IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the gm day Of S€pt€I'l'1b€1'. = THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICEME V «sHYLE1\%j'5R_.aVV I 2' WritPet£tion No.T,34189ofgOo2 I I BE EN .. _ _ MUSTAQ AHMED . _ S/O GULAB MOHIDDIM «. _ I V AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS' ' ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER .. ._ CORPORATION 0.1:' THE'C'I'IY. OF 'r.z13rs0RE.V_ MYSORE. ' PETITIONER I " IByLfS:fi'VV'.:S Aclv.] 1 STATE O:?~K.AENATA§<A~ - 'REP. BY. ITS 'SECRETARY URBAN DEvEL0,PM_ENT DEPARTMENT SAC3:jIIVA1..AYA'-II, MS BUILDINGS * ~ BANGALORE -- 1. ' A 2: i.1.THE.C0MMiVSSiCNER _ CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MYSORE I * E. _ RESPONDENTS
_ [By Smt Geetha Devi M P, Adv. for R2 and
‘ ‘ ‘ Sri Venkatesh Doddari, Govt. Adv. for R1}
VTI~IIS VVRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
~ 22-? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
“ORDER DT. 29.8.2002 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE~A AND
fORDER DT. 27.7.2002 PASSED BY R1 VEDE ANNEXUREJ3 AND
F FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE
I PETITIONER AS ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGIN EER AND ETC.
2
THES l3E’l’l’1″lON COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWTING:
0 R D E R
The petitioner, who had been employed the
Mysore City Corporation way back in the year,
12-3-1982 on the basis of the qulalification in
electrical engineering as junior it
fortuitous promotion on 13-
engineer [AEE], thougil*b_y hehadvvremained
a diploma holderin
2. Perlrapisgjglothier the post holding better
qualifications’ “got agitated and could have
represeritedkto’ Aeinployer but more importantly, the
for such—-«’promotion being solicited by the
government, which is the Controlling
antlfllority,loi{_cr all municipal corporations, did not find
ll”>~’..__”-favour” according such promotion and therefore, the
in terms of the order dated 29-7-2002 [[copy at
_gAnnexure–A to the writ petition], reverted the petitioner to
it the post of JE in the pay scale as is admitted to the said
M
post. It is aggrieved by this order, the present Writ
petition.
3. After issue of notices, the respondents—- entered.
appearance through counsel. Straternentiofiiflas
been filed on behalf of the reisponderivts. .
4. I have heard for the
petitioner and Ms Geevthavii.’}’e’ai*ned counsel for
the second and Sri
Advocate for the
first revspondent i ‘
5. Subrnission S Naik, learned counsel for the
p_ petiti*oner, that«the.’emp1oyer is not justified in reverting
-.pgetitiorre:r+employee to the earlier post, as in the
‘hand recruitment rules to hold the post of ABE, particularly
A irequirernent of securing degree in engineering, the
enfiiployer is not justified in passing an order adverse to the
it interest of the employee and therefore the impugned order
absence oi’ qualification prescribed under the cadre
4
required to be quashed and the earlier order, promoting
the petitioner be sustained.
6. On the other hand, submission .
learned counsel for the
though the cadre and recrui’tn}entA’rules_,V do
prescribe any such qua}ificationl’for”the which
was earlier known V tilflgineer, but was
redesignated taking cue
from the who had come on
deputation the state government
and vvlio V “promotion upto 25% of the
available ofA’pos.ts, which stipulates that persons
_holdiia.g”o«f should have degree in engineering
the requirement in the services of the
state”igoveIu*”:irn’ent, the corporation has thought it fit to
‘adopt the; same reasoning or at any rate to go by such
A for the purpose of effecting promotions to the post
oil§AEE in the cadres borne on the employment of
it personnel of the corporation.
5
7. That apart, learned counsel for the respondent-
corporation further submits that the corporation having
categorized persons holding the post of junior engineer
into two categories viz., grade} and grade–II, on
the number of years of experience
persons promoted from grade~I it
being so promoted from
petitioner, at the time of effecting thevtproniotitonflbeing in
grade~iI category, 1. tathé petitioner
having been found earmarked for
and realized that it was a
mistake” to so him in the year 1995, the
corporation” has-.”so1d1ght to correct this mistake and
.””‘theVr’eVf.oi*e, itavvas ineyitable to revert the petitioner to his
A ‘originai. ~ . V
it Sri}_\fvS Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
A V.:tf’conntered such submissions, by pointing out that while
the cadre and recruitment rules are binding on persons in
the establishment of the corporation, to the post of
6
having not prescribed degree being the qualification, the
first argument canvassed by the learned “the
respondent-corporation cannot be accepted}-._:
to the second argument that ii.
petitioner being in excess of _theaq.n:o–ta v’eateg.oi*;rofg
grade–II and that the promo’tioI1 having
the year 1995 and in the
interregnum between is during the
interval of tl1.atia…ground to revert the
petitioner this point of time, if
available for being
filled up’by”J_unior from Grade-II category.
hthis….s«ubmission is also countered by the
for the respondent~corporation pointing
perhaps opened at a later day and not
anyr;.rate with effect from 13-124995 and the
“‘:l:eorporation has given an opportunity to rework his
seniority in the cadre of AER from the date on which the
vacancy in the post of AEE opened for the junior engineers
in the category of grade–II.
10. This submission of learned counse-l.V
respondentwoorporation merits acoeptancjef, ‘ V l
11. In the result, while oetitionl in”?
part, to the extent that._”the=”res§§on’dent–eoIporation can
refix the seniority of cadre of AEE
with effect opening was
available in. belonging to grade–II
categolzjl/H in favour of the
regard and that part of the
order’ ‘vreverting”the.l’-petitioner to the post of Junior
quashetlllby issue of a writ of certiorari and to
l’thi’s_’e§<tefit,l_ 1'i;tl.ev"is made absolute.
Sdfvi
iuaqe