B S Lingaraju vs K S R T C on 25 May, 2009

i;’3an’gaI<';2'é W 550 0:27

.' Basavanihc Singhc

? " * Majer

Working as

Assistant Trafic Manager,
At the Karnataka State:

Road Transport Curpuraliou,
K.H. Read,

Bungalow ~– 560 027

§

54.Kem Singh K. Lamani
Major
Working as
Assistant Traffic Manager,
Al the Kamalaka Stale
Road Transport Corporation,
K.H. Road,
Bangalare — 560 027

55.Basavaraj R. Kabadc
Major
Working as
Assiaiant Traffic Manager, V
At the Karnataka Stan; _

Road Tfa.ns’pc.é3f£ Ccjrpegf-avifiiuzi;
K.H;’Rea£3;i: A M
Banga1:_.m;V55o’o27%%%¥ &

56.Shashie{har R.”Kdii§argii– Y
Marja: ” ‘~
,,’£§{L$r§cjng ~ A V
V . ” ~§ssi.s!an1:.Traifi¢”‘iVianag¢r,

–. A1 _ihe.KZa_fi:.a_tuka Siam
V ransprért Cerporationg
‘=Ban_ga}r.):5;: — 560 027

% ‘ 1* Kumar M.

_ ixfiajnr

‘Working as
Assistant Trafic Managm”,
At the Karnataka State
Road Transport Corporation,
I(,H. Road,
Bangalore ~ 560 027

f»

S8.ViEla} Sherigar MB.

Major
Working as
Assistant Trafiic Manager,
At the Karnalaka Stats:

Road Transport Corporation, .
K.H. Road,
Bangalore _ 560 027

59.Siddappa Malagar
Major _
Working as .

Assistant Traflic Maimgficr, j. .4 ‘«

AttheKamatakaStatoV_” _ _ 2 .,
Road Trangpofi.Cor§J(3re££io§1, — . V_

Ba4?gakm=o+ooo5é9%k*3’?7o~f”o. o %

60.Moinuddi:n VQi.’sa¢1″r’i »
Maia: o
..W’orking as ” _
A “~Assi’stant.Tra1fi¢'”Ma.nager,
V’ ” A: Stain
Road’T1*axjs;>€¢rt Corporation,
“K..H. Road’;

“-44Ba:;ga;ore 560 027

‘ ‘ i’ 4.4′ ‘ .6} Vonkalcsh

. Major

V ‘Working as
Assistant Tmfic Manager,
At the Karrsaiaka State
Road Transport Corporation,
K11 Road,
Bangalore ~«-~ S60 02?

2’5

18

62.8. Kumar
Major
Wcrking as
Assistant Traflic Manager,
Al the Karnalalca State

Road Transport Corporation;

KH. Road,
Bangalore — 560 027

63.Tl1immawddy
Major ..

Working as ”

Assistant Tm1″fi%4
At the ‘State __

Road Ti3ns1_p70;l u

‘

s4.v. Nzigaéfir-aja’ ” %
M339? –

, .’?Joz”i:.ing as ~

” Trat’fi<:"'1'vi3nager,

" *~ Slain:

Rea}ti’.fI’1’a:mp;art Corparation,

Read; V

X “-4..Bax_;ga1§$é — 560 027

“Major

V’ ‘Wurhng as

Assistant Trafic Manager,
At the Kamatnka State

Ruad Transpur£Corpura1iun,
K.H. Road,

Bangalore — S60 02?

M3¥”¥38s=r,«’ ” ”

66.Md. Ahmed Sab Malia

Major

Working as

Assistant Traflic Manager,

Al the Kamataka Stale V
Road Transport Corpcratiosi, ‘~.. _V
Bangalore L 560 027__

67.Ax1jinappa Vaddar
Major
Working a-“_rl Ccrpo’rziiioti–,v

K.H.Raa;:;%%
Baagaaomm %

68.K.L. Chamimshekar
Ixaajgr ‘ % %
Working as A’ …… ..

. V Manager,

–A1*v:he%Ka;&aa_taka Siales

‘V Corporation,

A . K’Hf
“”‘Ban’gaim’e — 560 027 RESPONDENTS

‘ ‘_ “(E33 Shi*i.Vinayak Bhul, Advocate for Shri. Ashok Haranahaiii,

‘Adimcate for Respondent — 1, Shri. Ashok B. Pati} far R4’: ~~ 5,

V I445, 19 and 29, Rtsspondenbl, 2, 6 ii} 8, 11 1013, 16 to 18,
.. _ __20—23, 25 to 28, 30 to 46, 51 I0 65 67 and 68 are served.)

*1! 5#*$$

This Writ Pcztilion is filed under Articles 226 and 227 (:f
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the final gradation
!ist in the cadre of Axsistant Traflic Managers / Depot

3

2!}

Managers pubiishcd by the firsl rcspundcnl _

dated 21.01.2002 vide Annexim: -~ S, cm,
w.P. NO.7004~7007/2002 (s–KsRT{:)M” ;

I. (3.1). Prasad

Aged about 44 years,

S/u. Lalc K- C. Chaxmappa,

Depot Manager, Depb’i.No.3′, V
Bangalurt: Ccnlrai Diié*i+;io11, } V’
subashnagar» ” . i
Bangaiorc — ‘

2. S.Shivapxa1{1a5h,’ ‘_ . —
Aged £ib01li 45
S/«AI-.VSumasi31i’:£::r’;i1ia.V, ._ ‘ ~
Depdt Manager; __N0,;.’:2,
B.M.T.’C. ‘i’::sh’cvaf;1pur,’–~..%,
Bangalore” ~1_ 569

» V ” Aged ££bOE;f”4-2 years,

‘A ._S/::. ..IT;at;e”KV1T’J..i~~Venkataram,

” . l}«3p0t’2v,!§jimi:’ger, Depot No.13,

.’C,,f~”Kathriguppe Depot,
Bangafpw ‘

4.” wisp Villa! Rat.) Madkikar

Aged about 43 years
” Depot Manager,

Gulburga Dcpul N01,
Gulbarga . . . PETITIONERS

(By Shri. S.V¢ Narasimhan, Advocaic)

%

AND

1. Kamataka State Road Transpurt

C0 ration, Central Ofiicas,
K. .Ruad,

Bangalore 560 027

Represented by its Managing

Director V I

2. Thimma Raddy, Majo; A_ ” V
Assistant Traffzc; Mmzagexgf

North Rm-.&;;, ‘k %

Transport
Division

Begimy . f};

3. V. ii?-agaraj, ,
Assistant Ttafiic A “;’._.’;.sr,
BMTC C’c1jtra.i V{7)f’fme,’ ‘

.. Shanthinagény. ¢

‘– Vaman Naik,

‘ . ‘Majdr,’ Manager,
Depot,
Kanagkapura Taluk,

n ,_Baa 1gaInm Rural Diszttict

Vaddar, Major

Depot Manager, NEKRTC,

Lircgasngur Depot,
Raichur District

6.

(By Shri.R.I. D’Sa, Advuuatc fur Refiptniédezit-1?;~. ”

22

K1,. Chandzasheskar
Major, Assistant Trafic Manager,
Central mace, NEKRTC,

Gtzlbanga. 4RE:SI'()’i~fif7:f1ZN!’1f§~§.VV 2 %

Respondent-2 -~ 6 are served) .

$m$f$§

This Wail Pciiiiugn ‘Z26.-aénd 227 of
the Constitution of India, iprayin-g; to ‘€331 far records pertaining
{U notification dated 21.61.2002 fU£ R§’:t~:]:I’$(‘;*1fl£it5!11 No.1 wide
Annexure ~ F and p€1f}I’S.2».ti3.’$ salne.’ ‘me seniority list
published vids ‘m_.)£ifica£_ion_ dated
vide Annexure 7: §:_tc~.,, _ _ V .

WP. r§za:),% 26384:/2r’5(}5.b(‘Sf§}«§’

1.
J Aggd about
« _ ‘”S:’d’.’ Chcnnappa,
” *As’si.sta::tfi’1~affic Manager Operatiizn
_ Efentral omee,
‘ K.H_. ‘R6545; Shanlhinagar,
“Bafigala:ii’e «» 560 027

L}

31%. C.D..V§’Iasad’

A’ _a. Shivapmkash,
* Aged about 47 ycars,

Sin. Sri. Somasundamm,
Depot Manager,

ENG (C) Division,
KSRTC Depot – 1,
Shanfainagar,

Bangalore ~ 560 027

@

‘2 uf Respondent» I

La.)

. Sri. K.V. Somasixckar,

Aged about 48 years,

S/0. Sri. K.V. Vcnkatamm, A .

