IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI W.P. NOs.545-546/2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. K.M.RAVIKUMAR S/O. LATE MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O #63/e, 4TH MAIN 8TH CROSS, LAYOUT MYSORE-570 011 2. N.THYAGARAJU S/O. LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SHANTHI ROAD CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT PIN-571 442 (BY SRI.S.B.HALLI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT MUNICIPALITY BENGALURU, REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWER BENGALURU-560 001 (BY SMT.M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA) … PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DTD: 11.12.2017 PRODUCED ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In these instant petitions, petitioners have sought for the following relief:
Directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 11.12.2017 produced Annexure-K to the writ petitions.
2. Respondents have not taken any decision on the petitioners grievance relating to consideration of their names for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers on regular basis and further, consideration for next cadre, there is inaction on the part of both the respondents in not taking action on the petitioners’’ grievance.
3. Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh and Others (II) vs. State of Punjab and Ors reported in (1997) 7 SCC 209 held at para No.22 that promotion is a fundamental right and it reads as under:
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the “State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws”. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that “there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State”.
It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right.
4. Therefore, concerned respondent is hereby directed to take a decision on the petitioners’ grievance and pass speaking order and communicate the decision/speaking order to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the above observation, writ petitions stand disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE BS