IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
Preethi Bhandage - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 35139, 35140, 35141, 35142, 35143, 35144, 35145, 35146, 35147, 35148, 35149, 35150, 35151, 35152, 35153, 35154, 35155, 35156, 35157, 35158, 35159, 35160, 35161, 35162, 35163, 35164, 35165, 35166, 35167, 35168, 35169, 35170, 35171, 35172, 35173, 35174, 35175, 35176, 35177, 35178, 35179, 35180, 35181, 35182, 35183, 35184, 35185, 35186, 35187, 35188, 35189, 35190, 35191, 35192, 35193, 35194, 35195, 35196, 35197, 35198, 35199, 35200, 35201, 35202, 35203, 35204, 35205, 35206, 35207, 35208, 35209, 35210, 35211, 35212, 35213, 35214 of 2017
Decided On : 28-06-2019
Constitution Of Indai,1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 309 - Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Section 323 - Karnataka Municipalities Accounting and Budgeting Rules, 2006 - Claim for regularization - Appointment of Accounting Consultants - Employment signifies fresh appointment - State Government evolved a policy relating to maintaining books of accounts in each and every local bodies like Municipality or City Corporation- In this regard Deputy Commissioner was empowered to recruit Accounting Consultants in respective Municipalities/Corporation KMRP Project for Implementation of FBAS with qualification of graduate vide order dated petitioners were appointed Municipal Reforms Project (KMR) on temporary contract basis as Accounting Consultants but in subsequent documents respondents have misquoted as Accountant whereas it should have been throughout Accountant Consultants- Such appointment was to be on contract basis- While inviting applications from eligible candidates to conduct test and interview vide – Held, Court reversed order of Tribunal while striking down - Insofar as Special Tribunals order is affirmed- In other words nullified Special Rules in respect of absorption and contract appointees - This Court in both case of Special elaborately and in depth considered various issues- In case of Special Rules Court had occasions to decide "Whether contract employees are entitled for regularization/ absorption or not - With reference to case decided State Government has evolved a policy decision by framing Special Rules called "Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption of Asst- Engineers and Junior Engineers appointed on contract basis and on ad-hoc basis in water resource services posts which are absorbed under impugned Absorption Rules forthwith and complete same within a period of six months from today and outer limit being one year from today- All persons absorbed/appointed/ regularized impugned Rules are permitted to continue in service till appointments are made in pursuance of recruitment in terms of Karnataka Public Works Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed on contract basis against backlog vacancies in category of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers in Department of Public Works Engineering Water Resources and Rural Development as being contrary to provisions of Article Constitution of India and several decisions of Supreme Court and consequently striking down said Rules is hereby affirmed provisions of - State Government should be a model Employer- For umpteen departments recruitment and appointment to each of Public Post is required to comply Constitutional scheme/ provision with KCSR and respective rules of recruitment governing post – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.
1. In these bunch of petitions, petitioners have sought for quashing endorsements issued to each of the petitioners (Annexure - A, A1 to A75). Further, they have sought for direction to the second respondent to regularize their services in the post of Accounting Consultants from their initial date of appointment and to extend the pay scale attached to the post of Accounts in the pay scale of Rs.16,000-29,600/- (Rs.8000-14,800) in the light of the decision passed in W.P.Nos.47587-47591/2012 (Ann.AS).
