IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.52919 OF 2018(S-KAT) BETWEEN:
Smt. Champa N Babaleshwar W/o Malatesh Kulkarni Aged 47 years o/o now JTO Government ITI Shivmoga-577204 R/at No.104/1 upstairs Annapurna gopalaswamy 1st Cross Rajendra Nagar Shivmoga-577204 …. Petitioner (By Sri. Babu Rao N., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its principal Secretary To Labour Department Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Commissioner Department of Employment & Training in Karnataka Kaushalya Bhavan, Dairy Circle Bangalore-560029.
3. The Desk Officer Labour Department (Employment & Training) Vikasa Soudha-01 Bangalore-560001.
4. The Principal Government ITI Shivmoga-577204. …Respondents (By Sri.I.Taranath Poojary, AGA.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated:04.03.2016 in Application No.1069/2013 and order dated:06.04.2016 in R.A.No.65/2016 on the file of the KSAT passed by the KSAT as per Annexure-A & B.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, NAGARATHNA J., made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing in B’ Group. With the consent of learned counsel for both sides, it is heard finally.
2. The petitioner herein has assailed the legality and correctness of order dated 04.03.2016 passed in A.No.1069/2013 and order dated 06.04.2016 passed in R.A.No.65/2016 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity), vide Annexures A and B respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents submit in unison, that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Court in the case of CHIKKALINGAIAH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2017 (3) Kar.LJ 490. They further submit that the Tribunal had dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner herein along with others as well as the review petitions. But, this Court allowed the writ petitions and granted relief to the petitioners, who are similarly situated as the petitioner herein and hence this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 07.03.2017, referred to above.
4. The aforesaid submissions are placed on record.
5. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 04.03.2016 and 06.04.2016 passed in A.No.1069/2013 and R.A.No.65/2016 respectively are quashed in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned and the relief as has been granted to the persons similarly situated to that of the petitioner is granted to the petitioner herein also. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court at paragraphs 22, 24 and 25 are extracted as under, for immediate reference:
“22. In view of the above aforesaid observation and discussion, we find that the impugned amendment in the Rule known as the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed on contract basis in the category of posts of Craft Instructors/Junior Instructors (Re-designated as Junior Training Officers) in the Department of Employment and Training (Training Wing) (Special) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 as well as the other rules called as The Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed on contract basis in the category of posts of Craft instructors/Junior Instructors (Re-designated as Junior Training Officers) in the Department of Employment and Training (Training Wing) into State Civil Services (special) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 are constitutional and void, so far as they relate to the employees whose rights were already conferred and accrued by earlier rules which came into force and operated from 15.2.1996 as well as from 19.7.2004.
…………… 24. Hence, we find it appropriate to observe that by the Rules of 2012 bringing about the deletion and amendment shall be interpreted to mean that it would not alter the rights already conferred earlier to the petitioners herein and to that extent instead of striking down both the Rules of 2012 as unconstitutional, we find it appropriate to read down the said Rules to that extent.
25. In view of the foresaid observations, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The petitions before the Tribunal shall stand allowed to the aforesaid extent.”
6. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-