Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Writ petitioner had contended that notifying the post of Development Officer as a post to be filled up against backlog vacancy exclusively reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates was not in order and was in contravention of the recruitment rules and therefore it could not have been notified as a post to be filled up against a backlog vacancy.

Page 1107

4. It was also contended that the post of Development Officer was not the lowest post in group-A posts in the organisation; that it was the post of Deputy Development Officer which was the lowest post amongst the Group-A Officers and therefore there cannot be any reservation in respect of the post of Development Officer in terms of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors. .

14. The controversy arises in the context of according promotion to the post of development officer in the organization of the third respondent-board by promoting persons in the cadre of deputy development officers.

15. The writ petition had come to be filed in the wake of steps taken by the third respondent-board for filling up one post of development officer as a post required to be filled up as backlog vacancy. The Board had taken such steps on the premise that the post was one available to be filled up by a person belonging to scheduled caste in terms of the roster point and having been filled up by a candidate in the general category for want of a suitable candidate in the scheduled caste category, it had become a backlog vacancy and the efforts taken by the third respondent-board to fill up such vacant post of development officer from amongst the eligible scheduled caste candidates in the cadre of deputy development officers.

20. The writ petitioner was appointed as assistant engineer in the services of the third respondent-board on 10-2-1982. On 6-9-1984 fourth respondent was appointed as assistant engineer in the services of the third respondent board. On 19/20-10-1989, the writ petitioner as well as the fourth respondent were promoted as deputy development officers. While the writ petitioner was placed at Sl No. 1 in the seniority list, fourth respondent figured at Sl No. 3. On 3-12-1990, Karnataka Government Notification No. DPAR 18 SBC 86 was issued, extending the provision for reservation to the post of executive engineer in the public works and irrigation departments of the government. On 7-3-1991, Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc) Act, 1990 was published Page 1111 in the gazette, providing for reservation in public sector establishments. On 20-5-1991, government issued another government order in No. DPAR 25 SBC 1991, making the government order dated 3-12-1990 applicable to boards and corporations in similar situation. On 1-4-1992, Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 were amended by inserting a proviso to Rule 8 providing for determination and filling up of backlog vacancies not filled up from 24-7-1978 in all promotional vacancies. On 16-11-1992 the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment in the case of INDIRA SAWHNEY [supra] inter alia, holding that there cannot be reservation in promotion and any existing provision so providing reservation for promotion can continue only for a period of five years from the date of judgment. On 22-2-1993, Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc) Act, 1992 was published in the gazette. On 25-11-1993, writ petition filed by the petitioner on the premise that the third respondent Board was taking steps to fill up the post of development officer as a backlog vacancy. On 2-12-1994, an interim order was granted by this Court in the said writ petition, staying the promotion to the post of development officer as a reserved post. On 19-11-1993, the Board created four additional posts of development officer for the purpose of filling up as backlog vacancies. On 23-12-1994, interim order granted earlier in the writ petition was vacated. On 8-6-1995, government order dated 3-12-1990 providing for reservation in the cadre of executive engineers for two years, which had been extended for a period of two years on 28-12-1992, was extended for yet another period of two years i.e. upto 2-12-1996. On 17-6-1995 Article 16(4A) was inserted in the Constitution of India providing for reservation in promotion. On 30-8-1996, fourth respondent was promoted as development officer. On 24-1-1997 the Supreme Court upheld the amended Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 in terms of the amended Rule inserted to proviso to Rule 8, providing for determination of filling up of backlog vacancies []. On 28-5-1995, writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. On 9-7-1999 interim order in WA No. 4233 of 1999 filed by the fourth respondent staying his reversion was granted. On 14-8-2002 the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002 was passed by the Karnataka Legislature.

28. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the appellant in WA No. 4233 of 1999 and the fourth respondent in the connected writ appeal, has very ably demonstrated that not only the post of development officer is the lowest in Class-I or Group-A cadre posts available in the services of the Board, but also that reservation provided for to the post of development officer is well sustained by reference to various legislation and government notifications in this regard, particularly the notification dated 27-4-1978 providing for reservation in promotional posts also, and the further clarification by office memorandum dated 24-7-1978, clarifying that for the purpose of earlier notification dated 27-4-1978, lowest cadre means lowest class-I post in each service and or department and not the lowest class-I post in terms of the general classification of posts made in the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 [for short, CCA Rules] and by reference to Rule 5, 5(c) and 5(3)(a) of the CCA Rules, having demonstrated that in the Board, on applying such parameters, post of development officers is the lowest in the cadre of Class-I or Group-A officers and the subsequent office memorandum dated 3-12-1990 providing for reservation to the post of executive engineer in public works department, which was in turn extended to the government owned companies, corporations and boards etc., in terms of subsequent notification dated 2-5-1991 and the government notification dated 3-12-1990 itself, having been periodically extended by periods of two years and what was being considered for backlog vacancy being subsequent to 20-5-1991 and when such reservation to the post of executive engineer the equivalent post in the Board is that of development officer, such being the position in terms of the government notification dated 8-6-1995, not only providing for reservation but also providing for filling up of backlog vacancies are both valid and tenable, particularly all these notifications/official memoranda having been issued by the government in exercise of its power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and also in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. It is therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge was clearly wrong in allowing the writ petition.