IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Alok Aradhe, S. Vishwajith Shetty, JJ.
T.R. Srinivasa - Appellant
Versus
B.S. Dalayath & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. Nos. 3148 of 2019 and 3249 of 2019 (S-RES)
Decided On : 12-10-2022
Promotion - Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board - Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964, Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation and Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 - Section 88, Article 371J - The court upheld the right of promotion accrued to the petitioner under the Regulations and the Reservation Order, and held that it cannot be taken away by an executive order. The appeals were dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a writ petition where the notification dated 22.12.2015 was quashed, and the Board was directed to give effect to the notification dated 13.05.2013 and Circular dated 01.09.2014, and consider the name of the respondent No. 3 for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer from the date of his eligibility.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the right of promotion accrued to the petitioner under the Regulations and the Reservation Order, and held that it cannot be taken away by an executive order. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues: Validity of notification dated 13.05.2013 and Circular dated 01.09.2014, withdrawal of the notification dated 13.05.2013 and Circular dated 01.09.2014, and promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.
Ratio Decidendi: The right of promotion accrued to the petitioner under the Regulations and the Reservation Order cannot be taken away by an executive order.
Final Decision: The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Alok Aradhe, Actg. C.J. - These two appeals arise from an order dated 26.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, by which in a writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1, notification dated 22.12.2015 has been quashed and Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) has been directed to give effect to notification dated 13.05.2013 and Circular dated 01.09.2014 and consider the name of respondent No. 1 for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer from the date of his eligibility. W.A. No. 3148/2019 has been preferred by respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, whereas W.A. No. 3249/2019 has been filed by the Board. Since, common questions of law and fact arise for adjudication in these appeals, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that Board was constituted under Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). In exercise of powers under Section 88 of the Act, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1981 hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) were framed. The aforesaid Regulation was amended in the year 2004 viz., by BWSSB Cadre Recruitment and Promotion (Amendment) Regulations, 2004. The respondent No. 3 was appointed on 24.09.1998 as Assistant Engineer in the Board and was promoted on 11.08.2010 as Assistant Executive Engineer.
3. By way of constitution 98th Amendment Act, 2012, Article 371J was introduced in the Constitution. Clause 1(c) of Article 371J provides that President may by an order made with respect to State of Karnataka, provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for equal opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to Hyderabad-Karnataka region in the matters of public employment, education and vocational training subject to requirements of the State as a whole. The State Government made an order viz., Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation and Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 hereinafter referred to as 'the Order' for short). Para 13 of the aforesaid Order provides that 8% of the posts in the state level offices or state level institutions or apex institutions shall be reserved for local persons of the region. Under Para 13(j) of the aforesaid Order, Board is included.
4. On 20.01.2014, a notification was published amending Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013. The Board thereafter, by a notification dated 13.05.2013 identified 8% of the posts for promotion. The Board thereafter, issued a Circular on 01.09.2014 furnishing the number of officials who had exercised their option for reservation under Hyderabad-Karnataka Reservation Order. However, on 28.10.2005, the Regulations were amended and only Schedule 2 dealing with method of recruitment was amended. The appellant in W.A. No. 3148/2019 as well as others filed a writ petition, in which validity of notification dated 13.05.2014 and 01.09.2014 issued by the Board was challenged.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, teh Board withdrew the notification dated 13.05.2013 and Circular dated 01.09.2014. A learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 06.11.2015 permitted withdrawal of the writ petition and granted respondent No. 3 to challenge the order of withdrawal, by which notification dated 13.05.2013 and Circular dated 01.09.2014 were withdrawn.
6. The respondent No. 3 thereafter filed a writ petition viz., W.P. No. 31490/2016, in which notification dated 22.12.2015 withdrawing the notification dated 13.05.2013 and Circular dated 01.09.2014 was challenged. The respondent No. 3 also sought promotion to the post of Executive Engineer from 01.09.2014 and sought a direction to the Board to implement the notification dated 13.05.2013 and Circular dated 01.09.2014.
7. The learned Single
The right of promotion accrued to the petitioner under the Regulations and the Reservation Order cannot be taken away by an executive order.
The court affirmed that a petitioner cannot challenge regulations under which they themselves were promoted, and that amendments made by the State were valid under the governing Act.
It is now a well-settled principle of law that an executive order must be passed in conformity with rules. Power of State Government to issue executive instructions is confined to filling up of the g....
The court affirmed that Article 16(4A) applies to Jammu and Kashmir, mandating reservation in promotions for SC/ST categories, and emphasized the need for quantifiable data to justify such reservatio....
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.