B. Gurumurthy, S/o. B. Lakkappa vs State Of Karnataka, By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Energy Department, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Kar) 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
B. Gurumurthy, S/o. B. Lakkappa and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Energy Department, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru – 560001 and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.36133 Of 2019 (S-RES), C/W Writ Petition No.44851 Of 2019, Writ Petition No.8160 Of 2020
Decided On : 20-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Kumar Parimal, Adv. for Miss. Suvarna M.L., Sri Puttegowda K.
For the Respondents: Sri Dyan Chinnappa, Smt. M.C. Nagashree, Sri S. Sriranga for Sri Arihant R. Sungay, Smt. Sumana Nagananda, Sri. Vijaya Kumar V.B., Sri. K.S. Anasuyadevi, Sri. Reuben Jacob, Miss Suvarna M.L., Sri Aditya Sondhi, senior counsel Has been appointed as Amicus Curiae)

Headnote:
The Karnataka High Court has ruled on the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 (Reservation Act, 2018) and related matters.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, officers of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), challenged their seniority vis-à-vis those who have been promoted on the basis of reservation and as the above writ petitions raise common legal questions, all the petitions are taken up together and are disposed off by this common order.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act, 2018, finding that it is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution and that it cures the deficiency which was noticed by the Supreme Court in B.K. Pavitra (1) [B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2017) 4 SCC 620 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 128] in respect of the Reservation Act, 2002. The court also held that the Reservation Act, 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the State Legislature and that it is Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] and Jarnail [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] compliant.
Issues: 1. Whether the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 (Reservation Act, 2018) is constitutionally valid? 2. Whether the Reservation Act, 2018 violates the principles laid down in Nagaraj v Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212] and Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta [(2018) 10 SCC 396]? 3. Whether the Reservation Act, 2018 provides for excessive reservation? 4. Whether the Reservation Act, 2018 adversely affects the overall administrative efficiency?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Reservation Act, 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution and that it cures the deficiency which was noticed by the Supreme Court in B.K. Pavitra (1) [B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2017) 4 SCC 620 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 128] in respect of the Reservation Act, 2002. 2. The court held that the Reservation Act, 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the State Legislature and that it is Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] and Jarnail [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] compliant. 3. The court held that the Reservation Act, 2018 does not provide for excessive reservation as it is limited upto the lowest cadre of Group-A and stops at the level of Executive Engineers, and that promotions above the post of AEE is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and is not automatic. 4. The court held that the Reservation Act, 2018 does not adversely affect the overall administrative efficiency as the promotions from Assistant Executive Engineers is a selection post on the principle of seniority-cum-merit which takes care of the aspect of efficiency.
Final Decision: The petitions are disposed off in terms of the above. The court also directed the State to withdraw the Government Order dated 24.06.2019 (Frequently Asked Questions) and to pass a fresh Government Order containing comprehensive guidelines keeping in mind all the Judgments of the Apex Court enunciating the law in particular as regards treatment of backlog vacancies in promotion, post based reservation, addressing the issue of those from the reserved category being eligible in general merit and such other relevant aspects.

ORDER :

[S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J.]

THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS TO FACILITATE ANALYSIS:

I	RELIEF SOUGHT	14
II	FACTS	17
III	SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS	24
IV	ANALYSIS: _	36
	- DETAILS OF ORDERS PASSED RELATING TO INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS	36
	- B.K.PAVITHRA-I, B.K.PAVITHRA-II AND RESERVATION ACT, 2018 _	45
	- GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.DPAR 186 SRS 2018 BENGALURU DATED 27.02.2019	49
	- ANALYSIS OF JARNAIL SINGH-II AND THE RESERVATION ACT, 2018	58
	- WHETHER INADEQUACY IN REPRESENTATION MUST BE CALCULATED AT THE TIME OF EVERY PROMOTION	62
	- ANALYSIS OF OVER ALL ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY	70
	- CHALLENGE TO CIRCULAR BEARING DPAR 186 SRS 2018 DATED 24.06.2019 (FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)	76
	- CHALLENGE TO FINAL SENIORITY LIST	79

W.P.No.8160/2020, W.P.No.36133/2019 and W.P.Nos.44851/2019 are filed by Officers of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “KPTCL”) and belong to the General Category (in contradistinction to those officers who belong to reserved category consisting of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) and are aggrieved by their seniority vis-a-vis those who have been promoted on the basis of reservation and as the above writ petitions raise common legal questions, all the petitions are taken up together and are disposed off by this common order.

2. Reliefs sought for in the various writ petitions are as follows:

2.1 W.P.No.8160/2020

a) Quash the Circular bearing DPAR 186 SRS 2018 Dated 24.06.2019, quash the Notification No.KPTCL/B100/ 3750/2019-20 dated 22.07.2019 publishing the provisional seniority list issued by the KPTCL and further direct the KPTCL by issuing writ in the nature of mandamus to follow Government Orders dated 27.02.2019 and 15.05.2019 for the purpose of implementation of judgment of the Apex Court in B.K.Pavitra and Others v. Union of India and Others, ¹[(2019) 16 SCC 129] (B.K.Pavitra II)

b) to maintain ratio of reservation at 18% for SC/ST and 82% for others and grant all consequential benefits.

2.2 W.P.No.36133/2019

a) Identical relief's as in (a) and (b) in W.P.No.8160/2020 referred to above have been claimed.

b) Further, by way of amendment, challenge has been laid to the seniority list dated 27.08.2021 published pursuant to the judgment in B.K.Pavitra II (supra) with further direction for restoration of the seniority list dated 27.10.2017 pursuant to the judgment in B.K.Pavithra and Others v. Union of India and Others, ²[(2017) 4 SCC 620] (B.K.Pavitra I)

c) To direct the KPTCL to make promotions in terms of the seniority list dated 27.10.2017 on the basis of deemed date of eligibility.

2.3 W.P.Nos.44851/2019

(a) Petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the KPTCL to consider objections filed by the petitioners dated 17.08.2019 and 16.08.2019 as per Annexure-‘E’ and ‘E1’ to the provisional seniority list published by the second respondent dated 22.07.2019 with a further direction not to effect promotions to the post of Chief Engineer pending finalization of the seniority list of Superintending Engineer (Ele).

b) Sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the KPTCL to issue revised final seniority list of Superintending Engineers (Ele) in strict adherence to Section 5 of Act 21 of 2018.

3. BRIEF FACTS:

3.1 The Apex Court in the case of B.K.Pavitra I (supra) had considered a challenge to the validity of the "Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002" (“Reservation Act, 2002) and had held that Sections 3 and 4 of the Reservation Act, 2002 whereby the "catch up rule" was done away with and had provided for consequential seniority was ultra-vires Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on t