High Court of Karnataka
N. KUMAR & H.S. KEMPANNA, JJ.
G. Ravi & Others
Versus
State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms & Others
Writ Petition Nos.41145-41158 of 2010 (S-KAT) C/W Writ Petition Nos.4914 – 4945 of 2011 (S-KAT) Writ Petition Nos.9519 of 2011 (S-KAT) Writ Petition Nos.2897 – 2901 of 2012 (S-KAT) Writ Petition No.21232 of 2012 (S-KAT)
Decided on : 13-07-2012
In so far the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is devoid of any merit. It has extracted all the judgments of the Supreme Court, which the parties have relied on, without proper appreciation and application of mind, has refused relief to the applicants. The Apex Court in UMA DEVI’s case, after declaring the law has categorically held that the judgment of the Supreme Court which are inconsistent with the said judgment ceases to be binding precedent. This observation has not been noticed by the Tribunal. If only it had noticed, it would not have taken trouble of citing those decisions which have lost the presidential value because of the Constitution Bench judgment. The impugned Rules framed not only offends Article 16(3) of the Constitution, it also offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and offends the law declared by the Apex Court. The impugned judgment runs counter to its earlier judgment. The earlier judgment was not interfered with by the Supreme Court and it has attained finality. The said judgment is equally binding on the Tribunal. The Absorption Rules were challenged on the same grounds as the earlier Government order was challenged. The Absorption Rules suffered from the same vice as the Government Order also suffered. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not comprehend properly the real issues involved in the case. In spite of the law declared by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court directly covering the issues involved in the case, it chose to ignore the same on the ground it is not applicable, which is not proper. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the Absorption Rules as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal are set aside.
Order of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was set aside. Impugned Rules were struck down as void ab initio and contrary to Article 16(3) as well as Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Directions issued to initiate recruitment process. Persons already appointed were permitted to continue till the appointments are made in terms of Karnataka Public Works (Irrigation Services (Recruitment of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers) (Special) Rules, 1998 within one year, whichever is earlier.
N. KUMAR J.
In these batch of writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore dt.9.4.2010 dismissing the applications filed by the applicants challenging the constitutional validity of Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption of Asst. Engineers and Junior Engineers appointed on contract basis and on ad-hoc basis in the water resource services) (Special) Rules, 2002 (for short Absorption Rules).
BACKGROUND
2. The Upper Krishna Project was started by the Government of Karnataka during the year 1964. The project was envisaged to provide irrigation facilities to the lands in the basis area covering the then Bijapur, Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur and Bellary Districts which are chronic deficit rain fall areas. To utilise its share of river water, the State was required to complete the project within a definite time frame and any delay would have endangered the project itself with the lower riparian States insisting that actual utilisation should be taken as the basis for inter-State sharing of river waters. Even after 30 years of commencement of the project, there was absolutely dismal progress and completion of the project was nowhere in site. Faced with the problems arising out of lack of progress in the project consequent failure to provide irrigation facilities in the proposed project area, the State Govt, had to find a way out to see that work on the project is speeded up. On the ground that the delay in recruitment of Asst. Engineers and Junior Engineers was impeding the progress of UKP and there was need for accelerating the work in UKP, the State Government took a decision to fill up the vacant posts locally for a temporary period. During the year 1991 the Government decided to appoint Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on contract basis by appointing persons hailing from the 5 districts situated in the project area.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The Chief Engineers of Water Resource Development Organisation Committee, issued notification dated 15.6.91 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Asst. Engineers for UKP under Karnataka State Civil Services (Recruitment Committee) 1982 in consonance with recruitment Rules 1973 and Irrigation Cadre and Recruitment) rules published in 1989 and amended from time to time. The total number of vacancies to be filled up is 300. The notification stated that it was issued in pursuance of the Government order dated 1.6.1991 and letter dated 6.6.1991 and 14.6.1991. Some of the applicants before the tribunal applied in pursuance of the said notification. However, on the pretext that there is the urgent need for filling up the large number of vacancies in the Engineering Cadres in Upper Krishna Project, the Government decided to recruit 300 Assistant Engineers and 150 Junior Engineers on Contract basis. Therefore, they decided to cancel the process of recruitment of 300 Assistant Engineers already initiated by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation through its Notification dated 18th June 1992. The said proposal was approved by the Cabinet in its Meeting held on 15th October, 1992. Thereafter, the Government constituted a Recruitment Committee consisting of Engineer-in-Chief cum Project Co-Ordinator, UKP, Almati, Engineer-in-Chief cum Project Co-ordinator, Cauvery Basin Projects, Mysore, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation, Bangalore. It was made clear that regarding the appointment of Assistant Engineers, the Recruitment Committee shall consider the applications already received by the Chief Engineers Water Resources Development Organisation for recruitment of Assistant Engineers through his Notification dated 19th October 1992, and also receive fresh applications from the eligible candidates by obtaining the list of candidates from the concerned Employment Exchange. As regards the appointment of Junior Engineers, the Recruitment Committee shall receive appl
Prabodh Verma and others etc. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others-AIR 1985 SC 167
STATE OF KARNATAKA Versus S. V. NARAYANAPPA reported in AIR 1967 SC 1071
R.N. NANJUNDAPPA Versus T. THIMMAIAH reported in (1972) 1 SCC 409.
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. versus Workmen (2007) 1 SCC 408
Gangadhar Pillai versus Siemens Ltd. (2007)1 SCC 533
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan versus L.V. Subramanyeshwara and another reported (2007)5 SCC 326
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. versus Dan Bahadur Singh and Others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207.
Maneka Gandhi Versus Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Versus M.L. KESARI & ORS reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587
State of Karnataka and another Versus Suvarna Malini reported in 2001(1) SCC 728
PRABODH VERMA AND OTHERS ETC. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1985 SC 167
In re The Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 2 SCR 476
KATHI RANING RAWAT Versus STATE OF SAURASHTRA reported in AIR 1952 SC 123
A.UMARANI Versus REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.