IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WP NO.10479 OF 2018 (S-KAT) C/W WP NO.10480 OF 2018 (S-KAT) IN W.P.NO.10479/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI C. NAGHABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O B.H. CHAYAPATHAIAH RANGE FOREST OFFICER BANNERGHATTA BIOLOGICAL PARK BENGALURU-560 028.
....PETITIONER (BY SRI M.K. GIRISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT (SERVICES) M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST “ARANYA BHAVANA”
MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESHA DODDERI, AGA FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:22.09.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2449/2008 CONNECTED WITH APPLICATION NO.1003/2008 AND GRANT RELIEF AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE APPLICATION NO.2449/2008 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
IN W.P.NO.10480/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI G. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O GOPALAPPA RANGE FOREST OFFICER BANNERGHATTA BIOLOGICAL PARK BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SRI M.K. GIRISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ....PETITIONER FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT (SERVICES) M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, “ARANYA BHAVANA” MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESHA DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.1003/2008 AND GRANT RELIEF AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE APPLICATION NO.1003/2008 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The applicant Nos.17 and 1 in batch of applications bearing No.1003/2008 and connected matters on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘the KSAT’ for short), have come up in these writ petitions impugning the common order dated 22.09.2017 passed in the said proceedings, where their prayer seeking direction to the respondents to promote them as Range Forest Officers from the date on which they were placed in independent charge as Range Forest Officers should be considered by declaring the order of promotion dated 17.02.2006 vide Annexure-A2 in the said batch of applications as illegal and unreasonable.
2. It is seen that the said prayer of the petitioners is on the basis of Rule 2(3) of the Karnataka State Civil Service (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Rules, 1978. The grievance of the petitioners and others is that on 22.05.1996, as against existing vacancy, the petitioners and others were put in independent charge of Range Forest Officers where they were continued to work for more than 10 years and thereafter, their promotion is considered with prospective effect, which according to them is contrary to the aforesaid Rules. Hence, applications were filed by them.
3. As could be seen from the order impugned, the said applications are rejected relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.B. Badami vs. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1980 SC 1561 and Gonal Bheemappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in SLR 1987 (4) 526, and it was held as follows:
“Though they have spent long time as Range Forest Officers on independent charge but they were still not eligible for promotions in view of rule position. Considering their prayers and public interest of filling up of the posts by regular incumbents, government brought in amendment dated 8.1.2007. It is abundantly clear from the perusal of the cabinet note to which our attention was drawn by learned senior counsel for applicants that government had gone extra mile to address the related issues & decided that 221 posts be treated as PR quota instead of DR quota as one time measure. Accordingly, the promotion orders have been issued to applicants on 28.2.2007 with retrospective effect from 8.1.2007. The Supreme Court judgments cited on behalf of the applications do not mandate dilution of the principles or law position in relation to quota rule and infact they re-affirm the same. The learned senior counsel, during course of arguments did not dispute that the rule or the statute is to be construed as prospective in nature unless expressly provided otherwise. In the present context, the notification dated 8.1.2007 does not mention anything about retrospective nature of operation of its provisions. It clearly says that notification will come into force from the date of its publication in official gazette. The notification was published on same day. There is no textual architecture also to support the intention of retrospectivity from the dates when applicants had discharged the duties of Range Forest Officers. There is not such mention in cabinet note also.”
[underlining provided by us] With the aforesaid observation, their prayer was rejected.
4. On going through these writ petitions as well as the Notifications which are brought before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same is looked into by the KSAT and after giving careful consideration has rejected their prayer, which does not call for interference by this Court as rightly observed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment which portion is highlighted by us.
5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. If at all the petitioners have any grievance, it is open for them to approach the Government with fresh petition.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA