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.

ORDER :

R. Nataraj, J.

The petitioner has called in question the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 2019 as being unconstitutional. He has also sought for quashing the order bearing No.KaKaiPraAMam/ASEC 80 (B)/8932/94-95 dated 25.11.1994 by which, the respondent No.3 was appointed as a Junior Engineer. He has also sought for quashing of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings dated 07.12.2024 insofar as it relates to recommending the promotion of respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer.

2. When the petition was filed, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:

(i) to quash the order dated 25-11-94, referred supra, appointing the respondent No.3 as Junior Engineer

(ii) to quash the DPC proceedings dated 07-12-2024 recommending the promotion of respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer.

3. The petitioner contended that he completed his bachelor degree in Civil Engineering and was directly appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) by respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.10.2012. The probation of the petitioner was declared vide Official memorandum dated 02.01.2014. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in terms of notification dated 17.08.2018. He was later promoted as Executive Engineer vide notification dated 22.02.2023.

4. He contends that respondent No.3 was appointed as Junior Engineer in terms of an order of appointment dated 25.11.1994 based on his Diploma in Civil Engineering qualification. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 did not disclose that he possessed a bachelor degree in Civil Engineering at the time of his appointment as Junior Engineer. He was later promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) (Grade-II) by order dated 30.04.2012. Thereafter, he was promoted as Executive Engineer in terms of notification dated 17.08.2019. He contends that since respondent No.3 was selected under the Diploma category, he was granted accelerated promotions, when compared to the candidates who possessed Bachelor degree in engineering. In proof of the above, he referred to the case of Mr.K.C.Shivakumar, who possessed a degree in Civil Engineering and was directly appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 01-09-1984 and was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 21-09-1995 and Executive Engineer on 17-08-2019. He contends that in the Seniority list of Executive Engineers published on 01.01.2024, the qualification of respondent No.3 was shown as Diploma.

5. He contends that the respondent No.2 had framed KIADB (C & R) Regulations, 1984 (henceforth referred as Regulations, 1984), which was repealed by the KIADB (C & R) Regulations, 2019 (henceforth referred as Regulations, 2019). As per the Regulations, 2019, an executive engineer who has a degree qualification is alone entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and since the respondent No.3 came in the feeder channel of diploma holders, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion. He contends the Departmental Promotion