2. The State Government evolved a policy relating to maintaining books of accounts in each and every local bodies like Municipality or City Corporation. In this regard, the Deputy Commissioner was empowered to recruit Accounting Consultants in the respective Municipalities/Corporation under KMRP Project for Implementation of FBAS with qualification of B'com graduate vide order dated 14.02.2007. On 25.06.2007, petitioners were appointed under the Municipal Reforms Project (KMR) on temporary contract basis as Accounting Consultants but in subsequent documents, respondents 2 to 23 have misquoted as 'Accountant' whereas it should have been throughout 'Accountant Consultants'. Such appointment was to be on contract basis. While inviting applications from eligible candidates to conduct test and interview vide dated 04.04.2007, it is learnt that respective Deputy Commissioners of the District as per the Government Notification dated 05.09.2008 were empowered to notify and they have notified in the news paper for temporary contract appointment of Accounting Consultants (Accountant) for one year period and it is extendable one more year on consolidated pay of Rs.7500/6000 to the respective post in the local body. (SFC Fund). Condition No.4 reads as under:
XXX
Condition No.4 of the advertisement dated 07.11.2008 reads as under:
XXX
In exercise of the powers conferred under by sub-section (4) of Section 323 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1964) and the rule 1 (3) of Karnataka Municipalities Accounting and Budgeting Rules, 2006 under chapter 1 of Part-A General, preliminary, the enclosed 85 ULB'S are notified and included in Schedule 1 of the said rule as serial number 131 to 215 with effect from 1-04-2009. The Karnataka Municipalities Accounting and Budgeting Rules, 2006 are applicable to these Municipalities with effect from 1-04-2009.
Deputy Commissioners of concerned Districts are also authorized to appoint Accounting Consultants to these ULB's in accordance with Government order No. XXX 14-02-2007 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
3. Among others, petitioners were appointed in the respective districts on contract basis to the post of Accounting Consultants for a specified period of one year on 25.06.2007. Tenure was extended from time to time. In view of the above factual aspect that the post of Accountant was existing from the year 1971. Therefore, it is not the fact that for the first time Accountant post was incorporated in the Rules of recruitment, in the year 2010.
4. State Government issued The Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Servants) Rules, 1971 (For short 'Rules, 1971). Schedule - I of the said Rules which relates to Accountants is reproduced hereunder:
| Sl. No | Category of post | Scale of Pay | Method of Recruitment | Minimum Qualifications and period of probation |
| 11. | Accountants | 130-5-140-8-180-EB-10-260-15-290 | 50 percent by direct recruitment 50 percent by promotion from the Cadre of Accounts Clerks | For Direct Recruitment.-A degree of a recognized University or its equivalent qualification and diploma in L.S.G. Probation: Two years For promotion.- |
The Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2004 (For short, 'Rules, 2004
State of Gujarat and Others Vs. PWD Employees Union and Others reported in (2013)12 SCC 417
Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani
A. Umarani Vs. Registrar of Cooperate Societies and others
B.N. Nagarajan and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others
Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Kamini
Brij Mohan Lal V. Union of India
Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Gangadhar Pillai Vs. Simens Ltd.
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh and Others
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd
K. Anbazhagan and Ors. Vs. The Registrar General High Court of Madras and Ors
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Vs. L.V. Subramanyeshwara and another
Malathi Das (Retired) and Others Vs. Suresh And Others
Management of The Barara Cooperative Marketing-Cum-Processing Society Ltd. Vs. Pratap Singh
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India
Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana
Meherchand Polytechnic Vs. Anu Lamba
Municipal Council, Samrala Vs. Sukhwinder Kaur
Narendra Kumar Tiwari And Others Vs. State Of Jharkhand And Others
National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Somvir Singh
Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand
Punjab Water Supply And Seweage Board Vs. Ranjodh Singh
R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah and another
Raj Balam Prasad and Ors. Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors.
Reserve Bank Of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors.
State of Gujarat and Ors Vs. PWD Employees Union And Ors
State Of Karnataka V. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association
State Of Manipur And Another Vs. KSH. Moirangnithou Singh And Others
State of Mysore Vs. S.V. Narayanappa
State Of Orissa Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mishra
State Of Punjab And Others Vs. Jagjit Singh And Others
State Of Punjab Vs. Supreet Rajpal
Surinder Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad
The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh
Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Vs. K. Jotheeswara Pillai (dead) by LRs and others
U.P Seb Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey
Upendra Singh Vs. State Of Bihar
Vidyavardhaka Sangha V. Y.D. Deshpande
Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Professor R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
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.