1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. EUSTICE ANAND 1BTYj}§g,gig;5¢DY E Q
WRIT PETTTTON No. i93: 7 i2,c2_Q;zjgis+Pr<io;. i _ii 'E1
BETWEEN:
Sri.S.S.Menasagi,
Son of Sri.Shankarappa',
Aged about 44 years, " ii A .L _ AA
Presentiy working as Assistant Engine~:eri '
Karnataka i-Iou;'5.i'r;;€ Board] ' V
cmagurga
Chitrad'ur_g'aT,_ PETITIONER
(By S'hri.B . Baje nt:'i,iiAdiivocate)
oifjKi"arnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
-- Department of Housing,
" _Vi~kasa Soudha,
" BaI1gaE.ore--56O O}.
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
K.G.Road,
Banga1ore~560 O09,
Represented by its Commissioner.
3
l\)
3. The Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan, : ~----
K.G.Road, y_ 1 --
Banga1ore--~560 009. ..R}E1SPONiij
(Additional. Government Pleader' for Respioiidenti'iii: '
By Shri.Vishnu D.Bhat, Advocate_for_ Respo.adent.2):§
This Writ Petition hisfi1edi'under'Artieles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of irzdiajprayingi to 'quash the impugned
endorsement. "dated issued by the
respondent,.f%"«.\/idgeiAnnex1ire--Pandto direct the respondents to
consider the c_.Iai_rni’ot’ thelpeti’ti.onei**v,for promotion to the post of
AssistvantExeetutirgeppEngineer retrospectively from the date this
juniors were.fhprorhote_d’and grant him all the consequential
benefits V i it i ‘
ThisWristji5’etitioin«eorning on for preliminary hearing this
day,’ the Court» made the foliowingz —
ii …..
V V _ Heardcounsei for the petitioner and the respondent.
p iiiihe facts as stated by the petitioner are that the
iipietitioner has passed SSLC examination and has obtained a
iifNatior1a1 Trade Certificate in the Draftsman (Civil) Trade
3
awarded by the National Council for Vocationa1:t”‘F–rain_i_ng _._and
Vocational Trade, Ministry of Labour, Gox-ernjinentfiof Ingdia..gaK_
which according to the petitionergis f_trea:ted=_as.. equivialierttveto
Diploma in Civil Engineeri1ig;t.__The certiificate: ‘produced at”
Annexure — A, to the writ petiti_or1E’
The petitioner sub’rr1i’ts_V that the-‘Gove’i’nin1ent of Karnataka
has treated thisijeijelkliatiolnali_’I’rad_e._Ce’riifieate in the Trade of
Draftsrnainii(Civil) eiqi:uiivale’nt.iito’ the Diploma awarded by the
Polytechnicsg in,the:fA’cor1=es’po’nding Trades for the purpose of
app;oi’nt_n1ent tostlhordinate services and posts under the State
copy of the Government Order in this regard,
is produced as Annexure M B.
it The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and
it fh–e was entrusted with technical work attached to the post of
-‘Draftsman i_n £983. His appointment was regularized in the post
of Second Division Assistant. Subsequently, on 31.03.2000, the
4
third respondent by an order had regularized his appgoingtment
with effect from 01.07.1993 in the post of
Engineer. The petitioner has been subsequentiyassigned?» the
pay–sca1e of Rs.4575–8400, whichiis the*.pa3;,sfcaiefpiaggssea
then for the post of Di’aftsma1d/I unioriingineerziviiiii
The petitioners he-._was appointed in an
independent charge of th~eV_po’_st Engineer (Re-
designated as Mariager-) uinder ‘RL::ie=i’32…o:f the Karnataka Civil
Serviiees ‘RL11eis~.’:’:’-~.I§’e.0i”wgas~– ‘posted as Manager (Assistant
Executive 4-Enginee_z’)ii.n¥eh-arge of new scheme at Hubli.
if ‘V”Ifhe.i'”p;eti.tioner was promoted aiongwith others on
Assistant Engineer. The pay–sca_le of the
Apetitiontér was fixed under the post of Assistant Engineer by a
‘me.rnorandum dated 15.10.2004 with effect from 15.06.2004.
