IN THE HIGH OOBRT or xmlwruu. xr
DATED nus THE 1373 an or V 7T[j . T4
PRESENT
mm I-IOIPELE mmcvmac JV¢2r$_4EPIi4;----(_§i-EIEF' = V
AND ' 4
mm I-zozmm mR.Jt':sfinr:E7"1§.egi(z _ ma'
Wm: 59% no; 3:: of
§:cntl1..a;.;!;':«.:-.,.4l;:_;_of~:%i:«'4,m" 'A ~ '
Between:
Shri M.Muzami1 ;:
S10 late Abdu1"?;a.?1ct:7r
Aged about:32*_4 yca_1*s"< _» V _ _
Working as Assistant §3'x.e:f(:1.;fi'r..r¢:"'-T.__ _
I-Iebbal Division,uK?'I'CL,_ '
Hebbal, Bangalolh.' % . . " .. Appellant
(By 'Mom'£huja,___{§dvocatc)
A1A1'€l_:_V » ' '
The Managing DiI"_'<:-ct'm'
V V "K;P.T.C. L._,
Tjjfind. H.F.'.[)C, Cauveiy Bhavan
-...I%3~m.1_g":a1oz'e -~ 5fi»01~O09 .. Respondent
Rae, Advocate for Sri Harikrishna I-iolla,
_ VT ~'Ffi1's writ appeal along with I.A.No.1 of 2007 coming up for
"ax;1;3;}éssion on this day, the Court delivered the it'olloWing:-
JUDGMENT
CYRIAC JOSEPH Cd. (Oral)
1. This Writ appeal is am against the judg§§e:§i.’.1*;d;é.:eri’
14.09.2006 in Writ Petition No. 46799, __of 2ee3’1′.3yh$ch”..wa$”” V
dismissed by the learned Single Judge. g’i’h.e
petitioner in the writ petition.
2. The appefiant was §.:As§” Engineer in the
K.I’-‘.’1’.C.L. on compags.-sionate”_ As per
A11nexu.re–A order that the
appellant the probation on
06.09.1996. the year 1999 the appellant
requested 1. for Assistant Engineer and it was
the ‘reepettdeiitdvvide Annexume-C endorsement dated
}.5.’G2.’i§99. stated in Annexure-C is that the appellant
7was neat ‘eppointment as Assistant Engineer as per the
» Reenfiiment Promotion Rules which were in force during his
period’ . The appellant made further representation in
V” smdzttter, but the request was turned down vide Annexure-B
.etidorsement dated 06.1 1.2001. Acxxyxding to Annexure-D only a
person who has completed seven years as Junior Engneer is
eligible to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer
respondent was not inclined to relax the rules to
the appeflant and other similarly _pers_o’n’s?.’ Cf
thereafter the appeflant filed Writ e.”.jF;). i
praying for a direction to the zesponadezlt iof *
transfer as Assistant Engneer. The petition
was that aeooniing to Gated 26.07.1986 a
Junior Engineer who could
be appointed by Engineer and that
since the Qualification and since there
were iiefetiihiesistant Engineer, he ought to
iiaire been to the cadre of Assistant Engneer.
that the requirement of minimum service
of seven-i’_ Engineer was intmduced only as per
Qrdwdatcd 30.11.1995. According to the petitioner
H were wracai ncies in existence dunn’ g the penod’ from
(the date of satisfactory completion of probation) and
and hence the pefitioner could have been promoted to
cadre of Assistant Engineer against one of the available
vacaficies. However, the learned Single Judge did not accept the
contention of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.” V
3. In mew’ of the inadequate pleading :_a.nd._paI’t4c4 7′ #113313 V’ ” V’ V
petition and in View of the ram’ re of the”:.petifie::zef=fO”six)§is.e.:=: i.he
correct text of the relevant rules it haavefibeen’ Ivioti L’
impossible for any one to__ of the
petitioner. Equally useless was “tl1c’«~_stz1te’.ri:;a:§wt. fitgpjocsons filed by
the respondent in the _ we have made
earnest eiforts to anxiety to ensure
that no izljusfizioe is t9″‘aIl5P€}1ant.
uwhat vee from the mateziais placed on
1996 a Junior Engineer who possessed B.E.
or could be appointed by transfer in the
eadre of Engineer without insisting on any minimum
The requirement of minimum service of seven
introduced for the first time as per Am1exure~–B order
VT 30.11.1996. The ciaim of the appellant for appointment to
the cadre of Assistant Engnecr was in respect of the
to 30.11.1996.
5. It cannot be disputed that the appefiante VV 2
appointed by transfer in the cadre of Aseigtérit’ :he_
completed the period of pmbafion irrthe uf’ V L’
The appcllanfs probation was deeB3red_ the “cas;lIe,,:§of Junior
Engineer with efiect from ?3iif§l:lre’orticr declaring the
probation was passed pnly:-On” 1″ Annexure-B
order dated 30.1; V’ ::;'”ot1:.cr words, by the
time the probéiieziiiieoi; deciarcd the new Rule
insisting oxra mH1Im” V’ seven years had already come
intoforce. * 2
6. Even »t1_1ough-.. method of xecnzitmcnt to the post of
appointment by transfer in addition to
the ‘ and promotion the materials placed on
any ratio for each of the methods.
-. jifiherefom, “e§en if the method of Ieczuitxnent provided for
by transfer. the appefiant could not have clann’ ed
ggrzent as a matter of mg’ ht. Neither the petitioner in the Writ
petition nor the respondent in the statement of
disclosed Whether there were any other qualified
who were senior to the appeflant in fl3e.ead_:e of d” V
during the xelevant period.
7. The claim of the appellant cou’kl:Vxi1ot Vt
for yet another reason. isyiio ‘evetiaent that dtzling the
period from 06.09.1996 and £30.11 fepvjaellant had made
any request for appoititmenitfee u Even afler
declaration of wide ogtier dated 22.05.1997,
the appeflalttd did’ ~ immediately. The
appellant at-3 ilsequest for the titst time only in
the year 1099 Wes vide Annexune~C order dated
a_He ehallenge Annexure~C order in any Court
of Vt He appears to have made further
‘ Vt o’*A….repIese’3attei’tion_ was rejected vide Annexurev-D order dated
he kept quiet for another two years; and filed the
on 27.10.2003. Hence the respondent was justified in
contention in the statement of objections that the writ
,’ liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches alike. In the above circumstances, we do not fin?! any
in the Writ appeal, the Writ appeal is dismissed.
8. Since we are dismissing the apptéal
not considered the application for oon§iG3}ati<$n'«– pf 'H'I'11sc
Justice
Judgg