in Writ petition Nos. 12244- 46 of 2010 and the proceeding dated 31.10.2009 Annexure F in writ petition Nos.1352-53/2010 are quashed. The first respondent- State is directed to commence the process of absorption and integration of the employees of the CMC, and other local bodies referred to in the notification supra, into BBMP by following all the four principles enunciated by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra case extracted supra. In the light of the fact that the absorption is of the year 2007 and three years have gone by there is no reason to prolong the matter any further and hence the State is directed to should conclude the proceedings within six months."
6718. Perusal of the aforementioned order would indicate that, this Court has directed the State Government to complete the process of absorption and integration of the employees of erstwhile City Municipal Council, now inducted into Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASTRA vs. CHANDRAKANT ANANT KULKARNI reported in (1981) 4 SCC 130 and complete the entire process within six months.
Reference No.20 in the Notification dated 10.01.2011 refers to the aforementioned judgment. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract, Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 provides as follows:
6. The transfer of a person in public interest from one class or grade of a service to another class or grade carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the later for purposes of seniority; and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred;
Provided that, where the transfer is made at the request of the officer, he shall be placed in the seniority list of the class or grade of service to which he is transferred below all 68 the officers borne on that class or grade of service on or before the date of the transfer.
[Provided further, that the seniority of a person transferred in public interest vis a vis the persons actually holding the post in the Class or Grade to which he is transferred shall be determined on the date of such transfer with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade from which he was transferred.] Explanation.- For the purpose of the above proviso, the persons actually holding the post do not include the persons who have before the date of such transfer been promoted, whether in an officiating or substantive capacity to a higher class or grade.
19. Applying the Rule 6 of aforementioned Rules, 1957 to the case on hand would make pave for absorption in the public interest and the date of seniority of such employees would be count from the date of absorption as per Notification dated 28.10.2005. The respondent-BBMP in its proceedings dated 19.03.2011, reiterates the conditions of service of the petitioners herein as follows:
"¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ 7 £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ ««zsÀ ªÀÈAzÀUÀ¼À SÁAiÀÄA ¥ËgÀ ¸ÉêÁ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è «°Ã£ÀUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ LaÑPÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ªÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj SÁAiÀÄA ¥ËgÀ ¸ÉêÁ £ËPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À 69 ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ »vÀzÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ WÀ£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ, §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16- 01-2007 jAzÀ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀAvÉ, «°Ã£ÀUÉƽ¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀzÁ¥ÀðuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ/ CºÀð ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ¸ÉêÁ »jvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀj SÁAiÀÄA ¥ËgÀ¸ÉêÁ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀzÁ¥ÀðuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ/ CºÀð ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉêÁ »jvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The aforementioned proceedings dated 19.03.2011 was concluded with the decision, taken by the elite personnel of the respondent-BBMP, namely, Special Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Head of the Legal Cell, Chief Accounts Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Admin-1). It is also not disputed that the respondent-BBMP, by office order dated 26.04.2012, notified a Provisional Seniority List in the cadre of First Division Assistant/Second Division Assistant, integrating the cadre of petitioners as well as the private respondents herein.
In the said office order dated 26.04.2012, the date of entry into service of the petitioners was shown as 28.10.2005 and that of the private respondents as 13.01.2006 and subsequent dates. The 70 said Notification is issued at the hands of the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Thereafter, the respondent-
BBMP has issued one more office order dated 18.06.2012, wherein, in unequivocal terms, it is stated that the seniority of the employees under SJSRY scheme, absorbed as per Notification dated 28.10.2005 shall be merged into respective equivalent cadre of BBMP and their seniority shall be countered from the date of their entry as per absorption made, by Notification dated 28.10.2005. Thereafter, the respondent-BBMP has issued Final Seniority List in the cadre of First Division Assistant, after considering the objections filed to the Provisional Seniority List, which was notified on 24.06.2012 and in the said Seniority List, the rank of the private respondents was placed below the petitioners herein. The said aspect has been approved and decision was taken by the respondent-BBMP as per office order dated 18.06.2012. It is also not disputed by the parties that, the Seniority List dated, 28.12.2013 issued by the respondent-BBMP, settling the Seniority of the integrated list of petitioners and private respondents. However, having done so, the respondent-
BBMP sought for clarification with the Director of Municipal 71 Administration as per letter dated 08.08.2014 with regard to consideration of merger of the posts on pay scale and protection of seniority of the petitioners in terms of statutory rules. In this regard, the respondent-Government in this categorical way conveyed to the respondent-BBMP that, the pay scale is not a criterion to fix the seniority and therefore, directed the respondent-BBMP to conform to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority Rules) 1957. It is suffice to say that, the Government in its letter dated 27.03.2015, addressed to the Commissioner, BBMP, to follow the Government order dated 10.01.2011, insofar as equivalent of posts and preparation of the Seniority List. the relevant portion of the letter dated 27.03.2015, reads as under:
"(5) ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ E£ÀÆß ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝ, PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CAwªÀÄUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀiÁªÀPÁ±À ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ, PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹gÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À JzÀÄj£À°è FUÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀl£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀlPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À E®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.01.2011 gÀ ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀzÀ°è «¢ü¹gÀĪÀ µÀgÀwÛ£ÀAvÉAiÉÄà PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ."