4. The first respondent had published a draft amendment
to the Cadre and Recruitmgt Rules of the Karnataka Housing
Board and from the provisions in the draft~…c»adrc’.j’
Recruitment Rules in respect of the ca.d.re_:”ewof’Vi./Assistants’
Executive Engineers, l()% of the postsiinthe’-eadre—ofafiissistaiat
Executive Engineers werev’iVproposed._ ‘top beviiifiiiedppp
deputation of the officers in L Executive
Engineers from they lb-ihpartment, 60% by
promotion frorntiie working in the
Karnataka qualification, and 30% by
promotioni” sisaidii with Diploma in Civil
also proposed to prescribe a
minitmirn of’-not”lessV’than 3 years of service in the cadre of
VA Asisistant Engineers for promotion as the Assistant Executive
r
The petitioner had filed objections to the draft cadre
“i’–!andi’Recruitment Rules. It was his case that he had rendered 22
years of service in the post of Draftman / Junior Engineer and
to include Draftsman shi%in the rules for promotion as
Assistant Executive En ineer. He had re eated. his
representation and pointed out that the Departn;1’e’n«t..’of:
Planning and in the Bangalore Developmentaffitutliorirty,
Draftsman ship is treated as equivalergt’ alcclfipljomlaliiicnpCivil
Engineering and a promotioiial”~avenuev- has been “pro-vid–ed and’
that similar provision be made–in”-the~..Cadre’ andfiecfuitment
Rules of Karnataka Housing 0 0
6. The: v-first:ilresporidentj.._had’2«lfinalized the draft
amendment on’l’l§’In respect of promotion to the cadre
of Assistant00Execu_tiv’eilEn~g_ineers the method of recruitment the
sari’*:e §prov_isionl”a’sv-.i.n.the draft Rules has been retained except
=ih_a:_ i’n.,_ptl1et’..cVas.e of Diploma Holders the minimum service
lsh£o0uldv.be vears and in case of degree holders, it should be 3
A years.v,Tlhe petitioner however, has not received any reply to the
0 V 0 ‘1’e}_:>.fese ntation.
7. The third respondent had submitted a proposal on
09.12.2005 to state thagthe peti’tione1′ possessed the
qualification of Draftsman (Civil) and since the
been incorporated in the Cadre and Recruitme,ri’t’*r.Ruie’s _and”heu
has been denied promotion of AslsistantiEngineer.holdingithe
Drafsmanship in Civil Eiigineering
09.08.2006, the third respondeiiitl:A’hasusentharereidortiito the first
respondent stating thatithie ifljififilldlng the Rules of
recruitment suitably the next meeting of
the i:t’akev’n_ iii_;the’éoard meeting would be
comrVnluiiliic’ated’_V As there were no further
developments,’ repeated his representation. In
response, the ‘second respondent has informed the petitioner that
does’ n.ot’..possess the essential educational qualification for
post of Assistant Executive Engineer and as
fares the “review of Rules of Recruitment is concerned, it would
2 be’«..placed= before the Board and further action would be taken
lfafter decision of the Board. It is in this background that the
petitioner is before this Court.
