ARo:,'J",V IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE___ DATED THIS THE 14" DAY or DECEMBER, 2009: PRESENT THE I-£ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE v. G__QPA_i_A Go'w*D!:x. THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE-..E§.V. Vi\IAC;ARA*iii§i'i\1I1I_=.,.__., I? WRIT APPEAL M364/2Ie.;:s 1, BETWEEN 'A t' N N. Ramesh, S/o C. Narayanappa, Age 50 years, , --. Working as Deputy-v!V!an?a_g.er" In the Govt.Tooi F1003-Tand"*-- » ' Training Centre,___ " -:.;;,__ , " Rajajinagar Ir1Vdl.EState, Bangalore ' -- I , ' Appeliant (BV§r"Sri'vNar'aya..na'~~Bhat, Advocate for ' " I"»'!/E.' Subba Rao & Co.,) 1. "I_fh'e ,_G'overIimen_t'_Tooi Rooms An.d"Ti'aini'n_'g-Centre, . Representedby its Vice Chairman and MD . Ra_;ajI'nag--ar Industrial Estate, *B,angaloref1~ Ap'p«;.Inni, _ r._D'E%_pi3iY General Manager, ._"'Government Too! Room _, . Training Centre, '*,Ra}aJinagar Industrial Estate, " Bangalore. Kandaswamy, Deputy General Manager, Government Tool Room & Training Centre, Rajajinagar Industrial Estate, Bangalore. S.M. Hosurkar, Deputy General Manager, Government Tool Room & Training Centre, Rajajinagar Industrial Estate, G Bangalore. P.B. Kamtar, V _ '- Deputy General Manager, Government Tool=Room,"' - if V & Training Centra,_, Rajajinagar .I,nd.osifjr'ia~_l Estate, Bangalore. i V.V. Payrvjalthlkiair, V Principal, STU GovernmentVVToo!_Rvo.oi'n. &Training=Centre,= A V Rajajinagar I'ndust,ri',-al Estate, Bangaiore, " Anand J<5;§m,f«. '-,Mana'ger",, i GOVé_iTll'n,éi'i1Z,_TO.Q5""ROOlT} & "l"rai'ning .CeT_nt"re, Be!ag«oia,._Indu'-strlal Estate, iv Respondents
–..V(By;Srl K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Advocate for R6,
gsri R. Rajagopalan, Advocate for R1, 2, 4 & 5)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ
petition No.30637/2002 dated 22.01.2008.
This Writ Appeal coming on for dictating
day, V. Gopala Gowda.J., delivered the following:
This writ appeal is directed against…Eh4e._o.rder””dated
22.1.2008 passed in w.P.No.3o63’7;i;2uoo2″«(S4PR3}.:wyeogtVio.idiag
the correctness of the same The
learned Single Judge adV€Ttll’l«._Cl:”t.OA t_he;_threevireliiefs as prayed at
prayer columns A, B and C xvvri-t_appxe’alyfagftler adverting to
the rival legal conVtevnti}on’s the parties, we
examined in this appeal with a
view to find out: appellant is entitled for the
same. Insofar as”‘-vpriayer; in”v.cla’use B seeking to direct the first
resbonydesvi.t}°~tQ’-..A.:piepare”a'”‘seniority list of the appellant and to
effectg_l_thel_”p.ro’nfioti’onishuas per rules applicable and to redo the
in”p.romotio’n_s alrealdiyfilmade and further direction issued to the
–.%_r’_esp’ongdents” prepare the seniority list and effect the
Api’o.n1otionsfthereafter in accordance with the rules applicable,
. is rejected by the learned single judge in the impugned
challenged in this writ appeal urging various grounds.
lw
4
2. The ground of attack of the impugned order by the
smallest is that learned Single Judge did not consider the ground
urged in the writ petition insofar as the promotions of
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who are non–graduates under
R Rules which was approved by the State
could not have been promoted above the, cadre it
Under the new C & R Rules they canlnot1’_’_be’corrie_'”‘?’ng_iun’efers:,l–:,
which is an Executive Grade–II posL,._V:To_ become» anti-.Eng’i’ii’ee’r by ” R
promotion one has to be senior for.enfia_n”‘–.by sle’lectio,n’§. If the
minimum experience of an empl.oytee.VAi’fix’ed:l_lower post for
promotion is7i_:ai’e”:set ” ‘
aside.
4. Another ground attackflof’ order is that the
learned Single that the respondent
i\los.2 to 5 were the post higher than that
of the foremanunldierltr-e”‘O’id and Recruitment Rules and
they were not g.ualifier!._V_to’hoI:»j any post in the cadre of Assistant
Manyagierirour abovejfiiinder the new rules. Further the learned
singlel”‘j_ud’g__e ‘i\~:hia’ve taken into consideration the above
Vfirelevant alsipect ofvthe matter viz., once the rules do not provide
l4_’fo’l~4.4’prornotionvot respondent i\los.2 to S to the cadre of higher
of a foreman under the old C 8: R Rules to the
‘%”””.:,V_post”of”lAssistant Manger under the New Rules, they cannot
the posts of the Deputy General Manager in the first
iit_/
respondent–company. Non–consideration of this aspect of the
matter by the learned singie judge has rendered the impVu’g_ned
order erroneous in law and therefore, the same is |iabie._EQVVbe”iset
aside.
5. Except the respondent Nos.E.’ and oth’etsv:..ate.:’3not
graduates in the Engineering courses: -.V_Since«.th.eyV}are not
graduates, they cannot becozné Manager of the
first respondent company. This.jasp’ec’:_o.i*”v_the1~y.’rnatter was not
appreciated by the7_iea:{f’ned.,§ing.I_e }_uVdjge’.’u:’H’ence, the order is
erroneous in:’i’ayiii’andtheiifi-;’anfie.eVi:s iia’a_l’e'”to be set aside.
6. Further the ie’a.rn’ed’S_ingyle¢i-udge ought to have noticed that
th«e=fi_rst’respiogindent shou.i.c.i«’not have given promotion to them
without’.p’reparatio’n::’of.the seniority list in the cadre. Promotions
“”‘vi,_,,_h.ave tote’ effe.ci:_e5 in accordance with the C 8: R Rnies by
_4flf.o_i4iowging the se_nior’:ty list. It is not open for the first respondent
‘1._’i:’o.A__p=iT_a’ce Iagperson in the higher cadre under the C & R Ruies
V’ i’.’wit’h’out’g;preparation of seniority iist and non-appreciation of this
of the :’§’%atter by the learned single judge rendered the
\’i/
order erroneous in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside.
7. The learned counsel for the first resiizorident”ha’s..:sough’t.tog:
justify the order passed by the iearnedi.4Si:n’g!e
order of promotion given to respondent No-s..2 to
and 7 interalia contending that thep.apipe_li~ayVnt no:t._AAeVntitled to
question the same before this”courtby{.1nit’i’a.tVi’:n:g’writ proceedings
belatedly, after tong laflse of.-time:”‘fro~m::».ythe;d.a’teof promotions
given to them. iealrlned Single Budge
ought to have the writ petition.
Further the actioniAoff’-“1-Vheiwfirst..l:re.spondent in promoting to the
respondent Nos’. post is justified contending
that the saigné is in ai’c..c:ordanV:c:e ‘with the C & R Rules, no doubt
Abeen approved by the State of Government
noneth”el_e’s.sp.th’e7g,pp~e’i’iant herein cannot challenge the same as
l”.;–heVw_as ap’p–oint’ed=o:n a temporary basis in the year 1990 and he
the different departments of the first respondent-
the promotions were given to him. Hence, the
E””‘~.l,_appeI’iarit cannot have any grievance against either the first
i./
respondent or promoted respondents to question their
promotions.
8. With reference to the above rivai iegal contentii-ons:”Lirgeid”:i’
on behalf of the parties and on perusal,of..r4eie~Jant”d’ocdrnents.,.
produced on both sides, we are pleased-Ato1’_’_press’~trie..–‘folVloVigvin§l-1.
order:
The learned Single Judge, afte_r.._cionsi’derinig”the rival legal
“contentions rightly passed rejecting the
prayer columns “A” ar'(‘j’,\\VE'{ partly’ to prayer column
“C” and issued the.«rr’-iiajntliaafiius:_:t_o’the–..first respondent to prepare
the seniority list the prayer of the appellant to
prepare the senierit=yVlis’t _o’i’V.’theTf;.adre and thereafter give effect
to the prorhgotvioiaz to ti*ie.._rl:éspoiident Nos.2 to 7 after quashing the
order of’prornoitiony4§«–§._vei’i to them.
Aftér’44._hea_’ri%’:fiidtiiei iearned counsei for the parties, we direct
resplendent to file expianation, explaining under what
‘Wfj._ci’rc’urns.tanees the §ZH'{)lTlOt§Oi’lS have been given to respondent
.t.c-F5 and 6 and 7, in the absence of Cadre 8: Recruitment
without coiiside ciaim of the appeliant herein
and he had signed the affidavit. After perusai of the detaiied
affidaxn/it fiied on 19.1i.2oo9 and the roiis of the afo.r’esfa~id.
respondents produced for our perusai with a view to__exarni”n§e ~
correctness of the order of promotion__g.i..ven to”the’_jvafo’res.aidV_V
respondent N032 to 7.
10. We have heard the learned with
reference to the affidavit and”thé.fiié–e_sf:of. furnished by
the first respondent, we iiave:i’c’ar.ef’piiVy correctness
of the claim of tiie. of the learned
Single Judge with and also the originai
files of respondent
11. The iearneti’- psénggié..fjg;}udge””a’fter applying his mind with
reference to the ii-agfai ‘contentions urged on behalf of the
pavrties. |3y”vireco’rdingé reasovnsffdeciined to grant the reliefs “A” and
g “B” ofi.th’e.i.p’ra§_):’e.iji.t;oninfir’i and partly granted prayer column C as
V7_ji’ndicatedfaahovve ~w;it..nAfV;-egard to preparation of seniority list. It is
“a.n»-V’43g_ndisputéd.g__iazgt that promotions are given to respondent
the higi’ie;’ post in the absence of the Cadre &
Raecriiitnffent Rnies of the State Government as required in law in
ii/
13
promote with a View to achieve the laudable object of public
sector undertaking and further the Principal Secretary’-“must
review the entire recruitment made to various po§t?*3,VVei4the’i<V
directly or by promotion with a view to see the irreg'u:!jar%t§aeét'ttatridji
should not be alfiowed to __happen "the"._ V:S'e'ctor'.
1/{»"~tL., Kr.rnr3$«V\" §'jf"'7t4' EX
undertakings ,.,\This direction shaii be con7.p|:ied'with_«._ihy..t'he-;:"'Pr,lif~_
Secretary to the Industries and Co'nfi:rn–ercevh Depa.rctjinei§tV'VVof'V the
State Government within four' nj_:onthS"'fr*o:rn uthe dateof receipt of
a copy of this order.