Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. One B.V. Satish has filed Writ Petition No. 45082 of 1999 stating that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 6-8-1983 in the 2nd respondent-Bangalore City Corporation (hereinafter called as the 'Corporation') on a consolidated pay of Rs. 910A per month and regularised on 14-5-1990. The Government framed regulations called the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations ('C and R Regulations' for short), providing for method of recruitment and qualifications for several categories of posts on the establishment of the Corporation, vide order Annexure-A. According to the C and R Regulations, the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (now called as Assistant Engineer) is 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by deputation from the Government service, and the recruitment to the post of Supervisor (now called as Junior Engineer) is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion of Maistries, Work Inspectors etc. The qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the above two posts is B.E. degree in Civil or Mechanical Engineering or equivalent qualification and Diploma in Civil or Mechanical Engineering or equivalent qualification, respectively. A provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was published on 16-12-1993 inviting the objections. The name of the petitioner B.V. Satish was shown at Sl. No. 13 and other persons, who are diploma holders and were initially appointed as Junior Engineers and subsequently transferred as Assistant Engineers from the date of their acquiring B.E. degree qualification, were placed at Sl. Nos. 1 to 12. Objections to the said list were filed by the petitioner. As no action was taken, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 25632 of 1994 before this Court, which is pending consideration. On 7-1-1997, the Corporation prepared filial seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineers as on 31-12-1995 preceded by a provisional seniority list published under official memorandum dated 5-1-1996 and in the final seniority list, the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 1. Again a provisional seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineers was published by the Corporation by its official memorandum dated 1-8-1998, and objections were invited. The petitioner's name was shown at Sl. No. 6. The petitioner filed objections against the said provisional list. However, in the final seniority list dated 10-9-1998, the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 11. The petitioner has challenged the same by filing Writ Petition No. 29555 of 1998, which is pending consideration. It is also stated that the Government while exercising its powers under Sections 91 and 421 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), issued a notification dated 27-9-1999 amending C and R Regulations with retrospective effect from 25-11-1986 (Annexure-E). The same is challenged in this writ petition.

5. The writ petitions were resisted by the respondents contending that the decision in K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the Corporation adopted the amendment introduced by the Public Works Engineering Department (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1986, by resolution dated 25-11-1986, and thereafter, the said resolution has been given effect to and Junior Engineers have been transferred and they have worked as Assistant Engineers and as the Junior Engineers have been appointed on transfer on acquisition of degree, as Assistant Engineers from 1986 itself and the weightage given to them for their services as Junior Engineers as the work that was carried on by them and that done by the Assistant Engineers are similar, the decision in K. Narayanan's case, supra, is not applicable. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Sections 91 and 421 of the Act the impugned notification has been issued giving retrospective effect, and in the absence of any violation of fundamental rights, they are not entitled to any relief.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the impleading respondents reiterated the arguments and submits that the Junior Engineers have worked as Assistant Engineers since long and their nature of job that has been carried out as Assistant Engineers and that of Junior Engineers are same and since 1986 they have been working and the rule has been amended only to validate the action taken by the Corporation, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

8. In rejoinder, Sri Ram Kumar and Sri Rajagopal, learned Counsels for the petitioners submit that sufficient publicity was not given for the draft amendment nor was it placed before both the houses of the State Legislature. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel Sri Ram Kumar that though the petitioners in their individual capacity have filed the petitions questioning the seniority assigned to them. Learned Counsel submits that in case this Court declares the amendment as ultra vires, in view of the decision in K. Narayanan's case, it will not be necessary to decide those writ petitions challenging' the seniority issue.

9. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record and the decisions relied upon.

10. The State Legislature can make laws. Generally, laws are made with prospective effect, but the Legislature has the plenary power to pass them retrospectively. No doubt, retrospective amendment or change will affect vested right, but the power can only be challenged if retrospective law is violative of Article 14 or any other fundamental right conferred in the Constitution. It is to be seen whether the amendment which relates to providing for transfer of Junior Engineers to the higher cadre of Assistant Engineers and further insofar as it relates to retrospective operation of amended rule from 25-11-1986 is hit by Article 14 as contended by petitioners in this case. The other argument is that while giving weightage to them for their services as Assistant Engineers by notification dated 27-9-1999, giving effect from 25-11-1986 is void. The main contention of Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellants is that the rule is liable to be set aside and can be declared as ultra, vires in view of the decision in K. Narayanan's case, supra, wherein their Lordships considering identical issues pertaining to Public Works Department, observed that there was no nexus between framing a rule permitting appointment on transfer and making it effective retrospectively from 1976. It was also found that the impugned rule having been framed in 1985 permitting appointment by transfer and making it operative from 1976, results in entry of Diploma holders as Assistant Engineers only because they became qualified as against those who entered in the service before or after 1976 by competitive process. It was also observed that Government may appoint all the Junior Engineers en bloc after framing of the rule and place them below all those who were working as Assistant Engineers on that date but they cannot be so appointed as to get precedence over those who were working before them. That would result in artificially making unequals as equals. Under the circumstances, the rule which contemplates that once a Junior Engineer acquires a degree qualification, then he automatically should be deemed to have become an Assistant Engineer with retrospective effect, has been set aside. The amended Rule of 1985 making it operative from 1st January, 1976, is struck down as ultra vires by the Apex Court with a direction to make a fresh graduation in the light of the observation. Therefore, this rule is liable to be struck down.