Assistant Trafiic Manager — Accigienty j;
K.S.R.T.C. Bus—Stand, A’
Subhash Nagax,

Bangalore -~ 560 009

Sri. B.G. Sampangiréxmp Qmaa
Aged about 53 yeaIS, ‘ ” A
Sh). Late Sri. Gud;:gx5\\;;i*¢:; 1 _ _
Assistant Tramé: Ma_.1:ager~;– ” ‘
B.M.T.C. x
Bangaleafe ‘ ‘

Szjéj ‘Mohaimméiéi bfizéesmuxdtiifig ‘
Agcd % ‘
s/9; .Sri; M.A.’£abba:,_
13eP0f’M-‘iF.l3E¢T_, 25¢
}%._S.R.I1ay£:u1,.’- ”

* %%%Ba#saium = %560934

L ~ Sri, Kundappa,

Ag¢d.ab9}m%49 years,

“S/u. Muniswamy,

~– Depbi Manager,

EN(3(C) Divisiun, KSRTC Duwi — I,

” s Shamhinagar,
x _ “_Bangalurc — 560 027

FETITION ERS

(By Shxi. Pulligt: R. Rauncsh, Advocate )

25

KSRTC, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore ~«~ 560 027

6. Sri. Rajtssh. S,

Majer,

Sic. Sri. Sangappa

Divisional Trafiic. Officer, V
Mysore, ‘
Urban Division,

KSRTC,

Davanagere

7. Sri. Aravid B.N.,
Major,

Sfu. Sri. V.

Divisiorgai I.’ ‘ ‘
North Caxzata ;§;)ivi$éun,'[‘~v,”_’ ._ V
ssrgi, N’Vv’IV{VI{“E’i’~,T’_ *

3. Sri. %’angadna:g,%fjL*%%% %

Major, A’ V _
v_”B1v;$iL-gal TrafiiL=…()iTicer,

% . _ VC?.1ik1:co<ii'~13zivisio11,

"-T'.Davafiageré_' V V

9. 3ri. Rigmanaguwdax,
M3.§93§

” * aI)ivi:§ionai Tmffic Officer,
= Chickmangalore Division,

KSRTC

xosri. Ashuk. R. Palil,

Majar,
Divisiunai Traffic Officer,

3

Beigaum Division,
NWKRTC,
Belg.-aum

iI.Sri- Kcmpanna L. Gudannawar,
Major, ”

Depot Manager, Nippzmi,

Belgaum Division,

Nippani

I2.Sri. Srinivas.

Major, A ‘

Depot

1-Xl’aSikfi1’t3=.. :7

13-Sri.’.,V. Bmvamj

Majér, 1 ._ V —

Sim. Sri;LVcnk:§ia§w an1gii;1h,
R§:siding'”&! Paljga,’ ‘
Mang8§a..PQ3t, V
“Kiinégal Taluk, “””

» * -Dfis$.;ic*. T;V1 rZ’r;k_ur

%mfsri. §:;*VS;&n§§:;=;,

1’/1310,33′ .

Dixiisiegnai Traffic Officer,

1 Tcenuai Ofiices,

VK;S.R.T.C.,

& ‘i<:~.H. Road,

Bangalore -~« 560 027

15.311'. Jadhav R.B.,

Major,
Bijapur 2nd Depot,

NWKRTC,
Bijapur,

i6.Sri. Nazccr Ahmed Nadaf,
Majer,

Depot Manager,
Karwar De-pug
NWKRTC,
Karwar. _

17.35. sumsh, Ci,'
Major, Spa' ef'}1Z':L:rappa,€

DepotI*;riata:aftgg-'x*;*1*.V__

"gnaw
18.8:-i. $13,. cha;;;ta;:&1c§a;;%%
Majesr, Sm 'Rae,
.. Manag.6!', Qepot No.4,

% » _VBanvgai'u;fe" —-s6o 011.

. "

44__Ma;;0:,.v ,
Assiaglanl Trafiic Manager,
T North Canara Division,

% NWKRTC,
“Sirsi.

‘ ‘ 20.Sr_:i-Sun:sh S.Majt:mdar,

Major
Depot Manager,
Yelbtxrga Depot,

S/0. Sri. Pcersab I. Nadaf,

28

Koppal Division,
NEKRTC,
Yclburga.

23 _Sri- A. Niranjan,

Major, _
Axsisiant Traffic Mamxgcr,’ ..
Divisional Offi-$3,

NWKRTC,

Haveri.

22.Sri. Khcmsingh K. Lak_h:{m’é, ‘

Majcr, _ _.

S/0 Sri    ' 
Depot     

23.81%.  
 S5.  'V
A _ Manager' .. ..... ..

V’ ‘*Dep9£’Nu, I’; Mangalow Divisiem,

” . Mangaliixjs,

24.35%; mg Shcrigar M.H.,

, Majbr,

V. Depot Manager,
Yeilapur Deput,
Belgaum Division,
NWKRTC. . . . RESPUNDENTS

30

Transport Corporation (Cadre and Rcc:”uitmcnt).«§§;é:gtéI§:ti:t1:$.:5;’

1982 (hereinafter referred to as th¢:».’.l982 ‘” ‘V

brevity) which were bmught intu t:t_vt§.1t;t

The 1968 Rcgulatiuns astvtttwtfiii as Iiygulations
were bmught into fonfc %pft§V’is}u.si’sgnction of the State

Government asA’~xg;c;uir<-.:ti"' of the Read

Transport 195$'. stated that under
iigsil af§1:x§intJ:ie:nl3'§by promotiun are on an
offiui::t'fifig 4131" the of uffiuiatiun and

subjugt Ed t§.2:tis§}atc;tt3r3§~–gti1n:Vplction of the said period a pmmutec

V. _ in the promutcd post.

U§i&.cf’i:Rt;gulatiun 12, a candidatc who is selected by the

Sets:-:;t§u;1.)4kuthority fur appointment by dimct recruitment is

A ‘~?_°’ rE5qz_nirmi tu undcrgu training as may be prescribed by the

t V’§CurporaEion before: his appuintmttnt on prubation. It is

therefore evident that it is uniy alter compitstitm of Ehc training

period that 3, direct recruit is appointed an pmbatiem and on

3

31

satisfactory completion of probation, he is

awcrviccs of the Corpuration. There is no pr0visiL};§:’–m§-fllfifiiig

Corporaiion to keep a person in indcpendcn-i 2

instead of providing regular

of the Kamalaka Civil Scrvicés as

the ‘KCSRS’ fur bI’cvily),~..V_Lhcrt= iS ‘3i»v{ij4;.-Vv;ik;h&anal¢§1g”(ix:§Vpmvisiun
under the Regulations. — L x 9»

in WI’88’l 552002 wen:

sclccled’.AfL9r Tr4fi’_ic Inspectors by dircci

rccruil!_x1en£ “‘an_£3 fijfijtauintcd as Traflic Inspcciurts on

‘H«1Vii*Jfic£iiiuner was appuinlcd similarly as a

3.8.1982. The first and second peliiioncrs

were: pr§3’13:¢J}Al£:<A1 as Assistant Traflic Supcrinicndents by an

"':i1"dcr 28.5.1934. This pmmufiun was, huwwcr, termed

'tarfixporary and it is only by an order 11.12.3934 iimt they

reguiariy promoted, though with czffcasi fium 12.10.1984.

The ncxl pmmoiiunal post was that uf Assistani Trafiic

3

Manager Class-II. By an order dated ‘

pctiliumsrs were prumoied as Assisipant

e£’I”1t:iating basis. The order did4__noi 1.-.;1’e,.~;,{

period as regards the an
mam dated 5.2.1993, { gm; ma that the
officiating prom§}:iiu_;1 wgvas’ even though as
an 7.11.1932′ the above posts
and qualified for bcsing

V_ _v It stgitaian advcriiscmcnt dated 11.3.1997,

” V’ ration i’:Hw’i’imiVa licaiiuns for various sis includin-
« W pp 130 2

Trafic Managers, by direct recruitment,

Ii “£3 h’iv§,1*liF: fi§’$!if1l that the Noiificalitm indiuaial that sclswlcd

..c:g:ndi.(i’2:i¢;a-5 would have to undtsrgu ouinpulsery training fur two

and it is unly thereafter, that the salectcd candidates

‘ V: ” “would be appointed on probation. The respondents 2 to S8 in

the above: pctiliems were aprpuinted pursuant in st~:Icci§un:s main

in icrms uf the advcrtiscmcnl as trainees for appuinfizrncnk to the

%

33

past of TraiT1c Managers by an urder dated

very 1-same order 315:; stated that _:tiVir.–.-.&

petitioners who had been prumoied:4t1n:”Qt;i3ciati;§tg”%3a*siSu:§Na§fi:~.VV

reverted to the: substantivt7j’V’Vt”I:’::’.5i~1£s of ufraffigztt

Superintendents.

1: is siatcdlhat petitioners had
continued {Q t)cpol Managers, on
an in-gha_;gL;,e~ gusts of Assistant Trafiic
Managers. ‘ ‘ff an: equivalent and

intcrchafiggbls further order dated 19.15.1993, the

as Assistant Trufiic Mangers, can

L’ filzargc basis. The petitioners 116.1 and 2 were

as ATMS by an order dated 29.1.1999. The

third”pt%Eiiiont:r was ahsu regularly promoted by an ordezr dated

It is stated that the Curporatiun had pubiishtzd a -sesnizarity

iist in the uadrc of Assistant T 6 Managers as on 13.5.1989,

34

Draft-wise vacancies for prumoiiun and direci recrtiitmei;!’L:’s:z2;: .

31.12.1982 according to the Sfillioiiii-:’y””}i’:2i’ g};§g;¢;’ai.} ii

of 31 pmmuiees. The Curporaticn iwas-.requirediEc_dcti:i*1:iif§c.

seniurity in terms cf an official fnieiisaomrziduni dalfxgliiiii

It is further contended. ii:i1£:d”V:’Z9.I.i999,
the Corporation Aiiad List in
the cadre Graded} as on

is 1932 Reguiatims. lhe posts
of to be filled prcmciion and

rt:cruii1iie:xii::wai*i*anled applying the rutaiicn, Q)!’ the mic

‘ _.¥iy:;V£¢:m r2;g:’1*:1_t§i},I, the first vacancy of every {Wu vacancies being

i’pr(;\éideii’.v§1;§riA’:1iV promciee and the second vacancy cf every Ewe:

vacancies being provided for a direct recruit. As there was a

of 31 vacancies in favour of the pmmuiees, this was

nut taken into accuunt under the 1999 Provisional Gradalien

List.

3

35

It is the furihcr grievance of ihc .

stzniuriiy as Assistant Traflic Manggccrs waif “i=e:qi’1_’ir¢iiV {Q ” ”

taken inio account from the dais: ital’ i§1i.£ia§_.i’uiffiiiiia.ti’i;g – 2

promotion, but in View of the it” V i

has deprived them snnimiity ‘~Hm»i{cvcI, the
direct recruits of 1999 -sgsniofity {rum the
year 1997 iLsz:§1.f;:..:V’1:7his isizvas.-3 t::ii’Liifj_’~s.1,li’£lig: if.3b_it3C[i£.)flS [dud by

the . igradaliun list (if 1999.

Williuiii ihc finai gradatiun iist daicd

2l.l._2002ii According it) {he said iisi, that

.3 been pushed down amvcral places and

been placed above them. Pciititmcr no.3 it;

n£3.L4_i::vcI:~ii_ri<}.iti(I<2d in the seniurily list and snrprisingiy several

A1" who were never promoted as Assistant Traffic:

ii find place in the said H31. The pctiiimmrs were

" "ii)t':f01'6 this Court challenging the same.

é

Even during the pendency of this ;3eiitie$,:1:,"'*e.lhe

respondent «~ Corporation by 3 Notification H

published yet uncother Seniority LisL\yhi}e " 2

anomalies were found in the Senitirity;"Li:§t eE_'ijhe"yg5gf._g6t32

and therefore, there was need'tbf"'pt1bliShiIVtg L'

invited ubjeetiuns, if any, tn the §aeme;ett.t'rhc 'peaimiers woutd
highlight the am that t seni:;)1fity_::'i§"si.VLv~'as finalised even
before calling. objections, after
its Ionnality. The same was not
even breught to of the petitioners, who huwever,

heme}. flied igtlmediately upon becoming aware of the

' Fletilieefitmn of the year 2004. It is in this backgmuxxd that

was amended to include a challenge to the

I;'tc§ii.t'i4'cuIiun as well.

3. In Wfit Fetiiiun 7004/2002, the petitioners had joined

“the respondent ~ Ct:-rpuratiun in the year 1982 as TmI3’3L:

Inspectors. They were promoted to the cadre uf Assistant

é

37

Trafiie Superintendents on 31.12.1984. In the year

Assistant Superintendents were pmmeted as

Managers and subsequently revetrteit’ :::s_ V

Superintendents. They were, Thuwet?L*r,:”pleced.»ir;

charge of Assistant Trafiic Mfitttiger Class-‘Ht

They were promoted ._i:t’o¥ii ii} 999. It is
their grievance that functions and

duties of and are to

be from the said date
as theythatve said post from that date. The

Resgéetidents 12’; direct reeruits tn the cadre ef Assistant

pursuant to Nutificstiun dated 1.3.1997.

“”1″ of the Netifieatiun dated 1.3.1997 inviting

by direct recruitment to 65 pests was challenged in

” \3vfit’petitions before this court in WP1S040~47/1997.

The same has been disgmsed ef by a final or-1k:r dated

13.12 2004 in terms as follows:

2

38

(a)ou£ of 65 posts nuiificd for direct recruilmcql, lht:

reauruiimeni. of firsl 35 posts siand undisturbed.’ .

(b)Rcmaining 30 posts shall be 51154 in ,m;,aagu¢ “s;»*§:£_’i_sA

Regulation 4 in the mtio jcjf M 1:! :’§)f¢§mt5i.6é3

and dime! rmsruiuncni. Huwcfigr, no :eCru’i~!::£:~_

shali bcdislnrbcd rruma;g§;sz;anunen,:&k%%{1 ‘

(c) After such be given
cunscquganiial

uf ” rcspundcnl Corpmalion nut

having mvLic.wedV List, the pelitimxcrs an: bcfmrc

‘ thisfioayi-rt. A. —–

‘ Petition 2638452005, the pelitiuncrs had

0f the Corporation during the: ywr 1982

~ nghéibywiile year 1933, they Weft: huiding the past of As-sisiant

Managers pursuant to urdczrs of pmmoiiun and had been

placed in independent charge as Assislani Traffic Managers. It

is the case of the pciiiioners [hat even according to [has

3

39

particulars furnitshcd by the Corporation upto

was no shurlfiall of promotional rwruiixncnl. 3 K V’

31.12.1996 lhtm: were 35 excess pr{3;I1oiiL§i}§5. ‘ix:

of the after 1.1.198′),-..__.theréA.V_’i$ 3

pmmolionai posts. In’ terms urflér Eh§$ cuuri in
WPI3040-47/3997 dategi’ { 13 12L.2<3{1a1;% mg. pezimnm were
tsnlitlcd to p1jmtgti0n~""wii}i" " Effect and ihcir

rcprcscniaiibii been rtzjccied, the

Pfifiiimimfi' i'hi5; K:0ur«£'L"' ' '

the other hand, having entered

a3»p§pear-azxcc ihmugh Cuunscl, in these cases, has cunicndcd as

% %%%k'rux.19a~g.;

A V..’¢::lVIVl€.1¢31′ the 1932 Rcguialiuns, the first vacancy of

every iwo vacancies is filled by prumaliun and every scsond

. _\}飧;ancy is filled by direct rccrttilmcnl. The: pciitiontzrs who

wen: posted as Assisiani Traffic Managers Class-ll were

holding posts which were “temporarily crcaicd and it was

é

expressly stated in the mtiers issued in this

icmpurary ammgcmtml and work dusaeuné such tj{f:’ci.iatii1gi_ii:%;»xsi$ ii

wili nut be considered fur reguiar

lmalcd as part of the service ii1′:~;:iL:ifxig:heri thei”

pctiiiemcrs had uunii::u°:d._iis i’St:pe:rinicndcn£5
and {hey were actuaily “Traffic Managers
in the year fur any claim
otherwise. i

H V Assistant Tmflic

IVianagcis._Liisc:Ici;i::(iiiiic year 1997 are conctsrncd, they

– ‘minder were brought on probation in

They were includcd in the provisional

ii weli as in the final Gradation List. Their

S8!iiL’§”iii}{V Qould be from the dam: of commcncmnent of

ii » An crrur in the Scniurily List indicating ihe date: of

igxjmmcnccmcnl L31’ prubaiiun period as the date of rcporfiing cf

i the respondents as {rainccs has subscqtzcznliy been rtwlifi-ed by

the Nutification ciaicd 19.5.2004. The scnioztiiy uf such dime!

E

41

wcruilws is considered on relation basis in the ra_!_§ji5″<3§V'i

as such, they are placed above :13}: pclifimafifg b 2

pmmelecs subsequent tn the entry oii.di1'§:ciiA.ai:cft:ite¢§' ix '

The respondent ~– woiiici ihat the V

final Seniority List 1; certain
anomalies and has been duh;

i””‘~”‘P°T3lf’£1- ii9}:5.2004, which would
hold Lhc..fi§id::” lo the vaiidity of the
Nuliliiciiiiain “inc lungs! sustaixzabici Further,

the hiayingiivgiiizniarily acquiesced in and agreed on

V’ _ of wofk by them, as ad-hoe lcmpurary Assistant

art: not entitled to sack reliefs as claimed in

petitions.

ii Sri P.S.IL1jagup:1L Scniur Advoualcc appealing for the:

Cciunscl for the pcliiiomzrs in WP 8815/2008 conicnds as

follows:

%

42

The pcliliuncrs am pmmolccs tn the cadre; gsf

Traffic Managers Class-11, The rcfipqgldcnls dAir£:§:’i –.

rcuruits to the cadre: of Assisiflni 4′

under the 1968 Rcgulatitms noif ‘i;!I_}d6f ‘[;1t$ 1982″ ;

there any provision or scniurfiy.
n is for the am 1ime%%k{;.m{;;1gi%é¢;a:;:jj’%¢rkdsmcm ur the
Ivspondtml – ” fizsuluiicn as on
24.9. 1999, ‘ Regulations have
been l.i#.’V(V.’.VVV’2sLt.?Ilii.3I’.;.§)~a*’ of its servants, has
made Servants (Senio1’i£yA) Rules,

1931? ‘and ggli(i6!.£i}:t¥S ifisucd by the Guvcrnmcni of Kamaiaka

»A applicable pruspeclivcly for the dimul recruit

H in the future- This Rwniuiitm of ihe: Board

of we-aid huwcvcr have In: effeui on the wenignily of

‘ _ ‘ : such as the. pcfifiuncrs who are promoted esarlicr to

V. V’T%2-4.9.1999. As them: was no vaiid Ruiz: ur Pruvisiun made by

the campcicni aulhuriiy prim to 24.9.1999, the uniy procedure

to detcmrinc snnioiily would be on the basis uf leugih of service:

5

43

as laid down by the Supreme Court in N.D.Mitn:__’§f$§’ _

India, 1994 4 sec 424. The date; 9f_t_:nlry’£r:i§:i}x§§”‘§¥ad;e 3.»; »

cruciai in detcnnining mu’ iurily and”:.g:ar;é_1’riu!;’

any Rule 1:: Regulation. VIn¢:, €3§:lcrriiin§ng_V jlbh;-,

seniority, it is to be noicsifllhai ‘£336 Rem priasmulcd as
Assistant Traflic basis as can
7.11.1992. Qualify the same as
bcing réslrickxl lo a parlicuiar
IIII subsequent order dated
5.2.l99 3,_ «’iimc the respondent ~ Curposaiiun

has; f£:s!Iiclcd’*1h:e’ fyrufnolion on ufficialing basis as not being

.A 4i’t:gu}ar promoiiun and lhal the date uf entry into the

Traffic Managers as on 7.11.1992 not being

avfilafile the pelitiuncrs is not tenable.

It is further cunlcnded that it is also significant to nuie

that by an ordtzr dated 19.5.1993 the cumpcicnl authority had

placed the petitioners as Assistant Trallic Managers on

2

indepeudeni charge basis. This

uninlerruptedly an the order am; 29.1_;99r;; naeyee

promoted mguiarly on uffieiaiing A’

not provide for any indepefide*3:1;.i’* en the” V

other hand, Reguiation ‘i~3.v_(A4) ri1’z’i’1’1(‘§e1gg.’e'”1ih;it aliééipgmiijzhnents by
promotion shall be on period uf one year
which may fer gin iI§___’s;3z”iiing be extended by

the cumpetenti:_e;;_lhef*i1}<_Ii§f_Ast: tint exceeding six months.

The Ceunsei §vo:;Vlii«.sub§ixi1_ ihai even assunring for argumenifs

sake, vficelepencieni charge as found in Ruie

32. the endfilhe Government Order issued under Reie

. m-eA’appl.:§Ved __lo the case cf the peiitienersg they would yet be

” gnahied’ their seniority’ frum the dale uf “Rule 32

having regard to the fact that independenl;

V’ was urdered by the competent aulhoriiy and the

promoiees continued to discharge the duties of A.ssistan1Traffie

Managers, uninlermplediy? {ill they were regularly premuted.

This is the iaw laid dawn by the Supreme Court in

5

45

Chandrakishure Sing}: vs. Slate: Azf::mz}mr, (1999) 8 ?’

(Taragmphs 14 and 15).

In juxiaposiiiun, the counsel would ” p V. 2

insofar as the rcssptmdcnls arc ‘a¢§’vcri§§5:.z_:n’cr;i

dated 11.3.1997 applications v§¢f@.V.invi{ed fiiisr L’

in vaxious pcsls including of ‘ Tmfiic

Managers with a spccific saiccimi candidates

wuuld.~§1a”m [A165 cuiii:::mlsuriiy ufidcrgb two years’ training and

aflcr vS:aii:sfac{ufy’:’.” “of waining the candidalcs’

seicclicn W513 .c3.ienfi5mcdLVsubjeci to cumpiciicn cf prubaiion.

‘~ ., fI’l’1::.¢ §’cS;§3sJnd§nis éicctjfdvingiy were selected and were rcquircd in

pmgmmmc, fur which [hay reported an

997.’ ‘;I’his is cvidunccd by the Training Order daicd

.1 SL.i0.i§97 ai Ann¢sxurt:–M [:3 [ha writ pmtilicn, in which event,

‘ .i t”ca;imol be said that the direct recruits have emicmd service on

V’ ‘”f;:rIuba1iun until 8-9.1999.

é

As the requirement of cumpletiun of two

period is a condition precexlent, the same beiiigiiecgiiglii _ts;- ._

watered dawn by reference to :1-myZ-mtjiiiiiictdtitini’c;$i:__3tt§:ii

requirement in the absence cit’ the seine ii’Deing’iii’::._: eg;eurgiai1ce_i v

with law and sanctienedfby date ef
entry uf all the responcieiite as’ being 25.6.1998.
This is withuuuit’ ii iiielative of the
contended that the

lengtliivuf a3tih::__v.=.otaid be appiieabic in the absence
of any prier to 24.9.1999. it is

conteiiécd th:~i1– the petitioners and rcspomkznts having

. prior to 24-9.i999, seniority wuutd be as

tixeiierder of length of service date of entry taken

intti service, date for promutees and date of

“ii for direct recruits, the senimity wuuld have to be as

follows :-

19.5.1993 24 prumutees with writ petitioners
at S1.N0s.9,lQ and 11 (Anncxure-H

3

4′?

to the writ petition) ~~f

12-05-1995 17 pronmtees

to the wriflten 3ub3.p.iss_:io;3.s _ . V. f .

dated 24.2.2009)    "

12.03.1995 4     

of thg: \vritten..s1}1:snI§s$iens ‘~ .
date;d_flZ34.2f300:9)”- .. ~ ” 42 — 45

19-G9-i996_ 2 protxiséiecs
. ‘<)ftI'ge wri_t§:en.4s:1ts:<niss%cgs
'2'i_2-2009)v–.' V. 4,5 M, 47

0931' 1+} _1
the_writ£efi'submissions
A .':'=..§iEi§':£;§~24;22G{)9) as

23;%1%1:;99?:; §;rog;;§§e§s {Aimexure-VIII

— -V ” w cf the ivritien submissions
” A fialrsd 24.2.2809) 49 – 50

« V’ ” ~ Raspundenus 2 -~ 68 direct

Recruits (Annexure-M to
tilt: writ petition) 51 – I27

Vvifiilcmafivciy, if seniority is in be dcttszminud

rb¢{i”Auspeciivciy from a date anlcriur 10 24.9.1999? in terms u? the

Ruins gosmming guvcmmcni scrvanits, black pezicuds art:

3

48

required in be dclcsnnincd in accurdanuc wiih :’.£§i$:_”

Officiai Memurandum dated 5.7.197tS..».

There is rcsfercnuczz in the figmi tifaicf’ uf .’

in WP 15040.47;1997 ‘lo %vk«%g%;-.g~;;Viu:%i¢~.::;:..A’jpi’ 1…… gaersons
between the pagan 1.:7;93;%% Ham. Sri
Y.YaIlappa rtsuruiieti
on 17.2.1935 List –. Anncxurc-S
to at 140. Having regard to
Pam A3£.d) gr j;g§m’nu:andum dated 5.7.1976. the

bioftpk the dale of umnmcnccmcni of the

. .. AC2-fifrci.-.”azn;i~– Rules to the dale on which the direct

isfixaade. The final block period after 31-12.1982

am}: he 1.1.1933 10 17.2.1986. “mm secgmd would be

AA f!’$3’II; V””i:.3.2.l986 [0 8.9.1999 when dircsut rccmiimcni uf

_ 1″*t’::§fx3!3(it5nl5 2 L0 68 was made by their misting pmbaiiun.

Rota, or wtatiun. will not be applicabic: to determine seniority

in View of the Official Mcmurandums dated 5.7.1976 and

5

49

14.12.1987 as also the ruling :31′ [kc Supreme Cast; in

B.S.Malhm_ vs’ Union of India, 2008 AIR

D,1<.M::m vs. Union oflndicz, 1'985(SUPP) SCC_3, J ' L

Thus, the Senior Advocate

that the ptttilions be allowed. »

7. On the other appearing for the
respundtsnl –CoIpt3raliur;_ frit’ inlet alia,

conttszidfs tjhz:IA i’L1’*:’U}..’1t_: §ig}ri_:ii£’._ 1:1′ Ratio Ruiz: applicabie {:3 the

case, the “i§Vs:sjlv1_g7gi¢asun 19.5.2004. This is the list which

‘is”i’m £2, 151imi”.«._ “?mmolecs and direct Assistant Tmfih; Mama era;

hatfbecfi ailcrnaiivciy, the promutesu Ring maxi

.__abuv’c dim: recruit, thus, the iri Ratio Rule wiih inter 3&3

“a s:.:r_xi£i:_*iEy being given to pmmoims. This positioning was

K yxéiihoul reference in the uhrunuiogica} sequence of the dates on

which the pmmeiecs had assumed ad-hue; charge as Assistant

Tmliicylvianagers since all the direct recruits had cummcmzcd

5

50

sesrvioc as prczebalizmers at or about the same times. “She

pmmutce: Assistant Traflic Managers had assurr;_¢:éi _

ad-hoe basis according to the cxigen2:ic.s_ ‘of Si:i,§ali£:n;’ at »a ‘

lime. when there was no recruilrtir::1l r_ As-si’$ia;1§,«

Managers at all for over fiv¢’~vy:gg;s in” {he!2gak3:Vk:§”‘a”1,$oiicy* V

dccisiun of iht: Stair: G¢>§:;n!{f_11In<;:ri't"." 'int1t;itabic that
the implmncnialiqn sf lhé has lead to the
anomaly uf _ in the Seniority
List aircudy been working
an in independent charge as
Assis£a;1t»- nut as confinncd fuii-flccigtzci

raflic Managc-rs, from the data of

' _dt:n1x:a;:t§¢;e93fi;é,n__l of service 0f the dime: recruit. The gland of

" that the quota and rotating mics have been

:.-:1:)4::1:<V1 b1§xt:xVi is not tenable. The ccsnsuqmznce of dime! recruits

' placsd abuvc [ha pmmotccs is only can acwtml of the

curnpuisory 1:1 Ratiu Rule which has to be impitzmcntcd at aii

times wilhuul exception. Even if {he pcliiiuncm-; have

3

51

apparcnily suffered any inuquily, ii is a case of damnu”i’i–.»sine

injuria, when: there is no viulaliun uf Law, them

legally rcuugniscd prejudice which naught £0 _¢

pciiiioners being ltnnpomrily appdinlugi.

Managers was not on accouhiggr-f th2eiz_’ Venfiti-:;i:i¢§ni.<_V_{u V3<1_ ' ;

pmmutcd, but oniy on account ¢__3_fu'lhr;:ra:_»bcin.g' no ret:riuium:nl of
Assisiant Trafiic Manag'i:rsTin"ih6f,§ic.ursc. They cammi

therefore be as situation 1.31' such

a chamcc 1h;§"V..pr~c_i_udicc of direct rccruiis. The

pmmulécs in work as Assisianl Traffic

– V 5
Mg:§Ié1’gers had made aware that the terms of the working

.A not cntiiic man: to any lugai rights arising

” service. The liiioners imvin availed of
% _ pt: 3

su«4L§’:a.. without dcmur, are rcsluprped fmm rtsiraciiizg

A’ such commitment. In any event, lha peiilimmrzs haw

;mct:ivcd ad-hoc salary imsrcase by way of charge aiknwanct: for

the higher level of duties that they may have performed. They

@

52

are not entitled to any out of mm seniority adva.ni,ag,es.. er; :}1igher

senioriiy list rmxking tn the prejudice of direct ree:;:;f§£e,’¢” j”

3. Shri D’Sa would submit that

abuve primary euntenliens t§ie”—-:gp1iefie 11:: c§1eve’iia1g….,Wi{i1

ovemii Assistant TraII’1e__ Manager${,’ sersipréiyh haay be Viiunsidered
as foiiuwsz

_ ‘av:-_Te in their
erdest ATMs in
tliieiy .::iiei’it}fSe:’2i«:fi’:yV”and te prepare the

%%%% %VTfir;a:ie,ggn;;a;ey’:§s§hy eeeigiiitng the highest ranked
A ‘;}§f:)sa:eiee ” “$6.1 and the highest ranked
;%e;:é;;: No.2. Preceecziifig en that

” ” baeie. efl’ weuid he placed above the
: (hweet on a 111 basis in the order of their
‘V ‘ e ratings in their respective lists such that in the
{Est 311 are number places wiii be

‘ ~-fiseiipied by the pmmotees and all even m1:nb=er
pieces will be occupied by the ciirect rwuits. T’i;is

is What has been done to eempiie the impugned
seniority list ciated l9.5.2€}{)4. This also eempliw

with the direction given in the 13.12.2004 erder in

Vv’.Ps.Nes.15048 to 1534′? cf 199′? (S-K) with

g

53

respect to {he direct recruit ATMS after the -H’ ‘2

lug candidates have been snitabiy ranked.

1)} i) To assign 35 sex’1io1jM1m)s*t ;)§’fi1}K31§§§:’S ” _

en bloc back log 35 placAi’ror§1 3t_*} ta}

highest ranked direct reemitsléixy e:3£’m.l])i§aJ.i§;;§i)f1§lt3T

1:1 ratio by the appiicaii:7§fi§~Vx;-f tl1é.i;31pta.1fl11i-$2,

ii) Having thus .vs_*iih_» 35 fifxnxfiteesvfiaznd
35 direct ‘-:9 mica} the
re-xmaiaainig pro:no’t§e’s: z::;tiga*l’V:”:€iraa_€.:f avajlai-hie

in they A’I’1’t.a;i_ cadfé ‘
H the ptf{)x11g’2te§¢s”‘ dilw,-1 recruits

§€.’Q’i2.}._\’L§:,:f, “‘al§én1ati’§éiy’V in odd anti even

tiu::1{)ei*eéij’-f;fa5r~z1’7’I to in eorxrpliance of

« ihfé 1:1 14atidf3 y even as per the 13.12.2004

» _ orde,a;§; ‘¥V§Ps..3¥i’osT l 5040 to 15047 of 1997 (S-K).

()’i”fi’:e’i~’e}nair1i11g prornotee and direct recruit

heizxg assigned places on bios or {)ih©’!’Wi§3

1 .:;””V}1cc*0rdi11g to their ATM Service

‘C§i§fiIi8f}CBII1eili dates witheut reference in the 1:1

” V “ratio ruie.

The hatter option wiil, 01: the one hand, give
iiiegai and iilipfopéf recugniiion and benefits to ad
hoc temp<3a*ary and non-regular chance promotiosns
and on the other, completely 'set at naught the 1:1
ratio requirement of seniority list placements, Not

only would introduce an ifiegaiity aztd

54

irregulafity in the seniority list of ATMS, bu§…a._i$éV§:’

in due course” , for prrmnotions ti) the 1xexi’:l’xigv};g§r

Divisional Traffic Superintendet_1t Ca’-_i«:lr’é:” Vin _

time ‘to come, for proxxmtkans to-A :;¢.;: i:«e3it_’h§.glxer~..__ f

cadre as well. Such an’ i2f:_regulés:fi.t’y.t10w V’
in the seniurity list of ‘wcstlld..l3y
effect upset the $et1lecll.s=.u9§i’kitig:_.pf

lists as well. mfivisable to go

by the V sia) –“‘alici–l.I’V_ig_ ‘.’—uphold the
valiéxitgi me wxiority list?’

Hf: wtmldv énctiliuns be dirstnissed.
appearing, on behalf of thc

ms§§¥5ndent.Vw”C§lr}$L3r@liu1; in W’ri1Peliiion 8815»-17/20=’32 wuuld

» :’cQniz::iL%_in4l’1h,e sums: vain as Shri D’:-.a and places reliance on

” ‘ Vdguisiuns:

& arwiher vs. APSRTC and Gihers. (‘2{}04_)6

l ~ ‘ ‘SEC 729,

– H UP Sercreiarial U.D.A.A.xsuciaiicm anti Gthers vs. Sizzle of

UP and others, (1999)! SCC 728,

6

55

– Isfeshavcrhmzcira Joshi and others vs. Union qf

mm, 1992 SUPP(1_)SCC 272,

~– R.S.Ajam cmd oihers vs. Siaiej ” ”

(1W7)3 SCC 641.

– Siaie of ficfiahamshlra S;:r;;’£§;2. _ ~31 L’

SUPP(2_)SC’C 406 .

._ R. Vhiobismm if stud oihers,

2008(1)SCC%

.. Stake :éiir;;f;w_vs. bnR.1V.Bainagar anti others,
(1992)2S::?C 3.S'(i: ‘ %

.. Union oflndia, AIR 1991 SC 1145

. .. Cfzermai ‘VC’z;.sf£onzs Appmiséng 0flic:e:rsAssc3cia1icm vs. Univn

– ~a;r1;z;1£:;@1kg}zhers, (2003) 7SCC 273,

‘i.§f£$l§,1′(3 !;!£{)IIlil that having regard to the legal posfiicrn a3 53

A X1″ %:i}ik§t:ni from thtnse aulhurilitis, the writ pdiiitms be dismissal

10. By way of rcpiy, Shri Rajagupal wuuid submit as

follows :

3

56

That the siand of {he rcspondcnl – Curporagigfig

on mis laced a rehcnsions and contrary in §a\}&*”~ éififfifiii

by the Supwmc Cour! cf India.

fulluwing are the primary cuntengiunéfi’ ‘V

a) that the: seniority

only and not

b) 5 in excess of the

…. .4 ,_ Z
* to the quula fixed, with win
. smiiority has to be on ruta basis

,, , _ 9n}y’

‘ .. :=hTi1a£ Quota and rota are inaficnablts.

H “1§hc.S¥:nior counsel would paint out than the txmdiiions in

» «gdfirfisemenls, the appointnwni orders and the rcguiaiiuns

are 5611’ evident. In the fact: of which, the Curporaliun has

placed a memo during fin: course of subxnissions; bcfure {he

8

57

Ceuri, dated 9.3.2009, to subsianiiale the

ciirecl recruits have been put on probation on

though a training period of two ii1″Ii’i{1′!€’:i

orders issued to direct reeruiits: as per’*adiveriiserr§enA£” e’ven’p

though any reduction in the at the
behest of the Board of riiatter being
placed before been reduced £13
six II}UIllhg:;.__. on an apprehension

that file _’;>eriod of two years would
discourage ‘the _ igioining service and lhai they may

Hence; of reduction of the training

i and dearly illegal It does not aflbrd 21 right

{he who claim to have been put on probation on

I 27:a;.ii199;s}

11. In this regard, Counsel places reliance on {be

following judgmenl:s:-

–« Malik Mtmfmr Sufism vs. US?’ Public Service

Conmiissiwz, (2095) 9 SCC 507

3

S8

The: counsel would umphagizc Eizgii: ‘

recruits cannot be put on prubafibn «ijntil

of two years training pcriud.

The cuunscl ‘=.furlV§xc’:r. _ 1hc

Corporatiun h2:Lii ‘~rciie_:d’ A man-ed :0 a.
Cunsiilutitgn Bench i:i*~D’i’}5£:;:i’–V~’Recn1it C?(1.xswI1′
J vs. Siaie of

5. The comzlusiuns

2tivii1._l}iii1 I are as folluws :-

” “£1 7; .22) we 14925! that :

(?i)’AC3ncga..zx’ir1wzmbenI is a[)f)£}f!£f8d tea a’ past
uaccordifgg fr} ruie, his sersioriry has to be
flrom the date cfhis appoirzsmem’
V. and H01′ according to the date of his
canfirmaiion.

The corollary of the above rate is that
where the irziriai appomtrmmt is crazy ad
hoc and fit)? according to rules and’ made
as a stopgap arrangement, the

ofiiciation in such post cannot be taken

%

{E} Where the quota rule has broken down”. »T
am? the appointtreerrrs are made from_ -.. »
saurce in excesza-;’ of the quota,
made afler fi>i£¢;wmg””‘ #2:: ‘_ A
Pr’e.s’cr’ibed by

c’.-ppointrrterri, r!1£2’«wrf*.?;éZ¢}w .c:i}):;=§*’-hieéa-.f:
fiom my %g:her«k%seu;~{:e ifsducted 4:: we
serve atzi’£at;+,ar ;.*;;:;;;&% V’ ‘M

« ‘lwhfikergé I xzfhé 1 pgérkriif» –£fa§,> azzrh¢:rr’itie5′

V’ ‘–“£c«._{*éiz1t’fife… _;;.w:r.v£sIor:s r*el:::IirIg to the
éF;2T_i}1a_-‘*i::v a presurrzgmorr shouid
” Ere’ f?aiS’c3c’3 i’:’1c3i there was such reiaxatiorz

“what: tizere is at de \2Ic2’£:’or: fivrr: the quota

,, , V ride.

{{3} The guard for recmitment from Ike

aifiizrerzt soumes may be p-rescriixea’ by
exzsamtive in.s’tmctions. if the rules are

mean: on the subject.

flf) Ifthe quota mice is prescribecf 3;}: cm
e.2cec;£five insmzcrion, awe’ is notfmiéowed

corzfinuouséa for L’: mtmber cfyears, {he

3

61

infiarerwe is that the arecutivs: msrruciiors

has ceased ta rernair: opemiive.

(I) The posts hgld by the permar:er:t Iy. ‘: : is
Erzgirieers as well Q1?’£bi’aii’i?§g’V””.v
Deputy Erigirteerx z£g1derf…4t?fzje,:
Makarashtra the 2 V

cddre ofDepu{y ‘

(ii) The d€:;fE’iQfl a2’e;2V!i”r:g._ _’ $?:”3:»’rtant

questions ‘£m_rj1c;éEr:?rzg–‘«..V ha’ «’ pésrticular

V «.:!egr3a*£ce ggiven cw5risider*ati0r:

” rather than
V .s9c;’ii£i;1»i;3¢3.£i?TA-j2i¥rj_. firzdirtg our any possfbfe
VA _ ¢a§9afo?*; It in the: irrterest of.S’érvi¢:e

A.£¢;$V2i’r::¢e3i!ie a seftied position.” . ”

– H LX Cuunscl wuuld point eat that this judgmmxi is

ali {he judgments relied upon by {he

m:spc:m di::nt – Corporatitm and in all those cases whcrevcr {he

Cuuri has held that at bmakduwn of 113:: quota rule

écannut be presumed, it is based an a definiltz Rule its that csiftcct

likt: as in Garza! Bhinmppa vs. State: of Kamalctka, (198?)

3

62

S’upp.SCC’ 207. The Cuunscl wuuid draw pariicuiarfi

to Page 223 when: Ruin: 17(3) :3? the (Z’m:1cra}

is rcfcncd lo and which did not pcmzii the; u u

quota Ride and mandated that

be made againsi vacancies s(:lift.’5L:l ‘

recruitment and he poiifl’ v§§1’siVv’V”ihal litéfe’ nu such
pmvision in the 1982 Reguieiginfiis; fen hmui.

With -g$_;_(‘§uVb5q:}§¢e;1;{;}H§s. APSRTC, (2094) 6
SCC illgt the uunciusiuns arrived at
Paragra’pi2§%’4aIitiV–‘.’«>V of intcrprctaiiun of Ruies that

‘umis.-:1’ ca$1:sidcrdii§)n and the cunuiusion of {he majority at

on the cuncmncd Rules and ihttrtzfmtz, the

*d63::isioii éanxihi be uf univcrsai application.

a “§’i[h rcfizrcnctz in Keshavchandra Jashi vs. Union of

” 1992 SuppI.(I)SCC 2}’2, he would point on! that at

” ‘ ” paragruph 21, a finding is rscordcd ihal promotion was

wuimry to the Rules. And further, at pmagraph 4 of the writ

3

63

petition, the asstsrtion that initial indc;)endcnt”:V:’e:}fiL§1f§;¢;

anangcmvnt being in accurdancc with the Ru1cs”A«}tézs. u

out. The respondent -Corporation dot daily-:

of such arrangement.

Similar wcmld be thtf: (.’«&lS(:’i’1i’.’:’!t.’):.€aI”VV5i’.!$ the ficie:v.ti.si.r;-‘i’: in State

uf.Muhams}zira vs. San;’a;2 SCC 40?-

It is iii: State of Punjab vs.
Dr.R.A{Bha£§1a;%§a}fiI;;::A_ 330 wuuid have no
applic§itjo1′: ‘as V’i:-mutt then: was with regard in the

optzmtion r§§3t¢r’.fér.gtppL)inbncnt under a rule: rule.

., . . Ramakcmlh Sripad vs. Union oflndizz,

wuufd also have my application as the case

dctiit ‘tiinchargc arrangement whereas in the present case

2 .. it is indupcndent charge: arrangcrncm which is not

contctnplatcd under tht: Rcgulatiens of the nzspczndcnl –

Corporation. Inspiration was apparentiy drawn {mm Rah: 32 «of

9

KCSRS which clcariy entitled cuuniing uf seniurfly

dale uf indcptmdcnl charge: mrangmnmt.

In Chermai Cusfunzs Appraising C.I_:I}’ir:ér.s”T:f?,$.Satrg;4iaii§§r:.A

Union aflndia (2068) 7 sec 275if

A6. ?aragraph 36, ii nut have
any fixed quoia. A1 pmgraph gym; appuinzmcm
of direct ;3rume£ecs was ad-

hoc and in terms :31″ the Ruies.
Rule, the same cannot be
relied 5)’ The Counsel would furihtzr

iha[ Vo3:., hand, the decisions cited by the

itself wouid support the petitioners.

z Secretariat EH)/i /issue-iation vs. State of UP and

k » %’;7:;m,%g199~9)1 sec 723,

§;» at Paragmdx 2, ii is staimi that though apgxsinirnent is

icmpuraxy, if it was made in accurdancc with the Rules and to a

3

65

substaniive vacancy seniority wiil be counted frum

temporary promotion.

Similarly in R.S.Ajara and c;i;iic:V;-*.qs»’ »’.A_’1=is;’. Siaficf’

and olhers, (199233 SCC 641′ V

– at Page 654, Para 16 itgu .1′ aimed
that seniority would be reference to
date of appuinls1iriét:g3¥{;n ;iireci recruits and
in case of ‘ to the date uf
prumoigpn in Lht: case on hand, the
pmmoteEs~».\a;mr§ charge of vacancies that

wer~.:3l:cut.:ri;1inly V’iunVg: 1cr1:n vacanuics , This judgment khcrcfum

fiaiuegld __ Ihc: case uf pwmoiccs rather than 9f the

‘C:t_.J1″;:i'(Jx*&’iiisg-,~.Vzk?;;:

x The Scniur Counsel would fssrlhcr place radiance on

jizdgmcnts in the case of

– L.C}2andrakishore Sing) vs. State: qf fvicmipmr, (‘.I999)8

SCC 28?’ whcmin it is laid dawn that,

@

66

“J4. Seniority itself bu:-.’ed upon iengihy
S€5P’%v’ig~,e is an acquired righl cftm ”
which entitles him Io be ”

further promotion. It 1};

by service Rules. Sxish 7-[A

provide fur ‘§§¢-1;io.*;f£j;A..A:

refirrence to the dfife. :;ppc}i2a.fi§reri1 the
class, ccfiégwy lire
appoimmeni 51! __ only

our: d}°~§:¢a_ €e?2zgthV- (if .§ervice. Such

. 1 be on the basis of the
4’ oflicmtion or an the
= ¢:rA_A[‘ cirflérence cgf substantive
in the cadre U?’ grade or sender
‘«.:’i>;et3zich may be reckrmed from the date of

._, _ irmafion an the basis ofregrslarisfaiezm.

