IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO.54152 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
M.S. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. LATE SURYANARAIN WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (TENDERING & PROCUREMENT) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE – 560 009 AND RESIDING AT NO.28, ‘SURYA’, 1ST FLOOR 4TH MAIN, N.R. COLONY BENGALURU – 560 019.
(BY SRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND:
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE – 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 2-11-2017 AT ANNEXURE – H AND PROMOTE HIM TO THE CADRE OF CHIEF ENGINEER FORTHWITH IN TERMS OF THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST DATED 27-10-2017 AT ANNEXURE – F WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2014 AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THEREON.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. M.S. Prabhakar, the petitioner, has approached this Court with twin prayers that the respondent, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the K.P.T.C.L.’) should be directed to consider his representation, dated 2-11-2017, and to promote him to the cadre of Chief Engineer forthwith in terms of the final seniority list, dated 27-10-2017, with effect from 1-4-2014, and to grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27-8-1980, the petitioner joined the services of erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board as an Assistant Engineer.
Subsequently, he has been promoted repeatedly. Presently, he is working in the cadre of Superintending Engineer (Electrical).
3. During the course of the petitioner’s tenure, the State Government enacted the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the posts in the Civil Services of the State), Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In compliance of the Act, the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted to various cadres reaching to the cadre of Chief Engineer. The juniors were promoted on the ground that they belonged to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes communities.
4. However, the validity of the Act was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. PAVITRA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [(2017) 4 SCC 620]. By judgment dated 9-2-2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court not only struck down the validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act on the ground of unconstitutionality, but also directed the State Government to revise the seniority list of different cadres. Since contempt petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by subsequent orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed that the seniority list should not only be revised positively by 30-11-2017, but even the consequential benefits of the seniority list should be given positively by 15-1-2018. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given liberty to the concerned authorities to implement the revised seniority list, and to give consequential benefits to the concerned persons prior to the last date, namely 15-1-2018.
5. In the light of the decision and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavitra (supra), the K.P.T.C.L. has revised the list and published it on 27-10-2017. According to the petitioner with the publication of the revised seniority list, there are seven vacancies for the post of Chief Engineer with the K.P.T.C.L. Moreover, the petitioner claims that he falls within the zone of consideration for being promoted for the said post. However, as he is in the verge of retirement, i.e. on 31-12-2017, the petitioner filed a representation before the K.P.T.CL., on 2-11-2017. In the representation, he prayed that his case should be considered for promotion, as according to the seniority list, he is eligible for the post of Chief Engineer from 1-4-2014. He has also prayed that all consequential benefits should be granted to him before his date of superannuation. However, the said representation has not elicited any reaction from the K.P.T.C.L., so far. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
6. Mr. M. Nagaprasanna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, according to the revised seniority list dated 27-10-2017, seven vacancies exist for the post of Chief Engineer.
Secondly, due to the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavitra (supra), the K.P.T.C.L. is legally bound to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion in accordance with the seniority list.
Thirdly, since the petitioner has a right of consideration for the promotional post, the said right cannot be ignored because of the laxity on the part of the K.P.T.C.L. by not convening a Departmental Promotional Committee (‘DPC’, for short) meeting.
Fourthly, the K.P.T.C.L. is yet to discharge its duty of convening of D.P.C. But considering the fact that the petitioner is about to retire by end of December, 2017, it is imperative that the K.P.T.C.L. be directed to convene the D.P.C., to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion.
7. Mr. S. Sriranga, the learned counsel for the respondent – K.P.T.C.L., frankly concedes, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that the K.P.T.C.L. is legally bound to carryout the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavithra (supra). According to him, considering the judgment of B.K. Pavitra (supra), the K.P.T.C.L. has already revised the seniority list. According to him, presently, there are about seven vacancies which do exist for the post of Chief Engineer. According to him, the petitioner does fall within the zone of consideration.
8. Considering the fact that the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration, considering the fact that the petitioner has a right of consideration, it cannot be brushed aside lightly. Therefore, this Court directs the K.P.T.C.L. to convene a D.P.C. meeting on or before 25-12-
2017, and to consider the petitioner’s case along with case of others, who are eligible and suitable for the remaining vacancies, and to pass its order on the basis of recommendations of the D.P.C. on or before 29-12-2017.
With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE kvk