The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to comply with the controlling factors enunciated in M.Nagaraj vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, and the need to consider inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making promotions.

JUDGMENT

B V Nagarathna, J. - This appeal is filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ( KPTCL , for the sake of convenience), assailing the interim order dated 28th July, 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36133/2019.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent petitioners have filed the writ petition assailing Circular bearing No.DPAR 186 SRS 2018 dated 24th June, 2019 (Annexure N to the writ petition), issued by the State (10th respondent herein), insofar as it pertains to its implementation in the appellant KPTCL and the Notification No.KPTCL/B100/3750/2019-20 dated 22nd July, 2019 (Annexure S ), publishing the Provisional Seniority List issued by the appellant herein. A writ of mandamus is sought to comply with the Government Orders dated 27th February, 2019 and 15th May, 2019 for implementation of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavitra vs. Union of India, (2019) AIR SC 2723 [B.K.Pavitra II], rendered on 10th May, 2019 and to maintain the ratio of reservation at 18% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs & STs) and 82% for others and to grant all consequential benefits. By order dated 5th September, 2019, learned Single Judge had granted an interim order as prayed in the writ petitions, staying the operation, implementation and further proceedings, pursuant to Circular dated 24th June, 2019 and Notification dated 22nd July, 2019 by which, the Provisional Seniority List of the appellant KPTCL was published. Thereafter, KPTCL filed an application I.A.No.4/2019, praying to vacate the interim order granted on 5th September, 2019.

3. During the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge, appellant KPTCL stated at the Bar that 37 posts in the cadre of Chief Engineers are available, out of which, 12 posts are presently lying vacant and there are several vacancies in various cadres. Also, the writ petitioners are functioning as Chief Engineers.

4. In the said writ petition, an application filed by the appellant KPTCL seeking permission of this Court for granting officiating charge to the eligible employees whose names figure in the provisional Seniority List impugned in the writ petition on the ground that due to the interim order passed, it has become difficult for day-to-day operation with the existing frugal working strength in the promotional cadres. The State supported the said application by stating that in-charge arrangements to eligible employees in respect of 1400 posts, which have remained vacant are to be made and the said exercise would not cause any prejudice to the writ petitioners, who are in any case, protected by the interim order. The writ petitioners opposed the application contending that officiating charge had a mischief potential of otherwise prejudicing the petitioners, some of whom are yet to retire, others having been superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation. That the interim orders had been passed after hearing both sides and there was no need for granting permission sought for by the KPTCL and the main matter itself could be considered for final disposal.

5. Learned Single Judge on hearing the respective parties, accorded permission to the appellant herein for making placement by way of in-charge arrangement of the persons enlisted in the impugned Seniority List subject to the following conditions:-

(a) the placement of the employees figuring in the impugned Seniority List shall be only by way of In-charge arrangement subject to outcome of the writ petitions;

(b) the employees placed on In-charge arrangement shall not have any right of lien to the posts in question and that they will not exercise any substantive functions of the said posts;

(c) this In-charge arrangement per se shall not create any equity or right in favour of the employees now being placed in the higher positions for seeking retrospective promotion in any circumstance, whatsoever;

(d) in effecting placement by way of Incharge arrangement, the ext