7221. Despite these directions have been issued by the State Government, the respondent-BBMP has issued the Provisional List, dated 16.07.2015, without considering the said direction and opinion of the Government vide letter dated 27.03.2015. Be that as it may be, the respondent-BBMP without following the direction issued by the State Government, behaved like a extraordinary entity, in not conforming to the Rule 6 of Karnataka State Civil Service (Seniority) Rules, 1957, issued office order dated 09.09.2015, which is contrary to Government order dated 10.01.2011, and further, such act is in contravention of their own proceedings dated 19.03.2011, 18.06.2012 and 26.12.2013 as well as the noting of the respondent-Government dated 20.02.2015, and letter dated 27.03.2015, wherein, as mentioned above, the Government has directed the respondent-BBMP to conform to the conditions stipulated in the Government order dated 10.01.2011. This act of the respondent-BBMP, is a clear violation of, not only its own orders but also the Government orders mentioned above. It is also made clear that, the said order dated 09.09.2015, fixing the seniority, placing the private 73 respondents herein above the petitioners herein, is contrary to the judgment of this Court in G.Gopalaiah's case supra.
22. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ramesh Rangashamaiah (supra) and paragraphs 49 and 51 of the said judgment reads as under:
"49. What emerges from the aforesaid judgments is, it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts many factors other than pay will have to be taken into consideration, like the nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. Treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts, it is not necessary that the holders of these posts must perform completely the same functions or that the sources of recruitment to the posts must be the same nor is it essential that qualifications for appointments to the posts must be identical. All that is reasonably required is that there must not be such difference in the pay-scales or qualifications of the incumbents of the posts concerned or in their duties or responsibilities or regarding any other relevant factor that it would be unjust to treat the posts alike. In other words, that posts having substantially higher pay-scales or status in service or carrying substantially 74 higher responsibilities and duties or otherwise distinctly superior are not equated with posts carrying much lower pay-scales or substantially lower responsibilities and duties or enjoying much lower status in service. Broadly stated, four factors have to be taken into consideration while determining the equation of two posts. They are:
(i) the nature and duties of a post,
(ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and
(iv) the salary of the post.
51. Once the declaration of equivalence is made on a proper application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post, then scope of interference in such a declaration is very much limited. The Court would be slow to interfere with the declaration of equivalence made by the Government. The Government would ordinarily be the best judge to evaluate and compare the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to different posts with a view to determining whether or not they are equivalent in status and responsibility. Therefore, ordinarily Courts do not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to 75 expert bodies as several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure. Being a complex matter, the Court will interfere only if there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has crept in such an exercise and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice being caused. It is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a Court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. When the Government has declared equivalence after proper application of mind to the relevant factors, then Court would be most reluctant to venture into the uncharted and unfamiliar field of administration and examine the correctness of the declaration of equivalence made by the Government where it appears to the Court that the declaration of equivalence is made without application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the non-cadre post or extraneous or irrelevant factors are taken into account in determining the equivalence or the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties of the two posts are so dissimilar that no reasonable man can possibly say that they are equivalent in status and responsibility or the declaration of equivalence is mala fide or is colourable exercise of power, the Court can and certainly would set at naught the declaration of equivalence and afford protection to the civil servant."
7623. I am also fortified by the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 727. Paragraphs 31 to 40 of the said judgment reads as under:
"31. We shall now venture to deal with another aspect of the matter, emerging out of the impugned order passed by the High Court. The conclusions drawn by the High Court, as have been recorded in para 46 of the impugned judgment and order dated 13-4-2007 emerged out of a consideration which was noticed in paras 38 to 45. Paras 38 and 43 to 46 of the impugned judgment and order, have already been extracted hereinabove. A perusal of the above consideration reveals, that the High Court was swayed by the co-incidental prejudice suffered by the erstwhile members of the Ministerial Cadre, resulting in lost chances of promotion. The aforesaid consideration could have been justified only if chances of promotion are treated as conditions of service. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, this Court has repeatedly examined the issue whether chances of promotion constitute conditions of service. In this behalf, reference may be made to a few judgments rendered by this Court.
32. First of all, we may advert to the decision rendered by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant 77 Kulkarni, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 141-42, para 16) "16.Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not. Under the Departmental Examination Rules for STOs, 1954, framed by the former State Government of Madhya Pradesh, as amended on 20-1- 1960, mere passing of the departmental examination conferred no right on the STIs of Bombay, to promotion. By passing the examination, they merely became eligible for promotion. They had to be brought on to a select list not merely on the length of service, but on the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle. It was, therefore, nothing but a mere chance of promotion. In consequence of the impugned orders of reversion, all that happened is that some of the STIs, who had wrongly been promoted as STOs Grade III had to be reverted and thereby lost a few places. In contrast, the conditions of service of ASTOs from Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad, at least so far as one stage of promotion above the one held by them before the reorganisation of States, could not be altered without the previous sanction of the Central Government as laid down in the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115 of the Act."78
33. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 552 & 554, paras 12 & 15) "12.In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar [Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, the petitioners and other allocated Tahsildars from ex- Hyderabad State had under the notification of the Raj Pramukh dated 15-9-1955 all the vacancies in the posts of Deputy Collector in the ex-Hyderabad State available to them for promotion but under subsequent rules of 30-7-1959, 50 per cent of the vacancies were to be filled by direct recruitment and only the remaining 50 per cent were available for promotion and that too on divisional basis. The effect of this change obviously was that now only 50 per cent vacancies in the post of Deputy Collector being available in place of all the vacancies it was to take almost double the time for many other allocated Tehsildars to get promoted as Deputy Collectors. In other words it resulted in delayed chance of promotion. It was, inter alia, urged on behalf of the petitioners that the situation brought about by the rules of 30-7-1959 constituted variation to their prejudice in the conditions of service applicable to them immediately prior to the reorganisation of the State and the rules were consequently invalid. While repelling this submission the Constitution Bench held : (SCC p. 329, para 15) 79 '15. ... All that happened as a result of making promotions to the posts of Deputy Collectors divisionwise and limiting such promotions to 50 per cent of the total number of vacancies in the posts of Deputy Collector was to reduce the chances of promotion available to the petitioners. It is now well settled by the decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit that though a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service. In Purohit case, the districtwise seniority of sanitary inspectors was changed to Statewise seniority, and as a result of this change the respondents went down in seniority and became very junior. This, it was urged, affected their chances of promotion which were protected under the proviso to Section 115, sub-section (7). This contention was negatived and Wanchoo, J., (as he then was), speaking on behalf of this Court observed:"It is said on behalf of the respondents that as their chances of promotion have been affected their conditions of service have been changed to their disadvantage. We see no force in this argument because chances of promotion are not conditions of service." It is, therefore, clear that neither the Rules of 30-7-1959, nor the procedure for making promotions to the posts of Deputy Collector divisionwise varies the conditions of service of the petitioners to their disadvantage.' 80 ***
15. It cannot be disputed that the Director General of Ordnance Factories who had issued the Circular dated 6- 11-1962 had the power to issue the subsequent Circular dated 20-1-1966 also. In view of the legal position pointed out above the aforesaid circular could not be treated to be one affecting adversely any condition of service of the Supervisors 'A'. Its only effect was that the chance of promotion which had been accelerated by the Circular dated 6-11-1962 was deferred and made dependent on selection according to the Rules. Apparently, after the coming into force of the order dated 28-12-1965 and the Circular dated 20-1-1966 promotions could not be made just on completion of two years' satisfactory service under the earlier Circular dated 6-11-1962 the same having been superseded by the later circular. It is further obvious that in this view of the matter Supervisors 'A' who had been promoted before the coming into force of the order dated 28-12- 1965 and the Circular dated 20-1-1966 stood in a class separate from those whose promotions were to be made thereafter. The fact that some Supervisors 'A' had been promoted before the coming into force of the order dated 28-12-1965 and the Circular dated 20-1-1966 could not, therefore, constitute the basis for an argument that those Supervisors 'A' whose cases came up for consideration for promotion thereafter and who were promoted in due course in accordance with the 81 rules were discriminated against. They apparently did not fall in the same category."
34. This Court had also declared the position of law, on the above aspect of the matter, in Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India , wherein a three-Judge Bench observed as under :
(SCC pp. 601-03, paras 30-31)
30. "The next question is whether the seniority is a condition of service or a part of rules of recruitment? In State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh, this Court held that the term 'conditions of service' means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from the time of his appointment to his retirement and even beyond, in matters like pensions, etc. In I.N. Subba Reddy v. Andhra University, the same view was reiterated. In Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India a Constitution Bench held that the rule which confers a right to actual promotion or a right to be considered for promotion is a rule prescribing a condition of the service. In Mohd. Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy another Constitution Bench held that any rule which affects the promotion of a person relates to his condition of service.
In State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit, this Court held that a rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service. The same view was reiterated in another Constitution Bench judgment in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of 82 Maharashtra [Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra. No doubt conditions of service may be classified as salary, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, etc. as held in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath by a Bench of two Judges but the context in which the law therein was laid must be noted. The question therein was whether non-prosecution for a grave offence after expiry of four years is a condition of service? While negativing the contention that non- prosecution after expiry of 4 years is not a condition of service, this Court elaborated the subject and the above view was taken. The ratio therein does not have any bearing on the point in issue. Perhaps the question may bear relevance, if an employee was initially recruited into the service according to the rules and promotion was regulated in the same rules to higher echelons of service. In that arena promotion may be considered to be a condition of service. In A.K. Bhatnagar v. Union of India , this Court held that seniority is an incidence of service and where the service rules prescribe the method of its computation it is squarely governed by such rules. In their absence ordinarily the length of service is taken into account. In that case the direct recruits were made senior to the recruits by regularisation although the appellants were appointed earlier in point of time and uninterruptedly remained in service as temporary appointees along with the appellants but later on when recruited by direct recruitment, they were held senior to the promotees.
8331. No employee has a right to promotion but he has only the right to be considered for promotion according to the rules. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service and are defeasible. Take an illustration that the Promotion Regulations envisage maintaining integrity and good record by Dy. S.P. of State Police Service as eligibility condition for inclusion in the select list for recruitment by promotion to Indian Police Service. Inclusion and approval of the name in the select list by the UPSC, after considering the objections if any by the Central Government is also a condition precedent. Suppose if 'B' is far junior to 'A' in State Services and 'B' was found more meritorious and suitable and was put in a select list of 1980 and accordingly 'B' was appointed to the Indian Police Service after following the procedure. 'A' was thereby superseded by 'B'. Two years later 'A' was found fit and suitable in 1984 and was accordingly appointed according to the Rules. Can 'A' thereafter say that 'B' being far junior to him in State service, 'A' should become senior to 'B' in the Indian Police Service. The answer is obviously no because 'B' had stolen a march over 'A' and became senior to 'A'. Here maintaining integrity and good record are conditions of recruitment and seniority is an incidence of service. Take another illustration that the State service provides--rule of reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 'A' is a general candidate holding No. 1 rank according to the roster as he was most meritorious in the State service among general 84 candidates. 'B' Scheduled Caste candidate holds No. 3 point in the roster and 'C', Scheduled Tribe holds No. 5 in the roster. Suppose the Indian Police Service Recruitment Rules also provide reservation to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as well. By operation of the equality of opportunity by Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4) and 335, 'B' and 'C' were recruited by promotion from State Services to Central Services and were appointed earlier to 'A' in 1980. 'A' thereafter in the next year was found suitable as a general candidate and was appointed to the Indian Police Service. Can 'A' thereafter contend that since 'B' and 'C' were appointed by virtue of reservation, though were less meritorious and junior to him in the State service and gradation list would not become senior to him in the cadre as IPS officer. Undoubtedly 'B' and 'C', by rule of reservation, had stolen a march over 'A' from the State Service. By operation of rule of reservation 'B' and 'C' became senior and 'A' became junior in the Central Services. Reservation and roster were conditions of recruitment and seniority was only an incidence of service. The eligibility for recruitment to the Indian Police Service, thus, is a condition of recruitment and not a condition of service. Accordingly we hold that seniority, though, normally an incidence of service, Seniority Rules, Recruitment Rules and Promotion Regulations form part of the conditions of recruitment to the Indian Police Service by promotion, which should be strictly complied 85 with before becoming eligible for consideration for promotion and are not relaxable."
35. More recent in time, is the judgment rendered by another three-Judge Division Bench in S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana. The majority opinion in the above judgment was rendered by K. Ramaswamy, J. In the process of consideration, he observed as under : (SCC p. 622, para
145) "145.It is true that the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution can be issued by amending or altering the Rules with retrospectivity as consistently held by this Court in a catena of decisions, viz. B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P., T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana and a host of other decisions. But the question is whether the Rules can be amended taking away the vested right. As regards the right to seniority, this Court elaborately considered the incidence of the right to seniority and amendment of the Act in the latest decision in Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. relieving the need to reiterate all of them once over. Suffice it to state that it is settled law that a distinction between right and interest has always been maintained. Seniority is a facet of interest. The Rules prescribe the method of selection/recruitment. Seniority is governed by the existing rules and is required to be worked out accordingly. No one has a vested right to promotion or 86 seniority but an officer has an interest to seniority acquired by working out the Rules. It would be taken away only by operation of valid law. Right to be considered for promotion is a rule prescribed by conditions of service. A rule which affects the promotion of a person relates to conditions of service. The rule merely affecting the chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying the conditions of service. Chances of promotion are not conditions of service. A rule which merely affects the chances of promotion does not amount to change in the conditions of service."
36. Consequent upon the above detailed consideration, K. Ramaswamy, J. recorded his conclusion in para 153. On the issue in hand, sub-para AB of para 153 is relevant and is being extracted hereunder : (S.S. Bola case, SCC p. 634) "AB. A distinction between right to be considered for promotion and an interest to be considered for promotion has always been maintained. Seniority is a facet of interest. The rules prescribe the method of recruitment/selection. Seniority is governed by the rules existing as on the date of consideration for promotion. Seniority is required to be worked out according to the existing rules. No one has a vested right to promotion or seniority. But an officer has an interest to seniority acquired by working out the rules. The seniority should be taken away only by operation of valid law. Right to be considered for promotion is a rule prescribed by 87 conditions of service. A rule which affects chances of promotion of a person relates to conditions of service. The rule/provision in an Act merely affecting the chances of promotion would not be regarded as varying the conditions of service. The chances of promotion are not conditions of service. A rule which merely affects the chances of promotion does not amount to change in the conditions of service. However, once a declaration of law, on the basis of existing rules, is made by a constitutional court and a mandamus is issued or direction given for its enforcement by preparing the seniority list, operation of the declaration of law and the mandamus and directions issued by the Court is the result of the declaration of law but not the operation of the rules per se."
37. S. Saghir Ahmad, J. concurred with the view expressed by K. Ramaswamy, J. A dissenting view was recorded by G.B. Pattanaik, J. On the subject in hand, however, there was no dissent. The conclusions recorded by G.B. Pattanaik, J. were to the following effect : (S.S. Bola case, SCC pp. 665-66 & 675-77, paras 199-202 & 212) "199.To the said effect the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kishan Das wherein this Court observed an order forfeiting the past service which has earned a government servant increments in the post or rank he holds, howsoever adverse it is to him, affecting his seniority within the rank to which he belongs or his 88 future chances of promotion, does not attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution since it is not covered by the expression reduction in rank.
200. Thus to have a particular position in the seniority list within a cadre can neither be said to be accrued or vested right of a government servant and losing some places in the seniority list within the cadre does not amount to reduction in rank even though the future chances of promotion get delayed thereby. It was urged by Mr Sachar and Mr Mahabir Singh appearing for the direct recruits that the effect of redetermination of the seniority in accordance with the provisions of the Act is not only that the direct recruits lose a few places of seniority in the rank of Executive Engineer but their future chances of promotion are greatly jeopardised and that right having been taken away the Act must be held to be invalid. It is difficult to accept this contention since chances of promotion of a government servant are not a condition of service. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, this Court held : (SCC p. 141, para 16) '16. Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not.' 89
201. To the said effect is a judgment of this Court in K. Jagadeesan v. Union of India wherein this Court held : (SCC pp. 230-31, para 7) '7. ... The only effect is that his chances of promotion or his right to be considered for promotion to the higher post is adversely affected. This cannot be regarded as retrospective effect being given to the amendment of the rules carried out by the impugned notification and the challenge to the said notification on that ground must fail.'
