SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Kar) 753

In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore
(Division Bench)
H.L Dattu And H.N. Nagamohan Das, JJ.
Ramegowda
V.
State Of Karnataka And Others
Writ Appeal No. 3112 of 2005 connected with Writ Appeal No. 3113 of 2005 (S-RES).
15th December, 2005

Sri V. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for Appellant in both W.As;
Sri A.G. Shivanna, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents-1 to 3 in both W.As;
Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate for Respondent-4 in both W.As;
Sri Subramanya Jois, Senior Advocate for M/s. Vagdevi Associates, Advocates for Respondent-5 in both W.As.

Headnote:City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971 -Locus Standi -Rule 20 (b) -Locus standi -Recruitment to the post of Engineer-in-Chief -Criteria was by promotion from cadre of Chief Engineer in the City Corporation on the basis of seniority or by deputation of an officer of the rank of Engineer-in-Chief from PWD (Engineering Services) -Petitioners working as Superintending Engineers in the services of the Corporation challenged appointment to the post -Locus standi of -Since the petitioners (some of the respondents) are not qualified for appointment to the post, they are not aggrieved persons -Hence, have no locus standi to question. [H. L. Dattu and H. N. Nagamohan Das, JJ]: The appointment of contesting respondent as Engineer-in-Chief is not a new phenomenon nor is being done for the first time by the fourth respondent Corporation. It was in vogue right from the year 2000. Number of Officers had not only occupied that post and also had discharged their responsibilities to the satisfaction of their employer and in fact, the contesting respondent in the petition, before his retirement from service was appointed to the post on regular basis till his retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation. All this exercise was done by the State Government only by invoking their power under Rule 20(b) of the Rules. Petitioners, who were and are working as Superintending Engineers were fully aware of this appointment, but did not feel aggrieved by that appointment. It is only now they are of the view that such appointment is in violation of Rule 20(b) of the Rules. We do not intend to hazard their motives, since it may not be of much significance for deciding the issues in the writ petitions. To say the least, the petitioners will not be benefited even if the impugned order of the State Government is quashed by this Court, for the reason, that it would not enhance the chances of consideration of their cases for promotion or for appointment as Engineer -in-Chief in the services of the Corporation. Therefore, petitioners cannot be "aggrieved persons". It is only an aggrieved person, who has locus standi to maintain a petition can seek for the relief of certiorari . In the alternative, it can be said that the petitioners are not affected by the Impugned order passed by the State Government under Rule 20(b) of the Rules. Therefore, petitioners not being aggrieved persons, they have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions

       .

       Cases Referred: AIR 1974 SC 555; AIR 1981 SC 344; 2000 (7) SCC 552; AIR 1998 SC 1153; AIR 1962 SC 1044; AIR 1964 SC 685; AIR 1966 SC 828; AIR 1973 SC 2720; (2002) 1 SCC 33; AIR 1976 SC 578; (1998) 4 SCC 447.

       Constitution of India -Public interest litigation in service matters -Article 226 -Public interest litigation in service matters -Not maintainable.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1974 SC 555; AIR 1981 SC 344; 2000 (7) SCC 552; AIR 1998 SC 1153; AIR 1962 SC 1044; AIR 1964 SC 685; AIR 1966 SC 828; AIR 1973 SC 2720; (2002) 1 SCC 33; AIR 1976 SC 578; (1998) 4 SCC 447.

       Labour & Services -Challenging an appointment -Locus standi of petitioners. See, Constitution of India -Article 226.

       Labour & Services -Public interest litigation in service matters -Not maintainable.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1974 SC 555; AIR 1981 SC 344; 2000 (7) SCC 552; AIR 1998 SC 1153; AIR 1962 SC 1044; AIR 1964 SC 685; AIR 1966 SC 828; AIR 1973 SC 2720; (2002) 1 SCC 33; AIR 1976 SC 578; (1998) 4 SCC 447.

       Constitution of India -Locus standi -Article 226 -Locus standi -Petition under -Condition precedent for maintaining of -Petitioner should normally be person aggrieved -If a petition is filed challenging appointment to certain post by officers of the same Department who are not qualified to be appointed to the post, they cannot be fit into the meaning of the expression "aggrieved persons".

       Cases Referred: AIR 1974 SC 555; AIR 1981 SC 344; 2000 (7) SCC 552; AIR 1998 SC 1153; AIR 1962 SC 1044; AIR 1964 SC 685; AIR 1966 SC 828; AIR 1973 SC 2720; (2002) 1 SCC 33; AIR 1976 SC 578; (1998) 4 SCC 447.

JUDGMENT

These appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 16077 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 16351 of 2005 filed by Sri R. Ranganath and Sri L. Sathyanarayana respectively. Respondent 5 in the writ petition Sri Ramegowda was the contesting respondent. By a judgment dated 22-72005, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed the Government Order bearing No. 182.MNV.2005, Bangalore, dated 13-6-2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, .the 5th respondent in the writ petitions has filed these appeals.

2. The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is the fourth respondent in the writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for short). Recruitment to the various posts in the services of the Corporation is regulated by the Rules called 'the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971'. The Rules contain schedule of various posts in the services of the Corporation. The highest post provided in the schedule in the cadre of Engineers is the post of Chief Engineer. The method of recruitment to the said post is by promotion from the cadre of Superintending Engineer and if no suitable candidate is available for promotion, by deputation of an Officer of the rank of Chief Engineer from the Karnataka Public Works Department, Engineering Services. The qualification prescribed for the post in the schedule is that the candidate must possess a degree in Civil or Mechanical Engineering or a Certificate of Diploma from the institute of Engineers for having a passed Parts 'N and 'B' of the Associate Membership Examination of Institute of Engineers and must have put in service of not less than two years in the cadre of Superintending Engineer.

3. In the services of the Corporation, there is no cadre or post of Engineer-in-Chief Therefore, in the administrative exigencies, the Corporation had sought for sanction or creation of the post of Engineer-in-Chief Pursuant to the request so made, the State Government had passed an order dated 9-2-2000, creating the post of Engineer- in-Chief for a period of one year. The Corporation based on the permission accorded by the State Government, had appointed one Sri R. Jayaprasad, a Retired Chief Engineer to function as Engineer-in-Chief on err tract basis on deputation from Public Works Department. After the expiry of the initial contract period, the State Government by an order dated 3-9-2001 extended the services of Sri R. Jayaprasad for a further period of one year. The term of his appointment came to an end on 26-2-2003. Thereafter, Sri G.N. Rasqueena was appointed as Engineer-in-Chief on deputation from Public Works Department (P.W.D.) and was relieved from the services of the Corporation on being appointed as Secretary in the Public Works Department. Thereafter, Sri Ramegowda, who was working as Chief Engineer in the Corporation was appointed to the said post on "in-charge arrangement".

4. The post of Engineer-in-Chief was created by the State Government in the services of the Corporation by an order dated 22-6-2002 and subsequently, by an order dated 19-2-2004, prescribed the method of recruitment to the post of Engineer-in-Chief The criteria provided therein was, by promotion from the cadre of Chief Engineer in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on the basis of seniority and if no suitable candidate is available for promotion, by deputation of an officer of the rank of Engineer-in-Chief from the Karnataka Public Works Department, Engineering Services. The other criteria that was prescribed is that, the aspirant must have put in a service of not less than two years as Chief Engineer. Since the 5th respondent in the writ petitions fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Government order dated 19-2-2004, he was regularly appointed as Engineer-in-Chief He retired from service on 31-5-2005 on attaining the age of superannuation.

5. The Corporation has taken up several major projects like Construction of Underpass at Raja


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top