LA 5. If is now well seliied Liza! even in cases

ufprolmlictm or 0 rciating zzppuérxtments
which are folluwed by a carfinmaziivn
unless a ccmtrary mic: is shown, the
remlered as

appoirzinwnl or on pmbaiim cwmoi be

service 0 mating

ignored fur reckgming the iengt}: of

§

67

continuous qflidaling

determining I}18pI£1L’§{.iI’.?_l}I€ s§:?:fa~r~£§}~ list; ‘– _ ‘4
Where the firs! uppéfinirficfézi X
Iuler on, the 9c,zp_prm}:}s!A
confimmfion uuifig§fi§”VA;fi(FJ,i,..§ha3£
relaie back cahje gin’ « is
A i§a.a;:_ the; cfifire
wwice _)_a{_ivl[‘l vfgffimpzcted in

— to the
‘ ;§fl}é:iaiiw1 In Ihis

.’}%% ré§é§;iiwI:”‘~}§ie ;?;r:g{y’° our view by the
_ ‘ Court in GP. Down’ vs.
‘ _ Guvemmenl of U1’. ”

‘ :_R:_eiiaA.ncc’Z Tun P.A»:1’oh¢:m Raddy vs. Egiji. Charles

V )4 SCC 433, wherein it is laid duwn that

A has to be determined 0:: the basis of the Ruic in

_ can the date: of appointment.

In the present vase an hand, there. was nu mics. The dates
{sf independent chargts arrangements are indicaiai in Anncxum-

H to the writ petition.

‘é

.. Dr.N.D.M’ilra vs. Union of India, (1994) 4 SCC #74

Vfllerein it is taid down that the normai r_1.:;i_:é”ii«i3:’rf _

seniority in a cadrc: is the length ufVsg:rvicc ‘_:~rJ:i5st:na;c 431″‘ *

statutury rulcs or executive instructions to the :1-3.1’ “iii:-‘z

light of the admitted pusition,’ii.tI?iatV it waster_tii§;ii1iij$t–.iix:1i:, L’

way of executive instrugtions VAi.th:it’va iR.,t_£i6 mganiing scniority
was laid by rcsulutiun L31′ the Curporatitm on

24,9.I9’99~ v::v£ni§L–.i;3tirsiu:2::v”i*ccruitcd prior to the said
data hittttfi fixcti in accordance with the
icngthv sf -xic’c.. _

above baukground and having regard to the

i it wouid be ustsful to recall as a backdmp the

circitazniztzgxliuis lcaciing; uptu am cariicr writ petition in V117′ 15040-

ii disposed uf on 13.12.2004 by this court. The

iilfitfiitionfift-; therein W611: appointed as Trafic Inrspccturs in tin:

ytsar 1982 – They west: later pmmotcd, 01:: various dates, as

Assistant Traffic Supexintmdcnts . In the year 1993, they were

3

69

pmmoted and placed in independent charge of _

of Assistant Traffic Managers. Thai_:ma;;§poin.tin”¢nt: Apugt ” u

of Supctinttsndents was from two fsssuréics ‘tVz1ai:1_ei’j;z,”‘pxiséitgtitatz

and direct recruitment in the Qt’ it »xrasi».;;t)r§_tt5r:t1¢::’3 tixaifl’

the cadrt: strength of Cttass ~11 in
the respondent – :52 and that the
Corporation only in ruspcct of
14 pasts by an advertisement
datcdw ‘invited for 65 posts of
As:sistatrtt_ LT”‘C3as2-:-II. The contention was,

}xz»1»xf;ii1″gt.rcg:a.Vrti~ ttftltle tiadtc strength, than: cmzld not fat: direct

65 Assistant Tramc Managprs as in which

therein who vvert: in independent chargn as

Managers wuuid be displaced and haunt: the

14. The Curporation, on the other hand, had contended

that as on the date of publication of thc Seniority List, there

9

70

ware 55 vacancies of backlog in the dircut recruiis in 1l1:¢””¢.:;:d;’t;

uf Assistant Traffic Managers. It is in order in

vacancies, the Notification had been issuqd,V_u’~:a;1d 😕 ‘i1é wag b

pursuant to an appmval accorded

creation uf 3-4 posts uf Assi::ian__£

further contended that 111:: posts oiily pari uf
the total posts. The -who were wurkjng

on officiating it pi§rt:I’y.}:n ad-h§.¥a’.:’ arrangement and

lhcrcliprc, “was: _v;~;Iid and in order.

_ _v Thia§'{3o’ur.l,V disposing of ihai writ peiitiun

ha$ he§d~. that lhc Karm§,tlaka Siait: Road Transport Cotpumiion

Regulations, 1982 came into effect

and recruityncni to the posts ufAs:si31ant Traflic

Class-II is by pmmuiion and by dircci rtnruihnent

raiio of 1:1. From ad–hot: scniorityircvicw list produced

V’ ” the respondent —- Curpuraiiun, ii was noticed that for the

period from 1.2.1968 10 24.9.1972, Lhtsrc were nine vacancies to

%

’71

be filled up in cquai pmportion by promotion

direct recruitment. Duly um: pc1’sunmwas pr¢si:mt.é§}&, gigiti ~..

were filled up by dimct r¢:¢:ruit::vir::nt.;”‘?

25.9.1972 to 31.12.1977, 1hc:etyv~;.:;§c 312″-V’3..3wei*e..tt’

pmmutcd and there wt:,:1;f 11 L’ -.Ii’h;;.3vac’an;:ics
were carried over. 31.12.1982, as
against 40 tugsruitcd and them
were no shortfall of 31 posts to
be of the 1982 Regulations
havt%.1;§iné 1.1.1933, 37 persons were

from 1.1.1982 to 31.12.1986.

wily two dime! recruits. This court found that the

pmznutees was wiped out and there wen: six

pr£3m1it1;c$ sin cxccss uf their quota. Further, that it was in

~ this cesntcxt that the Corporation wanted to recruit 65 persons

ditectly though it was contrary la the Ruins. This uezaurt held

that atlcast after 1.1.1983, rccruitmént shuuid have bean

according to the Rcgulatiuns. But contrary to the Ruge,:=1ati:3ns.

§

72

37 persons were pmmoled whewas [here

recruitment except uf two persons- Thus K V’

given pmmuiion and in order lo fbmaiiitfgxiiix ii

impugned Nutificaliun was isetugi {bait-gii’ it is, (if)

Regulations. And it was égirporaliuri
would be juzstilied iii L. by direct
recruitment anci_:i’n_. pusi.s., the Ride
caught in held that out of 65

posts Zgiuiifieiiiizjg.;ii1*ecE«.ife4;1juiin1enL the recmiiineni of first 35
pusis islairiid . The remaining 30 posts shah!

be, up with Regulation 4 in the ratio of 1:1

» ;be!._weeii«.%pr:d’xnQtees and direct reeruiis and that no direct

disturbed {min appeinnnenl.

A. V’5§:is<.mf.-at as the Seniority List pmpared by the

"'..Cori3s:raiion, {his court has iaken nulc of the fact that the ii was

"Ehe subject mallet «J the preeenk wrii petition on hand and has

held the: the parties can agitate their respective eunieniiuns in

3

73

this pciilion. The urder of this cunt: in the abgfie :,;:;£§ia’;{“:a.:;*;§–1.T ~

pelitiun has attained finality. In thal;” ihr: szi4m::j “‘l’xja4$’421.{§i. }::;:efi1

chailcngcd. Thcrefurc, the qucs{it;;i1.__ ._

present writ petitions is the (i”01V’.f’t.’.’|.3{I”l(.’$t.-i.’:’.V”f._)_I”0,§,}E:t31″i?E’i:iI:’;V of [he VV

seniority assigned vis~§§i-lfixis jiht; pr@;:;§c§.sscs znV’.t{§.’ Vi11t: direct
recruits in the impugned ASt_:i’1igri’;jy I;isi–;;’~. ‘ ‘ ._

insofar K seniority is concerned,
n£jf’i’hé 19332 Rcguiaiiuns, provide

for any Schcrmt £61” of scnioriiy .