“é
8. The counsel for the petitioner would s1i«b.rnitl:itiiatlthe
petitioner possesses the educational qua_l.ific_at.ion.:”nainely,
National Trade Certificate in is
treated as equivalent to a diploma in Civil Eng.i’nee:rin_g in terms v
of the Government Order iandigtherefore it is
not correct to hold tha.il:i”the§l~. not possess the
prescribed promotion to the
post of ‘
__ that for holding the post of
in Civil Engineering is also
pVre3s.cri_bcdv. The*pe_t_i_tionei’ who possesses the National Trade
‘ ‘D_raftsrnat1 (Civil) have already been appointed as
lA_slsistant’Enrgineer. There was no substance in the contention
thatdid not possess a Civil Engineering degree and
‘iti1elrefore could not be promoted. Since the petitioner posses the
rlqualification of a Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering, he is
en_titled to the post of Assistant Engineer insofar as experience
3
of five years is concerned, the petitioner contends thatine has
been working as Assistant Engineer since 22 y-f;;’El’i’S..iVfIT(‘j’1;i.”,I.;._I’iii€
date on which he was placed on independent. ~e–.».ar:gei the p_:os–t..
of Assistant Engineer under Rule’».__32:1’of_ ii’the..KAarnatai§a__ Civil
Services Rules. If this is taken into conside3fatiC$_n; tne..petitionerri’
meets the criteria of experien_ee:’and*therefore.__is_entit1ed for
promotion and would is’tiit)_rnit’ theevi:i_deiiiaVl of promotion is
arbitrary and_in–iv:io§ation oftize Article 320$ the Constitution of
India, A ii
10f-.._ViBy the respondent having entered
appearance and ihavv.i,n_.g filed statement of objections to contend
A *tli_at tthe,_pe:t’i’tioner’s claim to promotion to the post of Assistant
I£h_tecutVi.ize Ezigineer, retrospectiveiy, from the date on which his
AJuniors__iwere promoted is not maintainable on the ground that
ii -..viti1e…iApetitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and he was
-“regularized in the post of Second Division Assistant.
3;
Thereafter, by virtue of an order dated 3_E.03.2000 designated
8
10
the petitioner as Draughtsman instead of Second Division
‘Assistant with effect from 01.07.1993 and the petitiovne1*..haying
been granted pa}/«scale of Rs.4575~8400 applicahie-0
of Draughtsrnan. Though the .pe»titione:f’pplaCi¢d
independent charge of the post of on
petitioner claims to be promotedas Assistant…Engi’neer’ and the
pay of the petitioner w'”as_fi_xedminiilejpay~scale”ofithe post of
Assistant Engineer only 15.10.2004 and
thereforeiithe.i}p_etitii’oner’could notihe considered for promotion
to the ‘puostppof Assistairi-t__iiExecutive Engineer as he was not
eligible to the ‘revised cadre and recruitment Rules, which
‘conterilplates._ the requisite experience of 5 years in the cadre of
~_ V”ssistantfingirieer and hence, the denial of promotion.
0’ Given the circumstances that the petitioner possessed
degree equivalent to that of diploma holder in Civil
-“Engineering, which was the qualification prescribed and the
fact that the petitioner also was placed in independent charge as
%
Assistant Engineer with effect from .14.06.2000. The denial of
promotion merely on the ground that he was fo1’rnali’yi’j;3.r_’On:1ioted
as Assistant Executive only in the year 2004,
not possess the requisite qualification is a dcenialiiof._the”acttial
services rendered by the petitioner. aridtihe pert1)rrnai1ce=.’ofrthe..L
duties as Assistant Executive iri”i’independe’r;t_ oihairgefli
The petitioner’s qua.l_ifi.cation the qualification
prescribeidi,”‘ would meet both the conditions,
namely,’ the_qua.l_ifi~eation__:ias “Well as the criteria of experience.
Therefore, ith-e_de’nial’ of the promotion to the petitioner is
as rightly contended in violation of Article 14 of
~_th.e_Co1is’t’itutiori. of India. Hence, the writ petitioner is allowed.
Annex’ure”–i P is quashed.
The respondent is directed to consider the case of the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer
retrospectively, from the dag his juniors were promoted and
E2.
grant him ah consequential beiaefits within a
weeks, if not earlier, from the date ofleceipt’ ‘Of”aEC_€fi’i’fied copy’ .
of this order.
_ ‘v«…_ ju§ge_.”
J}