_ 1. D'SO=UZA
A * -»2-f SR1 ANANDA SHETTY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
OATEO THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2051};
PRESENT '
THE HON'BLE MR. J. S. KHEHAR, A S
THE HON'BLE MR. JOSTICS' BORé.NRA AV
WRIT APPEAL NO.
BETWEEN :
THE NEW MANGALORE PORT 'i..'RUST'~, " V _
PANAMBUR H. ;
MANGALORS-;5izT.5»w1'O10:__ _ A
REP. BYTHE..C.HA'1RIVULN'_ 1;. , ...APPELLANT
{BY SR1 SHASHTDHAR
M /SA'KES'.7Yf,<3; c'rg1»4RAN'*{, ADVS]
AND:
S/O };ATE..EDWARD D'SOUZA
. EAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
" _NO\V:'WORK1l\fG AS A.T.I.
~. TRAFR1r;..ORRARTMENT
NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST
RANAMBUR, MANGALORE -- 575 010
AND VRESIDING NEAR MUKAMBIKA STORE
~ GANDHINAGAR, RAVOOR
« '_ . MANOALORE -- 575 015
OK. DIST.
S / O LATE SR1 THIMMAYYA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS A.T.I.
TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT
NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE -- 575 010
AND RESIDING DURGA NAGAR
KULAI, HOSABETITU
MANGALORE -- 571 176
D.K. DISTRICT
SR1 K. DAYANAN DA
S/ O LATE SRI RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS A.T.I.
TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT ,
NEW MANGALORE PORT
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE -- 5335' 010
AND RESIDING AT KULAI
MANGALORE--574'1___7'6 5
D. K. DIST - '
.T1~1ETRAY"F1c_1v1ANAGE'R--1l": A ._ .
NEW MANGALQBE P'OR'_i' TRUST A
PANAMBII--R~»<4 ~ _ ._
MANGALDRE 13,575 01'0.'jj Y-
. SR1
AGED Aa3'GIJT;5f6--. ' '
SR1 AJAEEA V V . _
AGED AEDLYYY YEARS
..vENKA'i"RAD'
' '«.AQE_D».ABQ1J'1' 56 YEARS
._ K
A AGED AEQUT 63 YEARS
. SR1» E{.'jBOMMAYYA
.. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
12.
-SR1 GOPALA MAYYA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SR1 KANTHAPPA SHERIGAR
AGED ABOUT 54» YEARS
SR1 RUDRAYYA ACHARY
AGED ABOUT 6} YEARS
,
' .AGE.DAf30UT 57
A 24. BAVOO
~ Vv..VAGED2".J3QUT 57 YEARS
SHETTIGAR
_ 'AGEDABOUT 57 YEARS
E P. RAMACHANDRAN
I3. SR1 HARISHCHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
14. SR1 JAYARAM ALVA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
15. SR} DAMODMQ PK.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
16. SR1 SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
17. SR1 BHASKAR N.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS u
1.8. SR1 SUDHAKAR _ A.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. = A}
19. SRI SHANKA_RS_HET1'Y" -- If A
AGED ABQVUESS YEARS»
20. SR1 .
AGEp_VAE~QUT«:_§7VV3"EA. S ~
21. SR1 VASAN TH .
AGEDABOUT5? YEARS- _
DA NAIR
AGE1; 'YEMS
AGEDABOUT 57 YEARS
27. SR1 AEDUL RAUF
AGEDABOUT 59 YEARS
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
_ 37.
SR1 RAMESH PUTHRAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SR1 RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SR1 JOSEPH D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SR1 PEUS D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SR1 P. SUDHAKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SR1 P.V.K. SHETTYV :
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. '
SR1 KUMAR E'-V « I;
AGED ABQU T354 YEARS ..
SR1 JERO:vIA=D'*SOLIz;«;'.-- A ~
AGED'_ABOUT.:5:9_&'EARS ~
SR1 RA
AGED 'A15:3O1;T'::-O
SLIDARSETAN
'-AGED. AEOUT
Sm Ammpm
" ._ "AGED 'Agog? 55 YEARS
A V _ 39.
5740.' _
A "AGED ABOUT 54YEARS
A :1" 'V .
42.
Sm L. SHETTY
AGEDi.ABOUT 55 YEARS
SR1 PURUS}~IO'l'H,AMA KOTIAN
SR1 MOURICE PERRAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SRI ABDUL HAMEED
AGED ABOUT 54.» YEARS
43. SR1 HARISHCHANDRA T.
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESRONDENTS 5 To 43 ARE ALL WORKENG 0
AS A.T.I., c/o TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT "
NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 570 015
D.K. DISTRICT
.
[BY SR1 NARAYAN BEAT FOR M /S S4UE.jEa«l’RAQ 8: ‘ ‘
COMPANY, ADVS FOR R1 TC) 3 A .. ._
SR1 C JAGADISH, ADV. 816′?) 0
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS____”F.ILED U’/S4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT *R.RAY’1NG To”SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED 11\?T?HE.1w;.j_RVNo;y’ ~36«’L_78/2000 DATED
02/01/2007. v
THIS APPEAL éjommo-._”‘o’:-4.6′ EQR PRELIMINARY
HEARING T1::H_S i3A1″,.CI~I’IEF ,m;sT1cE” DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWINCAELV 5..
J.s.KH1§HAR., C;~J;’7{og?gi1}§6′
issiie; is subject matter of consideration
‘iri”the-vvpreSent.__appeal, is the seniority of respondent
N’os’.”71 to 60.01-‘lV’he seniority list was in the first instance
fudravtrn. 96.06.1996, wherein respondent Nos. 1 to 3
A not been given the benefit of seniority in the cadre
Tally Clerks with effect from the year 1980. T he
aforesaid respondents assailed the order dated
26.06.1996 by filing W.P.Nos.19908 to 910 of 1996.
The aforesaid writ petitions came to be disposed of, by
3%” 3%”
A in V ‘ f Regtllations’).
4. During the course of hearing, two
contentions have been advanced at the hands_:’the
learned counsel for the appellant.
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were not eligible for”prflor_n,oltionV ii”
the post of Tally Clerk in the year
could not have been granted_tl1eV benefit seninriityi with * in
reference to the year “Secondly, itliiat the
examination/selectionuél in the year
1980 itself .l3eei;;1f V’ as such, no
benefit coiilri bé;gra3:.tedi’in3tte .1 r’e’spo:ndent Nos. 1 to 3 with
reference 1the’ysel:ection’process held in the year 1980.
5. in =..plInsofar raised at the hands of
theappellant”‘ concerried, the same have to be
the basis of New Mangalore Port Trust
flfiecrnitment, Seniority and Prornotion)
V –V Regiilatiepnslll 1980 [hereinafter referred to as ‘l98O
it is acknowledged by the learned
counsel for the appellant, that the 1980 Regulations
‘4 hyvere relevant for determining the conditions of eligibility
for promotion to the post of Tally Clerks. Entry 36 to
fjj ‘ .
the Schedule appended to the 1980 Regulations, lays
down the eligibility conditions for promotion. Agsgper
entry 36, 10% of the posts of Tally Clerks
filled up by way of a departmental
to Class–lV employees of the
said 10% departmental promotli0:flil”–.quott:{.,
qualifications and eligibility been
prescribed:
” (b) 10% bitheyvacancies'”i1’1″‘the grade of Tally
Clerk; iwill..Vbe’?’1jese1_Ve’d_ior’bcir1g filled by class IV
employees :jborne«.otnl_’ the” regular establishment of
tlr1e”Po1″ft sifi;bje’ct”–.to ltlxefl following conditions,
rialnely-V”. l l
(i) ‘=,Selectioi1.g’ would be made through a
‘Departmental’ examination or test confined
to “‘s1__1ch class IV employees who fulfil the
1 ~ijequirerI’1’ent of minimum educational
_ -qualifications, namely Matriculation or
‘vequiyalent qualifications:
‘-_r(ii)l ‘ A7)-‘l’l1ge’ maximum age for this examination or
~_t’.est will be 40 years [45 years for the
Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes
A employees):
(iii) At least five years, service in Class IV
establishment will be essential: and
(iv) The maximum number of recruits by this
method would be limited to 10% of the
Vacancies in the Cadre of Tally Clerks
occurring in a years, unfilled vacancies will
not be carried over to the next year.”
wvew
6. We shall have to determine the eligibility of
respondent Nos.1 to 3 based on the conditions., of
eligibility delineated hereinabove. Insofar
contention advanced by the learned the
appellant is concerned, it was
Clause {3} extracted herein-a_.bove,_V_lto for
promotion to the post of of the
Class IV establishmentlnas haveuatleast five
years service. .1Responderit having been
appointed to the learned
counsellfor fulfill the aforesaid
eligibility 1980, when they were
perrnitted ‘take’. departrnental examination for
“‘-prorenotion to the of Tally Clerks. According to the
for the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 to
3 had service for a period of four years 11
:fi”monthsr—-only on 11.10.1980. Being short of five years
serviee, it is asserted, that there was no justification
rmrlhatsoever for the learned Single Judge to accept the
claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for the grant of the
benefit of seniority with reference to the year 1980.
W’*’*’*”5:”fiQ’
11
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration
to the first contention advanced at the hands o’f’–.the
learned counsel for the appellant. While
plea of deficiency in five years service, a.s__t_h.e basis of ._
ineligibility of the respondents for prornjoti,on,_to:
of Tally Clerk, learned counsel fordthe’ tasljghas
been noticed hereinabove, the-year service
acquired by respondent ‘Sgtill the date of
holding of the lpe§:.arnination on
11.10.1980,. hands of the
learnedllcounsfel by treating the date of
the as the cut oil” date, in our
View, is wholly unfustilied. The conditions of eligibility
“v’ext”1″acted l’1ereinaboye (from the 1980 Regulations) do
the aforesaid determination. In our
cons_ide_red,l’Fyiew, from the conditions of eligibility
‘extracted hereinabove, it emerges, that a quota limited
*1-(lo/o reserved for promotion to the cadre of Tally
“clerks, is determined year wise. This is apparent from
Clause (4) extracted from the Schedule reproduced
above. If that is so, the eligibility of respondent Nos. 1
Ewe we
12
to 3 had to be determined with reference to the year
1980. Since respondent Nos. 1 to 3 came rtoggbe
appointed with the Trust on 01.12.1975……3;fi¢’defers
satisfied, that they acquired five years hm;
01.12.1980. Thus. in our considered’ifilewg’A1″esp.o3identi’
Nos.l to 3 were eligible under Regulations’;’forV”*w.p
promotion during the year _A referericelirnade at
the hands of the app’ella«nt 1′ holding of the
departmental examinati.ori,’–..for: eligibility, is
wholly €1aJw,_utherefore hereby
rejected.
8. it ‘secoi;-d.””-contention advanced by the
learried ie.coun”se.lLvi”or the appellant, is based on the
by the Chairman of the New
Trust, wherein it is sought to be
that the process of promotion was
13 midstream, for the year 1980. The solitary
‘ Jiustiiicatiori for abandoning the process of promotion.
has been depicted in the order dated 31.10.2000
was, that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not fulfill the
condition of eligibility for promotion to the post of Tally
rww
Clerks. In our conclusion recorded in the first issue
hereinabove, we have not accepted the aforsesaid
determination at the hands of the Chairman.
process of selection was completed “at
departmental examination, wherein» _ — _
to 3 were placed in the orderpof at dgf
other candidates, we are lltliatdit ‘Was not
justified for the appellants the process
of selection heen completed.
Thus respondent Nos.
1 to to the post of Tally
Clerks “the artmental examination held
in thle..yearl”lS7):V8{}§h.’-aslalso, on the basis of their position
in the merits. list in the said selection process.
it is noticed from the pleadings
filed— on; of the appellants, that respondent Nos. 1
eventually came to be promoted to the cadre of
Tally: Clerks in 1983, yet the appellant by themselves
Eindertook before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(in the proceedings held on 16.06.1983] that for the
purpose of seniority, irrespective of the fact of their
actual promotion, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would be
granted the benefit, which was more advantageoiis to
them. based on the competitive examination
in 1980. Having acknowledged the afores_aid’,:.A.lit
not lie in the mouth of the
benefit of seniority to respo_ndent_vl\Tos. 3
reference to the year 1980. on of our
conclusion recorded as also
herein above, We contention
advanced by appellant.
lilo was advanced at the hands
of the learned V the appellant.
For the “reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
instant Writ appeal and the same is
accordi’nglc3r__, dismissed.
sd/–
Chief lustice
Sd/–
Ifidge
hrp
Index: Y/N