IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3699 OF 2008 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI C SHIVAKUMAR S/O CHIKKAHARIYAPPA AGE 45 YEARS NOW WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER(SPECIAL GRADE), CIVIL ENGG. SUB-DVN NO.1, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 027. (NOW WORKING ON DEPUTATION AT KSRTC, CIVIL ENGG. SUB-DVN.CHIKKABALLAPUR), AND R/AT:2093, 10TH BLOCK, IIFLOOR,JANAPRIYA HEAVENS APARTMENT, GKVK POST, ALLASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 065.
2. MANJANNA S/O. LATE SRI GANGANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (SPECIAL GRADE),KSRTC, DAVANAGERE CIVIL ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION.DAVANAGERE:
P/R/AT: KESARAMODU VILLAGE & POST TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SATHEESHA K N, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 .
REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2. THE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL & ENVIRONMENT), KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER ( PERSONNEL), KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.
4. SRI. K DIWAKAR AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT. ENGINNER, KSRTC, KEMPEGOWDA BUS STAND, BANGALORE.
5. MRS. M S SHOBHA AGED 48 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT. ENGINEER, CHIEF CIVIL ENGINEER'S OFFICE, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRALL OFFICERS, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-27.
6. SRI. D S YERAGOPPA AGED 42 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NEKRTC, CIVIL ENGINNERING SUB-DIVISION, YADAGIR, GULBARGA DIST.
7. SRI. SHIVANANDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CHIEF CIVIL ENGINEER'S OFFICE, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-27.
8. SRI. SHANKAR ALAMELU AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
9. SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, KSRTC CENTRAL DIVSION., BANGALORE.
(PRESENTLY ON DEPUTATION TO CIVIL ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, KSRTC, RURAL DIVISION, MYSORE ROAD) BANGALORE.
10. SRI. SURESH S PATTAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CHIEF CIVIL ENGINEER'S OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICES, NEKRTC, GULBARGA.
11. SRI. G S KRISHNAPPA AGED 46 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSRTC, CIVIL ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN.
12. SRI. C R RAMESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT. ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION, KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR.
13. SRI. M LINGALAHALLI AGED 46 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION, NEKRTC, GULBARGA.
14. SRI. A R AMINBHAVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CHIEF CIVIL ENGINEERING’S OFFIICE, CIVIL ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION, NWKSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
15. SRI. MOHAMMED YUSUF JAWED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEERING DIVISION, NEKRTC,GULBARGA (PRESENTLY WORKING IN GULBARGA SUB DIVISION), NEKRTC, GULBARGA) 16. SRI. RUDRAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BMTRC, CIVIL ENGINEERING OFFICE & CHIEF CIVIL ENGINEERS OFFICE, BANGALORE 17. SRI. VINOD NAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NWKRTC SIRSI SUB DIVISION, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI. T NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO 6; R7 TO R17 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF DRAUGHSTMEN/JUNIOR ENGINEERS (CIVIL) CLASS-III) AS ON 31.12.2005 PUBLISHED VIDE NOTIFICATION DT. 7.2.2008 TO THE EXTENT R4 TO R17 HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS SENIORS TO THE PETITIOENRS VIDE ANX-S, AS THAT PART OF THE SENIORITY LIST IS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, IRRATIONAL AND UNJUST AND, HENCE, VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA APART FROM BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE LAW BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE EARLIER WRIT PETITIONS AND THE SENIORITY RULES AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioners is against the ranking assigned to them in the Seniority List dated 31.12.2005 as published vide Notification dated 07.02.2008 at Annexure-S showing them junior to the private respondent Nos. 20 & 30 respectively. Therefore, they have filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the said Notification to that extent and for a Writ of Mandamus to assign to them the ranking above the said private respondents; they complain that for undertaking this exercise, they made a representation dated 31.01.2008 a copy whereof is at Annexure-T.
2. After service of notice the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition by filing a Statement of Objections dated 16.04.2008.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that some reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioners as under, because:
(a) petitioners’ subject representation has not been duly considered with no justification when there is a duty to meaningfully consider the same for granting redressal to the employees; it is a settled principle of Service Jurisprudence that the State and the instrumentalities of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India are expected to conduct themselves as model employers; its a duty that arises from the Directive Principles of State Policy and also prohibition of arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions; and, (b) petitioners in support of their representation have banked upon a judgment dated 04.01.2008 at Annexure-R made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in connected W.P. Nos. 15770/2006 and etc., which has been disposed off as having become infructuous, inasmuch as, the petitioners therein arguably similarly circumstanced qua the petitioners relief was granted by the respondent- Corporation itself; observations to this effect are found at para 12 of the said judgment.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to consider petitioners’ subject representation afresh for the grant of correct ranking in the Seniority List and for consequent grant of other benefits, keeping in view the observation of the Coordinate Judge in the judgment referred to above, within a period of three months, in accordance with law.
It is open to the answering respondents to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioners as are necessary for due consideration of their representation; however, in the guise of such solicitation no delay shall be brooked.
Now, no costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv