Back
2016 Supreme(Kar) 191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.
K. Basavaraje Urs. - Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 51903 of 2015 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 18-02-2016
For the Appellant :M.S. Bhagwat, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, Additional Government Advocate and T.N. Raghupathy, Advocate.
Compliance with prescribed eligibility criteria for public office appointments is essential, and ad hoc arrangements must align with the specified requirements.
Headnote:
Director of Mysuru Palace Board - Appointment Eligibility - Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998, Sections 15 and 26 - The court considered the eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Director of Mysuru Palace Board under the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998, and the issue of appointing an officer from the State Accounts Department due to a shortage of K.A.S. Officers. The court emphasized the need for the appointment to comply with the prescribed eligibility criteria and directed the government to take necessary action within a specified timeframe.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the respondent 3 as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board, citing that the appointee did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Government Order.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to quash the appointment but emphasized the need for compliance with the eligibility criteria and directed the government to take necessary action within a specified timeframe.
Issues: Eligibility of the appointee for the Director of Mysuru Palace Board, locus standi of the petitioner, and the nature of the appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment must comply with the prescribed eligibility criteria, and ad hoc arrangements cannot continue indefinitely if they do not meet the specified requirements.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of, with the government directed to take necessary action within eight weeks to appoint a suitable candidate or modify the eligibility criteria.
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the notification, dated 30-9-2015 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent 1 appointing the respondent 3 as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board. Sri M.S. Bhagwat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government Order, dated 9-5-2014 (Annexure-E) prescribes the eligibility for the appointment of the Director of Mysuru Palace Board; he has to be from K.A.S., Group A, Senior Scale or K.A.S., Group A, Selection Grade. He submits that the respondent 3 is admittedly not a K.A.S. Officer at all. Prior to her appointment as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board, she was working as Joint Controller of State Accounts Department.
2. He submits that on the ground that the respondent 3 draws the salary higher than that of K.A.S. Officer, she cannot be treated as K.A.S. Officer. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Division Bench's order, dated 11-1-2016 (Annexure-L) passed in W.P. No. 53867 of 2015.
3. He submits that as the respondent 3 is not entitled to hold the Public Office of Director of Mysuru Palace Board, she is to be ousted therefrom by issuing the writ of quo warranto. He has relied on the following authorities:
"(i) University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC 491 : (1964) 4 SCR 575;
(ii) Renu and Others v District and Sessions Judge, TIS Hazari Courts, Delhi and Another, AIR 2014 SC 2175 : (2014) 14 SCC 50;
(iii) Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v Dhobei Sahoo and Others, AIR 2014 SC 246 : (2014) 1 SCC (L and S) 1 :(2014) 1 SCC 161;
(iv) Rajesh Awasthi v Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others, AIR 2013 SC 78 : (2013) 1 SCC (L and S) 192 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 521: (2013)1 SCC 501."
4. Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that Sections 15 and 26 of the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998 provide for the State Government to appoint an Executive Officer and such number of other officers as it considers necessary to assist him. He submits that as there is shortage of K.A.S. Officers, the officer from the State Accounts Department is posted as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board.
5. Sri T.N. Raghupathy, the learned Counsel for the respondent 3 submits that neither the statute nor any service regulations framed thereunder stipulate that the officer has to be from the Karnataka Administrative Service. He submits that the plain reading of the impugned order reveals that the third respondent's appointment is only until further orders. He submits that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain this writ petition, as he cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. If the petitioner proposes to challenge the impugned order, his remedy would be to file the PIL, so submits that learned Counsel.
6. In support of his submissions, he brings to my notice the Apex Court's judgment in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy v Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and Others, 2006 (6) Kar. L.J. 457 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 3106 : (2007) 1 SCC (L and S) 548 (2) : 2006 AIR SCW 4515 : (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2). Paragraph 43 of the said judgment read out by him is extracted hereinbelow:
"43. Whether a writ of quo warranto lies to challenge an appointment made "until further orders" on the ground that it is not a regular appointment? Whether the High Court failed to follow the settled law that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued unless there is a clear violation of law? The order appointing the appellant clearly stated that the appointment is until further orders. The terms and conditions of appointment made it clear that the appointment is temporary and is until further orders. In such a situation, the High Court, in our view, erred in law in issuing a writ of quo warranto the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for
