Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Order dated 15.02.2001 passed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P.(C.) No. 11728-755/2000 read as under:

"8. These observations should be understood in the light of the fact situation obtaining in that case. The appellants before the Supreme Court were directly recruited as Data Processing Assistants and as per the recruitment Rules, they were entitled to be promoted as Data Processing Supervisors. However, because of change in qualifications for recruitment of Data Processing Assistants, they were shifted to different stream i.e., Data Entry Stream and were refused revised scales applicable to Data Processing Supervisors. The impugned action taken by the respondents had the effect of redesignating the appellants who were recruited as Data Processing Assistants as Data Entry Operators in lower scale. It is seen from para 51 that there was a clear demarcation of the Data Entry Stream and Data Operation Stream and the appellants before the Supreme Court were recruited as Data Processing Assistants and they were even confirmed in those posts. It is in this context the Supreme Court observed: "To now say that the appellants did not have the diploma/ certificate or had not been recruited on the basis of tests would, in our opinion, amount to imposing these qualification with retrospective effect and such an action, even if made by Rules, would be arbitrary. If made retrospective and if the earlier recruitment or confirmation in posts were to be disturbed, that would also be arbitrary". The fact situation in the present cae is not similar and it cannot be said that the Supreme Court laid down any principle different from what was spelt out in the Constitution Bench case of TRILOKI NATH. We are of the view that the decision in CHANDRAPRAKASH MADHAVRAO‟S case does not come to the aid of the respondents.