Bdaird. Qf___13ircc{¢3rs of {he respuridcnl — C-urpuraiion

“3.-.Rcsuiu1iun on 24.9.1999 adapting the. Kamzfiaka

Servants (Seniority) Ruicss 1957 as wcli as the

guidtivifnas issued by the Govcmmcnl of Kamamka vidc

“Quf§iciaI Memorandum dated 4.12.1987 apart from any

amandmtsnls issued by the Si-alt: Govcrnnicsni from time to time

and that the: same would be appiicablc prospectively far the

direct rccruilmcni vacancies [filed up in future. Therefore, it is

%

74

clear that until 24.9.1999, there was no vaiid rule %

cumpelcnt authority lu dtzttarrnims senigrily. .’;3eim§aiii3,£iun sgf ” V.

scnioriiy would hence be an the bait-33 .%i-.ng’i.h ‘<~.*cf':,=t-.'fV'V.:%i¢'.~.s:"*:*;~:.:~_.é

laid own by [he Suprcmt: Cuud v._:g.?'-'of L'

(I 9913):? SCC 474. In <;§f;;pL U{."f")BfS«{)!lSf§{3!"lJH3t)i6(l

txarlier 10 24.9.1999 conical'

15. _V§ig§:i§¢::’ixs;§£§m§vo-uld be the date uf
entry Viniu saniuriiy. It is not in
dis’puic_ Rial Vv-.rerté prumolcd as Assisizmi Trgtflic

Managcrsnn =c\£}1t;iai.i:ig«§5asis. Such pmmuiiuns were noi

V’ _ ‘;!1A5i!’!’};’V”lV’!’Iéi’:f”.~.–4.’–‘§iV7I’. Though by a substaqucni order it was

lfigtsy could not claim their secni-uriiy by viflut: uf

suggh pwzxigsiiun on ufficiating basis, huwuvcr, the pc£iliu~rrtm<s

AA zléiicr placttd on indeptsndtmt charge basis- This

' '~_ ar:'angeme:ni has cusatinucd unintcrruplcdly when the peiiiimmrs

were pmmuted regularly on officiating basis on 29.1.1999.

There is nu Rcgulaliun pmviding for making any independent

f:

75

charge armngcmcnt. Theugh such a concept is ‘

32 vi’ the KCSRs, insofar as oper’cati¢,:’n”i}i”P’..t;l€:.’32_ V

the petitioners would ccrtainiy be to

from the date of the independ’é’1zt:”‘uhargc'”a1″§’az:gat:rIt£;;1’i.”having V’

been made. The date :.g;;ts\c:i:rrt:.t3f;’ Trafiic
Managers can c;t_:rtainlVy.._b:e_ 1993, if not
cariicr. In . Supreme Court in
L. évfanrpun (1999; 3 sec

287l

76

on pmbatiun until 8.9.1999. Any reduction uf

{raining period could only be 21% !}1t:_i.ns(anc::’i3f ‘v

Directors of the rcspondcnl –

competent authurily to bring –§B*u_u.£ Iii lh-cw.’

absence sf any maicriai” iii “and admittcad
circumstanct: that the miilttéi’ (ht: Beard of

‘2i$i’ir,1;:§;;aI<li.'il gi:;.:.ii'r:p¢:A:ii':i:fi*–.s,:§i._i_ji§:§ io cunicnd that the

Directors in il
dirtxzi 'badrc bcfutu 3.9.1999.
iiiiig iiiéiving been taken as 8.9.1997

or the d3i.t.7iiU.f "i.zi[o'iiscrvice having be-an iakczn on any

dai-fgiéariicr not tenable. in this backgmund, the

» lsetiiuifiiy.ii:;;.("~vis-awvis the petitioners who have entered service

i " pmmuied prim" 10 24.9.1999 and the dircci

1'%:{iI-!§.£iit?f;2:'.i'i*ih£) are deemed to have cnttzrcd the cadre only afwr

iiziirgxpletiun uf a {mining of two years from 8.9.1997, the

Seniority List wuuid require in be znuclificd ammrdingly.

é

Direct Recruit ~ 1'

In the maxi block period.

4 P. S1101; Kumar 140

accurding to the statement 11111111: by” C0r*,.K1r:;i§11.}11

19111111: wrii 101111111311 w1>1s040§4.1.i1997. L “:11; £f0H1.f1wing 13
persons were promulcil 22.03.1983 to

15.02.l992asi1¥’.&i&’f:

1.’ ‘I)at1:mof SLNO.

Q_ prétnofion asit
2 ‘ 31101.11
dbe

2923. r”..:.’.’.~;.’;c’1_«.»’1:.v».1111*…:1_€§£1’1131 22.03.1983 5
~.22’9.Y.’ 29.03.1933 6
“3′
3

233.11.. ‘1’eiia.xé£:;iki3{_ 22.03.1932
A235;v.1s1.11′ ‘- 13.05.1929
._ ‘Nmyaim9W9111y
“23”‘?._E. Ab1iuIRa.him 13.05.1939 9
;;§9.S;1… Hombaiaiah 13.05.1989 10
‘ 11.;’241..B..9c. Gurudev 13.05.1939, 11
24:3. Amaxeshsaiah 13.05.1939 12
.3419’; 101.101. Nirrxbtngikax” 13.0§.1989 13
~ ‘:…..V.S.Patil 13.05.1983 A 14
N. Mudciuveerappa 13.05.1989 15

247. 13.11. 1111111311111 Dcsai 15.02.1999. 16
249- Om Pant}: 15.02.1992 17

251. Syed Naziuiia 15.02.1992 13

253. L.s. Gaekwad 15.02.1992 19

255. K. Ratnakar Shertty 15.02.1992 20
257′. C. Ragginna 15.02.1992 21

“§Z€”sif_1~iT”5″r:-a.ka;%’fa”Ba7£:%” 15.02.1992 22

é

’39

Pcrsuns at 31.1495. 225 (Sri. ;’;”(3»upala’§§fi§}ix’§?.i I5fiij>; .22? ” A

(Sri- Shivalingaiah), 231 (Sri. K.

impugncd list Anncxurc — S not tiit:nl”m_xéd fist c.>IV

promotions fumishcd liifile ‘until @eli’:iz:nE11o.15040~
4771997. Names of VS. who were
shown in thtia ‘ promoted on
13.05.3984} V’«iV¥°:s:.c”‘iinpug:3ed iisi. Therefore

50 pritmeiians’h;w;§’%.wg:ea i”r2z;dt: an dififcrcnt dates.

5* » Du1{:ig._:vLha.’ cummcncing fmm 18-02.1986,

. pmmulcd bcfuru 67 diruck recruits

{;§gp.§n.jg;;1;..: to 53) entered pmbaliorx an 09.o7.19§9.

qtmla of 1:1, 67 out of 68 proxnotsms have to be

A. piacecl “above the direct recruits and 68″‘ promotee namely Sri.

” 33$/’mma promoted by order dated 23.11.1996 will have in be

placed mluw the direct mcruils as he; will be the only prumohsts

in excess of the quota. This alscs fluwsfmm the finding recorded

@

K, \

at Pam 15 uf lhifi final Order dated 13.12.2004 M
1504045047 at 1997 whezrcin it i_:_s:….r¢:_c:.3rd_«:’:éi”‘i1;i: “§$:§cci at »
prmnotccs thai than: was vacafis.;y,1’_’_’

qualification and they had ezigagizagy as: baang%pr§mmsi a1i<i '

ins-{cad uf pmmuting $33.. Exégulafions,
30 posts has/ta been (fifii':IV"t§&;'§'.:.fa-=;:ruiL1n:e12£ and ii
affected lhcif. quuta mks, ihc:
seniority \:c='.%i lV! 193' May 1993 to
Anncxifira-:1' in-_ "the wriitcn submissiuns dated

xgzili l}1n'{%?':x'i3i:1u:t-:::: frum Si.Nus.23 in 7} as against

'A 267, 269, 271, 273, 275 and excess of quota i

f:ii1d the impugned Iist and names of pmmuices

ofiiiifitfiii 72 to 138 wuuid be 67 direct rmwuiis who are

at even numbers frum Sl.N0s. 142 in 274 in the

impugned scniurity iisl. Bcluw [hem wutfld be Mr. Jayanna last

pmmuitae if he is in tsxuess of 67 prumuiees {rum 13.02.1936.

%

The Corp-oratiun wuuid be requirud lu addrc$_sj':"'ti§:i ~

81

asscriiuns in proceeding lo re-dc: ihc Smjioxily .i;i’st.–. ii. b «

In (his vigsw of {he mailer. I ‘«

G)

okngg,
WP ssiszzzpoz a~.-.~% f.”g:1¢*m1_ %M ‘ * Anncigure-s is

quashed. J Q’

‘:’v”;”>..g Anncxurc-F is

€ Vq§é§fi§é..TT}.°

– * aliowe:d. Anncxtm:-F is

n:sf3’un.dcnl no.1 is dire.-clad to redo the

. ~._Scniurily Lisl by aliucaiing the firsl 3}. vacancies

in 111:: uadre uf Assistant Traffic Managers

lu Dapoi Managers from 1.1.1933 before appiying

the min prescribed under the 1982 Regtfiaiions
and la cuunl the seniority of the petitioners in
the cadre: of Assiaianl Traffic Managtms fmm
7.11.1932 and to

count the seniority of

E

dircci rscruilecs appoinicd pursuant

advcrfissmcnl dated 11.3.1997 only:–;1§¥i§1’V– k§{f§é-£._ A.

from 8.91999 and lt)–“‘gmgi ‘

benefits.

The pica an bchaif of that
any such recognition of would have 8.
cascading ¢:ITe§:1 other Seniority
Lists c:lc.,=:’ the mapundcni –
be a ground for denying

the rt:li r:I’ in the .,

5&5?

3’a§§{g’-‘S

.. F av