E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAIVIGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17"' DAY OF' DECEMBER, 2909
mm HOWBLE hm. JUSTICE mm MORAN R1i;§i)Bj$r%LIi L? %
WRIT I>E'rI'rIo1~t N0.36202~2o3 QF}2oo9";%s§i§t1%V:si: _ Q h
BEFORE
BETWEEN
1
i~lARISI»-I R -
$10. RAMALSNGEGOWDA
AGE 29 YEARS
R/AT. LAKSHNQ NILAYA « - *
NEXT TO APOLLO Hififf sc;Hc;01;
STE CROSS, HEGGANAHEKLLI.
BANGALORE 91. .,
BASEWARAJ BIR;xDAVR*TVT.__ _
S/O. SI;iAN'¥'HAPI?A--
AGESIYEARS . "
01.53.. Y H GQPALAIAH
rm. 360, 21"DfV$AI_N, 3RD CROSS
'N1E'AI42"Lv§3ASAvEsHWARA SCHOOL
A P_IPE_LiN'€,R'{)AD, SRINWASANAGAR
_SUN}§A_BAKa'iff1*E, B'LORE -- 9:.
PETITIONERS
(BY S'R_1:; K s:2i:§;':,}asA 53 STM A] S, ADVS.)
_ ?:' 'r~:_E MANAGING DMECTQR
'KPFCL, CORPORATE GFFICE
KAVERY BHAVAN, mmzm ~: .
THE MANAGING fiIREC'¥'OR'
BESCQM, CORPORATE OFFICE
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 1.
M
2
3 THE QIRECTQR (AEDMIN 65 H R}
KPTCL, KAVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE «- 1. ...RESPONDE}\{'¥~'S
(BY SR1. N K GUPFA, smrszmns COUNSEL FOR 122-3)
THESE PIETITIGNS FILED UNDER ARTICL,E'--2fi:6'.':'&'~A
227 09 THE CONSFITUTION OF INIHA P_RAYEN{E;~.. "§'{)
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE '{:AsE"'<3_?,
THE PETITIONERS FOR SELECTION’ AND APPC1lNTM.;§’,N”§’ V ~
TO THE POSTS OF JUNIOR E.NGINEER(E2 LE;) UNDER ‘r;m_’*1r_j
mam»; 01:’ COMPUTER SCIENCE IN RES–PONSE.”,~AT() ‘rma:
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY ‘I’HE”–~,R3 ‘mag. A’r~;N;g;–….::)T:.
26.8.’2()O9;AN{) ETC.
THESE PE’i’I’I’IONS,, C<)MI1~m"<5'Nj' 50.8 PRLHEARING
IN 'E' GROUP, THIS DAY' _TH1~:;g MADE THE
FOLLOWING: =
''''
ThevVV".i5i .to be appointed as a
Gauging}; for 5: months ifmm Ja1:1uary 2000
.J1:11;:=; 2O(30"U11§vards, was posted to work as a
aiong with the 211*' petitioner a
' Ledg'er44:VALitcréfi§: Assista1":tt, when terminataé by order
" j – d; a;txij:ci };7%1?~2003 of the Chief Engineer, questioned the
W.P.No.71:'2/2004 which when ciubbed amg
other Writ petitions, was rejected by common Carder
A"–«dated 23–~03-2(){}4 A1mexur6–"A", issuing éirectiens ta
M
3
frame a. scheme as set out in Paragraph 15 to entit§je”‘?}_i€::”‘*.,’
petitioners who are medicaily fit, subject to ”
and possessing flecessary qualifies .3011-to cQi}Isi;1ei”e(ij.
not only for the said }ob but also
the memo {Bed in the Court ‘sags.
In addition, a further cf Section 12 of the Act, 1999, therein to make 3. by the Bangalorcs Limited (for short
‘BESCOM5. «the petitioners, though a
representatio1″¥ w§§s’I$ia<Ai€ 8-3-2004 and 22-03-2004,
né3'Aa(:éim.:1 '53%as'%'taken téhhsorb them into its services but
3.6-«O6-2004 of the Assistant General
Manager (A&.i'.VP), BESCOM irxfmrmed the 2nd petitioner
" his.' wouid be considered as and Whfifi
ariss. The 21*' petitioner asserts that details
previous employment, was made ava;i.1ab}€ an 2-2»
".2Vf)09 and 7~2~2(){)9 to the Exczcutivs Engnesr. it: is
M
4
stated that the 3!” respondent by nofification dated”.
