IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.36634 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN MR C GIRISHA S/O LATE G.K.CHALUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.259/A, 2ND CROSS, MATEAGAHALLI EXTENSION MYSORE-570 016.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI NISHANTH A V & SRI GIRISH KUMAR B M, ADVOCATES) AND 1. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO.6, JALABHAVAN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO.6, JALABHAVAN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029.
(BY SRI H N SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE BY ... RESPONDENTS KESVY AND CO., ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:16.8.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE R-1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of the learned counsels, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent- Board, on compassionate ground. The petitioner made an application to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate ground in view of the death of petitioner’s father, while in service. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was Bachelor of Commerce from University of Mysore, even as he made the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. On 29.09.2014, the petitioner was appointed to the post of ‘attender’ in the respondent-Board at Mysore. It is the contention of the petitioner that even on the date of appointment of the petitioner, there were 25 vacant posts in the cadre of First Division Accounts Assistant in the office of respondent at Mysore and in terms of the qualification of the petitioner, the petitioner should have been appointed as First Division Accounts Assistant.
3. The petitioner therefore made a representation to the respondents bringing the above facts to the notice of the respondents, while seeking appointment as First Division Accounts Assistant. The respondents favourably considered the representation made by the petitioner herein and passed an order dated 04.05.2016 appointing the petitioner as First Division Accounts Assistant, at Mysore division.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood at Sl.No.10 in the final seniority list prepared by the respondents-Board, dated 22.05.2018. However, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2018 canceling the earlier order dated 04.05.2016 and demoted the petitioner to the post of ‘attender’. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed unilaterally without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside on that ground alone.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the second order of appointment of the petitioner as First Division Accounts Assistant is not in accordance with law and therefore the respondents are justified in passing the impugned order. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents points out to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on compassionate ground) Rules, 1996, wherein sub-rule 4 of Rule 6 provides that appointment once made under this Rules shall be final and no fresh appointment to different post or higher post under this Rules shall be permissible. In view of the said provision, it was submitted that the respondents were justified in issuing the impugned order.
7. Having heard the learned counsels and perusing the writ papers, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order requires to be interfered with only on the ground that there was no opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner. However, during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submits that instead of quashing the impugned order the writ petition may be treated as a representation to the respondents and respondents would afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter the respondents may be permitted to pass an order after hearing the petitioner.
8. Acceding to said request made by the learned counsel for the Respondents, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat this writ petition as representation by the petitioner. The petitioner is also permitted to make another representation if required, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents shall consider the memorandum of this writ petition as well as the representation that is going to be made by the petitioner and the respondents shall pass an order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. The respondents are also permitted to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner, if required.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
9. In view of the disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.3/2018 is also disposed of.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE