IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NOS.11477-11485/2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.S.MANJUNATH, S/o. B.R.SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI. S.S.BIRADAR, S/o. SANGANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. SRI. R.V.PRASANNA, S/o. V.RAGHAVENDRAMATH RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
4. SRI. K.H.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/o. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
5. SRI. NAGENDRAIAH, S/o. LATE DHARMAPALAIAH H.B., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU. (WAITING FOR POSTING).
6. SRI. ANAND KAMBLE, S/o. YASHWANT KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU. (WAITING FOR POSTING).
7. SRI. KUBERAPPA, S/o. LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, O/o DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE.
8. SRI. T.S.SATHYAMURTHY, S/o. LATE SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU. (WAITING FOR POSTING).
9. SRI. S.A.PRASAD, S/o. N.S.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, IV FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREEDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO MERGE THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS IN KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR EFFECTING APPROPRIATE PROMOTION TO THE NEXT HIGHER CADRE AS PER THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 31.01.2006 BY R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-F, AND ALSO PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.20575-89 OF 2009(S) VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petitions, petitioners have sought for the following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to merge the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers in Karnataka Municipal Administration Services for effecting appropriate promotion to the next higher cadre as per the recommendation dated 31.01.2006 by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-F, and also pursuant to the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.20575-89 of 2009(S) vide Annex.J.”
2. The learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contended that there is inaction on the part of the respondents despite the order of this Court passed in W.P.Nos.20575-20589/2009 on 06.04.2010 read with the recommendation at Annexure-F and G.
3. The prayer of the petitioners that promotional opportunity and merger of cadre of the Assistant Executive Engineer in Karnataka Municipal Administration Service for effecting appropriate promotion to the next higher cadre, is a policy decision. Policy decisions, that too in respect of service condition of employees, are required to be taken into consideration by the respective competent authority. In the present case, it is for the State Government to take the policy decision with regard to merger of cadre and further effecting promotion. Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. PUSHPARANI (2008) 9 SCC 242 has held as under:
39. The framers of the Constitution were very much conscious and aware of the widespread inequalities and disparities in the social fabric of the country as also of the gulf between rich and poor and this is the reason why the goal of justice - social, political and economic was given the place of pre-eminence in the Preamble. The concept of equality enshrined in Part III and Part IV of the Constitution has two different dimensions. It embodies the principle of non- discrimination [Articles 14, 15(1), (2) and 16(2)]. At the same time it obligates the State to take affirmative action for ensuring that unequals (downtrodden, oppressed and have-nots) in the society are brought at a level where they can compete with others (haves of the society) (Articles 15(3), (4), (5), 16(4), (4-A), (4-B), 39, 39A and 41).
40. The legislative and administrative measures taken by the State for providing reservation of seats and posts in the field of education and employment are reflective of the affirmative action taken for achieving the goal of real equality. However, implementation and execution of such actions have continuously faced roadblocks at several stages. Those who had been benefited by the existing system cried foul and created the bogy of violation of their legal and constitutional rights. Almost all the actions taken by the State and its agencies for ameliorating the conditions of have-nots of the society by providing reservation were subjected to periodical judicial scrutiny. By and large, the Courts approved the affirmative actions of the State but on some occasions the policy of reservation or implementation thereof was found to be faulty and actions taken by the government have been nullified or sliced by judicial intervention.
Further in the case of P. U. JOSHI VS. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (2003) 2 SCC 732, has held as under:
10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties.
Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.
3. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, petitioners have no right to seek merger of cadre and further for consideration of promotion. Even to this day, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions holds good. Petitioners have not made out a case for issuance of any directions.
4. Accordingly, petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RD