202. Again in Union of India v. S.L. Dutta this Court held : (SCC p. 512, para 17) '17. ... In our opinion, what was affected by the change of policy were merely the chances of promotion of the Air Vice-Marshals in the Navigation Stream. As far as the posts of Air Marshals open to the Air Vice- Marshals in the said stream were concerned, their right or eligibility to be considered for promotion still remained and hence, there was no change in their conditions of service.' ***
212. So far as the rules dealing with Irrigation Branch are concerned, the said rules, namely, the Punjab Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Class I Service Rules, 1964 have not been considered earlier by 90 this Court at any point of time. One Shri M.L. Gupta was appointed to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer as a direct recruit on 27-8-1971, pursuant to the result of a competitive examination held by the Haryana Public Service Commission in December 1970. The said Shri Gupta was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 17-9-1976. He made a representation to the State Government to fix up his seniority in accordance with the service rules but as the said representation was not disposed of for more than three years he approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing CWP No. 4335 of 1984. That petition was disposed of by the High Court on the undertaking given by the State that the seniority will be fixed up soon. The said undertaking not having been complied with, the said Shri Gupta approached the High Court in January 1986 by filing a contempt petition. In September 1986 the State Government fixed the inter se seniority of the said Shri Gupta and other members of the Service and Gupta was shown at Serial No. 72. Two promotees had been shown at Serial Nos. 74 and 75. Those two promotees filed a writ petition challenging the fixation of inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by its judgment passed in May 1987 quashed the order dated 29-9-1986 whereunder the seniority of the direct recruits and promotees has been fixed and called upon the State Government to pass a speaking order assigning position in the gradation list. The State Government issued a 91 fresh Notification on 24-7-1987 giving detailed reasons reaffirming the earlier seniority which had been notified on 29-9-1986. Prior to the aforesaid notification of the State Government Shri Gupta had filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had been registered as CWP No. 6012 of 1986 claiming his seniority at No. 22 instead of 72 which had been given to him under the Notification dated 29-9-1986. The promotees also filed a writ petition challenging the Government Order dated 24-7-1987 which was registered as CWP No. 5780 of 1987. Both the writ petitions, one filed by the direct recruit, Shri Gupta (CWP No. 6012 of 1986), and the other filed by the promotees (CWP No. 5780 of 1987) were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgments dated 24-1-1992 and 4-3-1992, respectively, whereunder the learned Single Judge accepted the stand of the promotees and Shri Gupta was placed below one Shri O.P. Gagneja. The said Shri Gupta filed two appeals to the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was registered as Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 367 and 411 of 1992. The aforesaid letters patent appeals were allowed by judgment dated 27-8-1992. This judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was challenged by the State of Haryana in the Supreme Court which has been registered as CAs Nos. 1448-49 of 1993. This Court granted leave and stayed the operation of the judgment in the matter of fixation of seniority. The promotees also 92 challenged the said judgment of the Division Bench in this Court which has been registered as CAs Nos. 1452- 53 of 1993. During the pendency of these appeals in this Court, an Ordinance was promulgated on 13-5- 1985 as Ordinance 6 of 1995 and the said Ordinance was replaced by the impugned Act 20 of 1995 by the Haryana Legislature. The validity of the Act was challenged by the said Shri Gupta and pursuant to the order of this Court the said writ petition having been transferred to this Court has been registered as TC No. 40 of 1996. So far as the validity of the Act is concerned, the question of any usurpation of judicial power by the legislature does not arise in relation to the Irrigation Branch inasmuch as the Recruitment Rules of 1964 framed by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which has been adapted by the State of Haryana on and from the date Haryana was made a separate State had not been considered by this Court nor has any direction been issued by this Court. The legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the Act had also not been assailed and in our view rightly since the State Legislature has the powers under Schedule VII List II Entry 41 to frame law governing the conditions of service of the employees of the State Government. That apart Article 309 itself stipulates that the appropriate legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of 93 any State subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Proviso to Article 309 confers power on the President in connection with the affairs of the Union and on the Governor in connection with the affairs of the State to make rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate legislature under Article 309 main part. In this view of the matter, the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the legislation in question is beyond doubt. The only question which, therefore, arises for consideration and which is contended in assailing the validity of the Act is that under the Act the direct recruits would lose several positions in the gradation list and thereby their accrued and vested rights would get jeopardised and their future chances of promotion also would be seriously hampered and such violation tantamounts to violation of rights under Part III of the Constitution. For the reasons already given while dealing with the aforesaid contention in connection with the Public Health Branch and the Buildings and Roads Branch the contention raised in the transfer case cannot be sustained and, therefore, the transfer case would stand dismissed. The Act in question dealing with the service conditions of the engineers belonging to the Irrigation Branch must be held to be a valid piece of legislation passed by the competent legislature and by giving it retrospective effect no constitutional provision has been violated nor has any right of the employee under Part 94 III of the Constitution been infringed requiring interference by this Court."
38. Finally, reference may be made to a decision rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Col. G.S. Grewal wherein this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 315, para 28) "28.As pointed out above, the Tribunal has partly allowed the OA of the respondent primarily on the ground that the decision contained in the Government Order dated 23-4-2010 amends the promotion policy retrospectively thereby taking away the rights already accrued to the respondent in terms of the earlier policy.
It is also mentioned that the revised policy fundamentally changes the applicant's prospects of promotion. What is ignored is that the promotions already granted to the respondent have not been taken away. Insofar as future chances of promotions are concerned, no vested right accrues as chance of promotion is not a condition of service. Therefore, in the first instance, the Tribunal will have to spell out as to what was the vested right which had already accrued to the respondent and that is taken away by the Policy decision dated 23-4-2010. In this process, other thing which becomes relevant is to consider that once the respondent is permanently seconded in DGQA and he is allowed to remain there, can there be a change in his service conditions vis-à-vis others who are his counterparts in DGQA, but whose permanent 95 secondment is not in cloud? To put it otherwise, the sole reason for issuing Government Policy dated 23-4-2010 was to take care of those cases where permanent secondment to DGQA was wrongly given. As per the appellants, since the respondent had suffered final supersession, he was not entitled to be seconded permanently to DGQA. This is disputed by the respondent. That aspect will have to be decided first. That apart, even if it be so, as contended by the appellants, the appellants have not recalled the permanent secondment order. They have allowed the respondent to stay in DGQA maintaining his promotion as Colonel as well, which was given pursuant to this secondment. The question, in such circumstances, that would arise is whether the respondent can be treated differently even if he is allowed to remain in DGQA viz. whether not allowing him to take further promotions, which benefit is still available to others whose permanent secondment is not in dispute, would amount to discrimination or arbitrariness thereby offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, these, and other related issues, will have to be argued and thrashed out for coming to a proper conclusion."
39. It is apparent from a collective perusal of the conclusions recorded in the judgments extracted in the foregoing paragraphs, that chances of promotion do not constitute a condition of service. In that view of the matter, 96 it is inevitable to hold that the High Court erred in recording its eventual determination on the basis of the fact that the promulgation of the 2003 TA Rules and the 2003 STA Rules was discriminatory and arbitrary with regard to the fixation of the inter se seniority, since the same seriously prejudiced the chances of promotion of the erstwhile members of the Ministerial Cadre, namely, those members of the original Ministerial Cadre, who had not opted for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry Operators, with reference to and in comparison with, those members of the original Ministerial Cadre who had opted for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry Operators.
40. As a proposition of law it is imperative for us to record that chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service, and as such, mere alteration of chances of promotion, would not per se call for judicial interference. The above general proposition would not be applicable in case the chances of promotion are altered arbitrarily, or on the basis of considerations which are shown to be perverse or mala fide."
24. Nextly, in the case of P.U. JOSHI AND OTHERS VS.
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AHAMADABAD AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 10 held as under:
97"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service 98 should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
25. In the case of RAMUAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 285 paragraph 17 reads as under:
"17. Mr Shankar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 4 and 5 (Respondent 5 has since died), submits that after the final seniority list was approved by the Central Government, it had become final and it cannot be challenged in 1982 after 11 years. Further, it is submitted by him that the final seniority list has never been challenged by the appellant and, accordingly, he cannot be allowed to challenge the same by filing a writ petition. It is true that the final seniority list was sent to the Central Government and presumably it was approved, but because a seniority list has been approved by the Central Government, it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that even though it has been illegally prepared in violation of the directions of the Central Government itself to the prejudice of the officer or officers concerned, it cannot be challenged. Normally, when a seniority list has been made 99 final, it should not be allowed to be challenged. But when a seniority list is prepared ignoring all just principles and also the rules framed or directions given by appropriate authority, seriously affecting any officer, it is always liable to be examined and set aside by the court. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent 4 that the seniority list having been made final after the approval of the Central Government cannot be challenged by the appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. It is well established principle in law that, while making modification in the Seniority List, the authorities are required to consider the Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority) Rules, 1957. Had the respondent-BBMP followed the above Rule, there would be no anomaly in the impugned list and such action on the part of the respondent-BBMP is deprecated. Further, if the persons, who were placed above, in the Seniority List and their seniority is affected on account of objections filed by aggrieved third parties to the Seniority List. It is the duty of the authority to inform/issue notice or made known to such persons whose rank will be affected by placing the persons who have filed objection to the provisional list above the affected parties. In this regard, 100 Punjab and Haryna High Court in the case of SRI NIRANJAN DASS SEHGAL VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in 1968 SLR 183 held that, issuing of notice to officials affected by Seniority and such parties were reverted in the final Seniority List and as such, it is held that, issuing the show-cause notice is mandatory before chaining the Seniority List. This aspect of the matter was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.GHOSH AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1968 SC 1385. Applying aforementioned principle to the case on hand, the petitioners herein were placed above the private respondents herein in the earlier Seniority List and that Seniority List should not have been altered or modified on the basis of any representation/objection filed by the private respondents herein unless the petitioners herein have been aware of the same, and had been afforded an opportunity to show the cause against it. Determination of petitioners' seniority at the instance of the private respondents, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein, amounts to arbitrary act and violative of principles of natural justice.
10127. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the employees of respondent-BBMP relating to equivalence of posts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANDRAKANTH ANANATH KULKARNI, (supra), held that, it is for the Government to take decision insofar as equivalence of posts and it is not open to the Court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Government is right or wrong and same is the within exclusive domain of the Government. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 10 and 11 held as follows:
"10. The following principles had been formulated for being observed as far as may be, in the integration of government servants allotted to the services of the new States:
"In the matter of equation of posts:
(i) Where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis; but
(ii) Where, however, there were no such similar cadres the following factors will be 102 taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts--
(a) nature and duties of a post;
(b) powers exercised by the officers holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(c) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post, and
(d) the salary of the post."
It is well settled that these principles have a statutory force.
11. There is a long line of decisions of this Court starting from the Union of India v. P.K. Roy laying down that the Central Government has been constituted to be the final authority in the matter of integration of services under sub-section (5) of Section 115 of the Act. The matter of equation of posts is purely an administrative function. It has been left entirely to the Central Government as to how it has to deal with these questions. The Central Government had established an Advisory Committee for the purpose of assisting in the proper consideration of the representations made to it. There is nothing in Sections 115 to 117 of the Act prohibiting the Central Government in any way from taking the aid and assistance of the State Government in the matter of effecting the integration of 103 services. As observed by this Court in Roy case the usual procedure followed by the Central Government in the matter of integration of services generally, is in order. It is not open to the court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong. This was a matter exclusively within the province of the Central Government. Perhaps, the only question the court can enquire into is whether the four principles agreed upon at the Chief Secretaries Conference had been properly taken into account. This is the narrow and limited field within which the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court can operate. But where, as here, in the matter of equation of posts, the Central Government had properly taken into account all the four principles decided upon at the Chief Secretaries Conference, the decision cannot be assailed at all. In the present case, notonly the Central Government had laid down the principles for integration, but also considered the representations and passed the final orders and the provisional gradation lists were prepared and published by the State Government under the direction and with the sanction of the Central Government."
28. The said principle laid down in the case of CHANDRAKANTH ANANT KULKARNI, (supra), was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.SHIVAPRASAD PIPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 4 SCC 598 and paragraph 19 of the same, reads as under:
104"19. However, it is possible that by reason of such a merger, the chance of promotion of some of the employees may be adversely affected, or some others may benefit in consequence. But this cannot be a ground for setting aside the merger which is essentially a policy decision. This Court in Union of India v. S.L. Dutta examined this contention. In S.L. Dutta case a change in the promotional policy was challenged on the ground that as a result, service conditions of the respondent were adversely affected since his chances of promotion were reduced. Relying upon the decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni this Court held that a mere chance of promotion was not a condition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in the chance of promotion would not amount to a change in the conditions of service."
29. It is also well established principle in law that, classification on the basis of birth mark, of an employee is impermissible under law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. ATHUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 10 SCC 432 held that, the classification of group captains (Select) and group captains (Time Scale) in two groups for the purposes of prescribing different retirement ages in the facts of the said case, held to be contrary to Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. In the case of RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL 105 SONI (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the length of service determines the seniority. Paragraph 51 of the said judgment reads as under:
"51. Now, in 1978 before the Amending Act was passed, thanks to the provisions of the principal Act of 1961, the ex-municipal employees who had been allocated to the panchayat service as Secretaries, Officers and servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats, had achieved the status of government servants. Their status as government servants could not be extinguished, so long as the posts were not abolished and their services were not terminated in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. Nor was it permissible to single them out for differential treatment. That would offend Article 14 of the Constitution. An attempt was made to justify the purported differentiation on the basis of history and ancestry, as it were. It was said that Talatis and Kotwals who became Secretaries, Officers and servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats were government servants, even to start with, while municipal employees who became such Secretaries, Officers and servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats were not. Each carried the mark or the "brand" of his origin and a classification on the basis of the source from which they came into the service, it was claimed, was permissible. We are clear that it is not. Once they had joined the common stream of service to perform the same duties, it is clearly 106 not permissible to make any classification on the basis of their origin. Such a classification would be unreasonable and entirely irrelevant to the object sought to be achieved. It is to navigate around these two obstacles of Article 311 and Article 14 that the Amending Act is sought to be made retrospective, to bring about an artificial situation as if the erstwhile municipal employees never became members of a service under the State. Can a law be made to destroy today's accrued constitutional rights by artificially reverting to a situation which existed 17 years ago? No."
30. In the case of RAMASWAMY G.T (supra), this Court at paragraphs 22 to 26 and 40 held as follows:
"22. Sri Narasimhamurthy has urged that on the very terms of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Government Seniority Rules, 1957 (Seniority Rules) in the preparation of a fresh seniority list for every year, presupposes that all seniority lists prepared earlier stand superseded and Government was bound to prepare the same only in conformity with the law declared by Courts as on that day only.
23. Rule 10 of the Seniority Rules on which strong reliance has been placed by Sri Narasimhamurthy to sustain his wide proposition reads thus:
"10(1) There shall be prepared every year for each cadre of service or class of posts a seniority list consisting of the names of all officers borne on the said 107 cadre or class of posts arranged in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions of these rules.
(2) The seniority list under sub-rule (1) shall be prepared by:--
(a) The Government for Gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts;
(b) The Head of the department concerned for non-
gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts;
"Provided that the Government may also prepare the seniority list for non-Gazetted cadres of any service or class of posts".
This rule directs the preparation of seniority lists in every cadre of every department of Government by the designated authority every year. In case of gazetted cadre/cadres, Government is the authority to prepare seniority lists and in other cadres it is the head of Departments. The object and intendment of this Rule is only to have updated seniority lists in every cadre and nothing more than that. The rule no where authorises and empowers a review of all earlier promotions and re- determination of all earlier rankings made in the earlier seniority lists. In the process of updating seniority lists, it is even inconceivable to hold that earlier seniority lists which have become final should also be reviewed and a fresh determination made. The rule on its terms does not support the very wide construction and proposition suggested on it. We are of the view that the acceptance of any such view 108 would only lead to disastrous results. We find no merit in this contention of Sri Narasimhamurthy and reject the same.
23(a). As we have rejected the two preliminary objections urged by the promotees, it is now necessary to examine the merits which we now proceed to do.
24. Sriyuths Datar and Narayana Rao have urged that the very last sentence or direction of Clause 4 of the Official Memorandum dated 10-2-1984 providing for a review of promotions in all cadres from the promulgation of the C & R Rules or ignoring all earlier determinations and seniority lists prepared from time to time was opposed to all well settled principles of law which is also the very principle enunciated in Kadali's case itself.
25. Sriyuths Chandrasekharaiah, learned Government Advocate, appearing for State Government, Krishnamurthy and Narasimhamurthy have urged that the sentence or the direction in the Official Memorandum to which exception was taken had been issued by Government as expounded by this Court in Kadali's case.
26. The very last sentence or direction of Clause-4 of the Official Memorandum to which exception is taken reads thus:
"Except in the case of Karnataka Administrative service, limiting the carry forward to three years should be enforced 109 with effect from the date on which the Cadre and Recruitment Rules came into force".
