The impugned Rules were found to be within the legislative competency of the Government and not contrary to the object specified in Article 243W of the Constitution. The exclusion of BBMP from the application of the impugned Rules was held not discriminatory or arbitrary. The rights and benefits already earned by the petitioners were protected under the impugned Rules 2011.

1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed to declare the “Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011” (for short “Rules 2011”) as unconstitutional and for other reliefs.

2. Prior to 1976 different legislations were in force in different parts of the State of Karnataka governing the municipal administration. In order to bring all the municipal establishments under a single enactment the Government of Karnataka enacted “Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976” (for short “KMC Act”). Consequently the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977 came into force (for Short “Rules 1977”). Rule 10 to 26 of Chapter VI of Rules 1977 deals with procedure for appointment, reservation of posts, misconduct etc. With the increase in population, the area of urban local bodies also increased. This development necessitated efficient management of manpower in the urban local bodies. Under the existing rules, promotional opportunities to certain category of employees was stagnant. In order to remove certain anomalies in the existing rules, for better promotional opportunities and efficient management of manpower, the Government of Karnataka by exercising power under Section 421 of the KMC Act, 1976 repealed Rules 10 to 26 of Rules 1977 and enacted the impugned Rules 2011.

3. Petitioners in W.P.No.18046-52/2011 and W.P.No.18476-482/2011 are the employees and their associations working in Mysore City Corporation. Petitioners in W.P.No.19962-65/2011 are the employees working in Mangalore City Corporation. Petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned Rules 2011 are before this Court.

4. Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel, Sri B.B.Bajentri and Sri Narayana Bhat, learned Advocates advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners. It is contended that the object of Article 243W of the Constitution is to strengthen the grass root level urban democratic institutions. The impugned Rules are contrary to the object of the Constitution. Further the impugned Rules are contrary to Act 1976. The exclusion of similarly situated Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’) from the operation of the impugned Rules is discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The impugned Rules takes away the autonomy of the urban local bodies which they were enjoying under the previous Rules 1977. It is contended that the impugned Rules alter the service conditions of the existing employees and there would be curtailment of chances of promotion. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i) 2006 AIR SCW 743 Shanti G.Patel vs. State of Maharashtra

ii) AIR 1988 SC 876 General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief vs. Subhash Chandra

iii) Punjab Water Supply & Sewarage Board vs. Ranjodh Singh and ors. Civil Appeal Nos.5632 with 5633/2006

5. Per contra, Sri Vijay Shankar, learned Advocate General contends that the impugned Rules do not take away the powers enjoyed by the local bodies in the matter of planning and development of local area. The impugned Rules removes the anomalies in the existing Rules and provides for better management of manpower, efficient service in the local bodies and provides better promotional opportunities to its employees. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i) AIR 1996 SC 1627 State of A.P. vs. Mc. Dowell & Co.

ii) (2003) 2 SCC 632 PU Joshi & others vs. Accountant General

iii) (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 851 Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani

iv) AIR 1975 SC 1146 B.Banerjee vs. Smt. Anita Pan

v) (1998) 1 SCC 285 Kasambhai F.Ghanchi vs. Chandubhai D.Rajput

vi) (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 938 Dilip Kumar Garg vs. State of UP

6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

7. The Supreme Court in State of AP vs. McDowell & Co. AIR 1996 SC 1627 held that “a law made by the Parliament or the Legislature can be struck down by Courts on two ground and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights gu