08-2009, AImexur<?:~"J", invited appiic34ti0I1§""'*«'£'ijg"$3;1f,§V'1' "
eligible candidates for appointment to vari€)_13:3 it)
which the petitioners respondeé by ;
on 7-9~»20€)9. it is the a11egat:':m*3.__pf
their request for consideration Gfcasé fielécfion
and appoitamlent on the post of
Junior 'Engineer (E!c(:tI'i<;a§}– véfiong .}itit}{'ofi¥i§i.~~~J;g;}didates
in terms of the. when not
c0nsideIV&t5t'1",%é1'1'dViVi§1§»\riI1g nofified the list
of efigib1ev"'CanI:1 is opposed by filing Statement of
objecticiis V corrienéing that in terms of the
jttdginéizt {his Court, a sacileme Am’1ex1;13:e~”R 1″ was
v4A_f;*§i*:1ixi13;tedV’ an 6-5-2004 and a notification dated 21»-12~
A11nex11re=–“R2″ was issued in exercise of
if-_1:isdictio;”} under Secfimta 12 of the Karnataka
EEK
Eiectricity Reforms Act, 1999 (for Sh{)1″t ‘Act’). it is the
specific case of the respondents; that the
mtitioners, amongst others similarly -2 é
were considered and despite extendiggg the cf u
the scheme, nevertheless did noti.__meet 3 :;_*
standards, in competition d1he1*VI11::§fi1:e:<#iQ;J_is
candidates and tllerefore, thCI_'{3 iS 2.110 merit the
contention that their were §.:1c;i"'*ee{1eidered in the '
matter of recretitmenfi; in,e:mi.js; effihe dated
2e»03»20§;)é)%<A:+ué;%:xu££é§%I¥.e»[Qf
3. Learned fkie petitioner points em: to
Paiagajph _ jfiielgment dated 23-{)2-2004
fi””n.=eXi}{4e;-.¢’g:g_”‘VA’@f tI1eW1ea”‘ rned Single Judge te contend
was to benefit the petitioners
::-juteexzget en the basie of reported 0§iI}i(}I1S of the
.. in the matter of pmviding employment as
VT and therefere, the gpetitiozxers have a vested
wuen future vacancies arise in the respendent —-
M
right to appoinment in any form in I’6CI”£),itII}€{_1t,
absorption, regularisattion, permanency, etc.
additien, learned counsel submits that if the *
petitioners have in fact been .a:en.side:=;4ed ‘
respondent, a iegai duty is cast “7:
make lmown the petitionef fé;te__ of
considerafion. z A A . .
4. Sri. N.K. T — R’ sel for the
reepondent —~ BESSQM, 6 and
7 of the V”State211e:iit’:’ eébjtectiefis, to contend that the
echeme fomvfiatlatyeti’ of the directions of the
–S_’1ngle» “as_a.ppreved by the State Govemment
i-:3 ‘ eXerc1se”ei’«._pewer under Section 12 01’ the Act was
B;1aCie.ét1jplViCé3f;:1e5t’t1’tt) the petitioners amongst others in the
_ iz1_a.tter’§:»f pursuant to the nofificafien dated
Amzexnre-“J” and the petitieners were
to be wantirlg in merit. It is next contended that
the light ef the iaw iaid ciewn by the Censtittition
Lek
we
Bench ef the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE
or KARNATAKA Am) on-mas vs. UBEABEVI
OTHERS 1, the petitioners are disentit}eci_;”‘£($ ”
appointmerlt eemrary to the constimtjonai 3
if the petitioners claim under the eoveréeei’ ‘i;he4._()rr,iez* eve
this Court which cannot but.be___ eoxisimed ‘%’}’iti,gio11_}3 V
employment.
5. Having heard thethe parties
and perused ti1e..p¥.eadings, cc>e:it;e;1tief;s»Vadvanoed by
the iearzfied * “petitioner must stand
repelled the observations of the
Be;1ef1Ai11…IJmadevi’s case at paragaph 43
V made _
V Vfiius, it is clear that adherence to
r’@e’ eff equaiity in public employment is
.. ,a_ base feature of our Constitufion and since
nu * rule of law is the core of our
Censtitutien, a Court would certamly be
‘ disabled from passing an order upholding a
111,12 2035 KAR 269’? : :200e{4} see 1 EKK
/2
violation of Article 14 or in oréering the
overlooking of the need to comply with the
r6quireI11erits of Article 14 read with
16 of the Constfiution. Therefore, coneisteiat ‘. “”
W-‘ith the scheme for public emp§eyment,”‘£1–“{ie» .
Court While laying down 4′
necessarily to hold that l?_u:.t1l_ess 2 V’
appointment is in terms rele1¥e11t.VVArule1éV”‘
and after a proiper cefifiefitipn ameM11gVf5
qualified persons, tl1e:%«-saxiie fist: confer
any night on the is a
contractual l V. _aj)peli1unent
comes td l’aIji_en{§.4a£_€l’1e end. 51* the contract, if
it Were’ eVI1g::»:.ge:3,_1 e:11§’V…or appoirltxnent on
daily W”agee_of Ca’eu}:»3}§_”\.basis, the same would
ecgrlrieu. te an-..__e1id when it is discontinued.
. V. teeijierary employee could not
‘ ,_§e».4be’£egeade pezmanent en the expiry ef
” file –:_c§i’-‘lappointznent. It has also to be
that merely because a temporary
.. Vemelejzee or a casual wage worker is
” – _eei1finued for a fime beyomi the term of his
apmintment, he would not be entitled to be
‘absorbed in regular service or made
permanent, merely on the strength of such
M
continuance, if the 0rig7J:1ai appoinmlent was
not made by fellowing a due process of
selecfien as envisaged by the relevant rules.
It is not open to the Court 1:0 prevent regular
remuitment at: the instance of temp0ra;j£– f A’
employees whose period of employment h{§lSv
come to an end or of ad has employees l
by the very nature of their ajlpoilitrlieixi, ‘V _
not acquire any right. {Ifhe ‘I–ii_@ .
acting under Article 226 eif. me
should not, ordinggilv iSS{1e”_:’dii’ectienS”–ferV4
absorption. reg111ai*i:§a§;it31f;,f’i-.’ 10z4’= fflfirmanent
contiI1uéi1ee., xeemjitxnent itself
wa.s°made .re’g”uJa73’lvl’ee—af:.d in terms of the
constifimenall sc1:t_eme,; Merely because an
etiipleyee eonimued under cover of an
. . c)’i’dei; which we have described
_£3fsf ”_*employment” in the earlier part
.’ . ciiftixe _iiis;l.gtx1ent, he would not be entitled 1:0
@113: ts be absorbed 91* made permanent
.. Vein {lie service. In fact, in each Cases, the
V’ ‘~ Court may not be justified in issuing
interim éire<::tie::n:1e, since, after all, if
Iiltimately the employee approachiflg it is
found entitled te relief, it may be possible for
Eek
_ thus: " _{ l "
E0
it to moulci the reiief in such a manner that
ultimately no prejudice will be caused to
him, whereas an interim dileetiorz
continue his employment would hold 1~1p_.”tl<1e '. :"
regular procedure fer selectioripr
the State the burden of payiilg a1}4T'e_m§1eye{g'*.V
who is really not required. mm; * V' K
be careful in ensuring tliey_ 6.9:
interfere unduly _ with' egofigmie
arrangement of its by vlti1e'»SLate or its
i11str1iIeenta}ities or the
iI1stI1nneI;t5«:te- _ V'p'aesing of
the, stat: mandates. "
Patafié;t)§l. til’ the said. judgment reads
_ hile directing the’: appointments,
casual, be regularised or made
the Courts are swayeé by the
fee: Vltljxat the person concerned has Worked
‘f€)_”:i’ eeme time and in some cases fer a
A’ ‘eefisidemble length at” time. It is not as if
the person who aoeepts an engagement
either temporary or casual in nature, is not
aware of the nature ef his employment. He
MK
£1
accepts the employment with open eyes. It
may be true that he is not in a position to
bargainvnot at arm’s le:I1gth~sim:e he mig¥1t.’4″_»V.’: ”
have been searching for some ernploymieijt, “-”
so as to eke out his iivelihooi aeoepfs» ‘
whatever he gets. But on tlxaf, m*om:id a1o3;1e, ‘
it would not be avsropriate to A’
constitutional scheme of apfieinmenfi ‘
take the View that a who ‘vheasj
temnoraliiv or easssifiygot should
m directed to be c:oz;g’B’i1me¢iiV.VD<§:H:€i'af1e'r;!tIVV. sv
doing so. it of
public hof, permissible.
If t:he'”‘ :%Yeré~..«Vto contractual
ems1{)y’menii on the gound
that ‘the – paifies’ not having equal
bai”‘gaini14ig..pow’er, ‘th2w1t too would not enable
tb….._gfgnt any. relief to that
‘ Dem_p=1oyee_ total embargo on such casual
~. ery empioyment is not possible,
giveI;”1ihe” exigencies of administration and if
imfiesed, would only mean that some people
” at least get empleyment temporarily,
eentractualiy or casually, would mot be
getting even that employment when securing
M
12
ef such employment brings at least some
succeur to them. After all, irlnullierahlej ”
Citizens of our vast country are in Search-,.__i)f.
employment and ene is net. ” ‘
accept a casual or {emporaxyl’».:emplof¢ii1e_i1t’if
one is not inclined to i11’fQr”–suchv5aI;’ ‘
employment. It is in tha’t4c,centext’*–fl:1at H
has to proceed .01} t1’1af’~t,l]e’3
emplovment was accepted the
nature of it and t11.e..”cen§§e<§u<£raceé§' ;filbwiz1e
from it. ln~'o{;'}e1' we-rds,–v.evezl.'\$?i1ile_V}}ieeeptjng
the em151cy*«1fiee;:,: concerned
ellfdlfiioyment. It is
notlaéxzl post in the real
sense loll t;1'1elV"tef1'If1_." .e::_?§'he claim acquired by
ifl the" if} which he is temporarily
. _ 'eIe};iieye<i_er thelllijiterest in that post eaimot
l VA to be of such a magnitucie as
" . hie' giving up of the preeedure
e'etai*-i:liSi"ied, fer maleing regular
e Veapieoiiimlenta 116 available posts in the
V' 2 _sze;:viee of the State. The argument that
einee one has been working for sometime in
the post, it will act be just to discontinue
him, even thcugh he was aware of the nature
M
E3
of the empieyment when he first; took it up,
is not {sic} one that woulci enable the H
jettisoning of the procedure established §:)y '
law for ynblie employment and would I:-fivrey
to faii when tested en the _JtM<31;{ff§.:’ti§:=le..’21 of the Constitution.
:,.’the«}rery “a1*gu’n1en’£ indicates that there
‘ for employment and an
~. for eempeting for
emplwment anti it is in that context that the
Cefisfitution as one of its basic features, has
” iifzeiucied Articles 14, 16 anci 369 so as to
efisure that public employment is given only
in a fair and equitable manner by giving al}
those who are qualified, an o§p0rt1mity to
UK
14
seek employment. in the guise of upholding
rights under Article 21 of the Constitufion, a W
set of persons cannot be preferred 0Ver_Ha,_’4″
vest majetfitji of peeple waiting for
opportunity to cempete__…. for ‘
employment. The acceptencee fl _ 1 the 4′ *
argument on behalf of _ the responde:.:te’ A’ ‘
would really negate the ‘is of 3 the etl*;;efs>4’V S
conferred by Article. 21 Qf–..the_ €3e12etit’:1–tiQnA,v§
assuming that We _ in 3; to held
that the right to emVpley_m.ei1t right
coming the 2 1 of
Tl1eVV__atg_iunent that Article
23 6f the breached because
the enipleyment wages ameunts ta
fdyeed labemi, ieangrlot be accepted. After all,
” the :’etej$§eyees accepted the employment at
and with eyes caper; as te
of their employment. The
(}e’§Ierj mu’ tents else revised the m1’m’m:1m
A. egageeh payable fiem time te time in the light
” all relevant eircumetaneess. It also
appears to us that importing ef these
theeries to defeat the basic requirement of
public employment would defeat the
lralt
IS
constimtionai scheme and the constitutional
gcai of equality.”
(Emphasis suppliecgf.’ ” ‘ jj — : E is A4
At Paragaph 54, it is held ¥:h1;s:~~
“54. It is alst)
decisions which run couiitay to
settled in this decisio1 i;.
directions running ‘:C9un1_:t§i; . we
held herain, wili s;t;a;1d’ %r1%:a:1u¢§1je::%%%j%.i;srkL their
status as pr¢ce§1entS;””–::’; V’ V’ ‘ ”
6. PaI9VV”L’«’r;:::p:’fz% .Co:1stit1::.tion Bench, in
exereiae of 142 of the Constitution,
__in ordegf tudo jtisiiéé, directed that if sanctioned posts
V. would take immediate steps by
a reguiar process of selectioiz and
in smith a’ pi’0ces$, smch of mass employee: in thf:
” Tax Department on temporary casual basis,
aliewed to campete waiving the age restriction
” for the I’€5CI’1J.iEII1€I1’£ and giving some Weightage
M
16
for their having been engaged for walk in the
Department fer a significant period ef time.
7′. A three judge beach of the Apex Ceuxjt,
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR vs. DAYANAND2, néléi 4% ~
Paragraph 55 of the judgment in Umadevi’sI_4ed$e”edid.Vn<§i;.
iay down a iaw. In that View of the :i::;a.t'ijet'; 77:
scheme formulated at 'agfiprdfifed
the State is in violation the ,e'<3;;1.$:£iti;tionai' sehefae in
public empioyment and tk1:eee'V:}3eti'tioners were
disentitieizlt tcav a tzftheir claime in terms of
the scheme. "
firevm any angle, the claim of the
A’-petitienere £923 issue of a writ of mandamus directing the
reépe<)Vit'::dee;r"1i;é."_*v.v.tg:)'fitinsider their case for selection and
V the pest ef' J 1121101' Engneer (Electrical),
' ' trade Computer Science, pursuant to the
d ' ~ :%f{20a9; 1 sec fbabeur e Service) 943
:1?
notification dated 26-08-2009 Annexure–“J”, is
unavaiiabla.
9. in the result, Writ petitions are _
and are rejected.
Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned co11Vi1sei i§::’ if
fiie his memo of appearance “;l_§~»1 fa. .,1.'{}1_1i”
weeks.
KS