40. What emerges from our above discussion is that the 1976 seniority list, whatever be its legality had become final and can only be modified in terms of an order that may be made by the Supreme Court or this Court in any other case whether pending or filed hereafter. When once we reach the conclusion that the 1976 list had reached finality for whatever reason that may be, it necessarily follows from the same that the rankings assigned in that list cannot be tinkered with and all further preparations must be on the basis of that list only. We are also of the view that this conclusion flows from the ruling of the Supreme Court in S.K. Ghosh v. Union of India (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1385) and also from Kadali's case.
31. In RAGHAVA RAJAGOPALCHARI (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 17 held as follows:
"17. The learned counsel for the State sought to argue before us that the date "16th March, 1954" occurring in the order dated January 28, 1954, was mentioned due to a mistake, and the proper date which should have been mentioned was the date of superannuation, namely, June 30, 1953. He says that the order dated July 23, 1953, continuing the services of the petitioner after the date of superannuation was bad in view of the ruling of this Court in State of Assam v. Padma Ram Borah. But we are unable to appreciate how he is entitled to raise this point. The writ 110 was brought to challenge this order. No such petition, even if it be competent, was filed by the State itself. The respondent to a writ petition cannot be allowed to attack its own order as a respondent."
32. In the case of SUB-INSPECTOR ROOPLAL (supra), paragraphs 15, 16 and 23 held as follows:
"15. We will now take up the question whether the appellants are entitled to count their service rendered by them as Sub-Inspectors in BSF for the purpose of their seniority after absorption as Sub-Inspectors (Executive) in the Delhi Police or not. We have already noticed the fact that it is pursuant to the needs of the Delhi Police that these officials were deputed to the Delhi Police from BSF following the procedure laid down in Rule 5(h) of the rules and subsequently absorbed as contemplated under the said rules. It is also not in dispute that at some point of time in BSF, the appellants' services were regularised in the post of Sub-Inspector and they were transferred as regularly appointed Sub-Inspectors to the Delhi Police Force. Therefore, on being absorbed in an equivalent cadre in the transferred post, we find no reason why these transferred officials should not be permitted to count their service in the parent department. At any rate, this question is not res integra and is squarely covered by the ratio of judgments of this Court in more than one case. Since the earlier Bench of the Tribunal relied upon Madhavan case to give relief to 111 the deputationists, we will first consider the law laid down by this Court in Madhavan case. This Court in that case while considering a similar question, came to the following conclusion: (SCC p. 580, para 21) "21. We may examine the question from a different point of view. There is not much difference between deputation and transfer. Indeed, when a deputationist is permanently absorbed in the CBI, he is under the rules appointed on transfer. In other words, deputation may be regarded as a transfer from one government department to another. It will be against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent post in another government department, the period of his service in the post before his transfer is not taken into consideration in computing his seniority in the transferred post. The transfer cannot wipe out his length of service in the post from which he has been transferred. It has been observed by this Court that it is a just and wholesome principle commonly applied where persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their pre-existing total length of service in the parent department should be respected and presented by taking the same into account in determining their ranking in the new service cadre. See R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon; Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India."
(emphasis supplied) 112
16. Similar is the view taken by this Court in the cases of R.S. Makashi and Wing Commander J. Kumar which judgments have been followed by this Court in Madhavan case. Hence, we do not think it is necessary for us to deal in detail with the view taken by this Court in those judgments. Applying the principles laid down in the above- referred cases, we hold the appellants are entitled to count the substantive service rendered by them in the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF while counting their service in the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police Force.
23. It is clear from the ratio laid down in the above case that any rule, regulation or executive instruction which has the effect of taking away the service rendered by a deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent department while counting his seniority in the deputed post would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, liable to be struck down. Since the impugned memorandum in its entirety does not take away the above right of the deputationists and by striking down the offending part of the memorandum, as has been prayed in the writ petition, the rights of the appellants could be preserved, we agree with the prayer of the appellant- petitioners and the offending words in the memorandum "whichever is later" are held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, hence, those words are quashed from the text of the impugned memorandum.
Consequently, the right of the appellant-petitioners to count their service from the date of their regular 113 appointment in the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF, while computing their seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police, is restored."
33. Having taken note of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the discussion made above, it is for the Government to determine the equation of posts. The power vested with the Government for merging of posts and said aspect has been accepted by the respondent-BBMP in its order dated 10.01.2011 and Seniority List dated 28.01.2013 has been issued by the respondent-BBMP placing the petitioners herein above the private respondents and thereafter, issuing the Final Seniority List dated 09.09.2015, re-determining the entire list, without giving effect to or discussing about the spirit underlining Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority) Rules, 1957 by the respondent-BBMP, is clear case of abdication of power by the respondent-BBMP without obeying the orders of Government as well as the judgment of this court in G.GOPALAIAH'S case and the principles laid down by the this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments and therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioners (Employees of SJSRY Scheme) have made out a case for 114 interference in these writ petitions. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) W.P.No.45646 of 2015, W.P.No. 3830 of 2014, W.P.No.30020 of 2014 and W.P.No.31115 of 2015 are allowed and impugned Seniority List dated 09.09.2015 and amended office order dated 26.12.2013 issued by the respondent-BBMP is quashed; and the respondent-BBMP is directed to re-
consider the issue afresh after taking into
consideration the various Government orders
referred to above and the provisions under Rule 6 of Karnataka Civil Service (Seniority) Rules, 1957, by extending opportunity to the petitioners herein/aggrieved parties and take decision in the matter in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above, within three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
ii) W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and W.P.No.13798 of 2014 are dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE