IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.53033-53034 OF 2018(S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sri. E. Thimmappa, S/o Late E. Ramappa, Aged about 50 years, Working as Executive Engineer, Now waiting for posting, Department of Urban Development, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
2. Sri. Sridhara, S/o Venkata Rao, Aged about 59 years, Working as Executive Engineer, Hubli-Dharwad Mahanagara Palike, Dharwad-580 001. ... Petitioners (By Sri.K.Satish, Advocate for Sri. M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Represented by its Principal Secretary, 4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. Ramesh Jois M.V., AGA.) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) and consequently promote them to the said post with all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits, if they are otherwise found eligible, in accordance with the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011 dated 11.04.2011 (Annexure-C) and etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The first petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in Mysore City Corporation. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 2007 and as Executive Engineer on 19.06.2014.
2. Second petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector in 1982 in Hubli-Dharwad Corporation on daily wage basis. After completion of 10 years of service, he was promoted as Junior Engineer in the year 2000, Assistant Executive Engineer in 2004 and subsequently as Executive Engineer on 19.06.2014.
3. Sri K.Satish, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are presently working as Executive Engineers and they are governed by the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011. He submitted that there are in all 10 posts of Superintending Engineers in various Corporations in the State. As on the date of filing of the petition 9 posts were occupied by Engineers who were deputed from Public Works Department (for short, ‘PWD’). Therefore, the petitioners’ reasonable expectation of being promoted to the next post is adversely affected. The second petitioner is aged 59 years and he is on the verge of retirement. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition with a direction to the State Government to consider petitioners’ case for promotion to the next higher post.
4. In support of his contention Sri Satish placed reliance on the case of JAI RAM SHARMA vs. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in (1996) 9 SCC 214 and urged that regular appointees have right of consideration vis-à-vis the officers who have come on deputation.
5. In response to the notice, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department has filed an affidavit dated 26.06.2019 stating that in view of instructions given by the DPAR, the process of preparation of seniority list for the cadre of Executive Engineer is under active consideration and after finalization of the seniority list promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer from eligible candidates will be considered.
6. The tabular column contained in the affidavit shows that 5 out of 10 posts of Superintending Engineer is held by officers from PWD and one post is vacant. Reckoned from the date of filing of the affidavit, nearly five months have elapsed. Second petitioner is due to retire in February 2020.
7. Admittedly, petitioners are governed by Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 2011. Five out of ten posts are held by Executive Engineers who have been deputed from PWD. Though five months have elapsed from the date of filing of the affidavit, no progress is reported. The inaction on the part of the State will frustrate petitioners’ legitimate expectation. Hence, the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) Respondent is directed to complete the preparation of final seniority list as assured in the affidavit by the Principal Secretary and issue promotion orders as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than 31st December 2019.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-