IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.9799 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.9496-9500/2019(S-PRO) BETWEEN:
1. SRI H. NAGARAJ S/O DR. H P ACHAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER BRAZ, BESCOM NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI H. S. UMESHA PRASAD, S/O LATE H. G. SREEKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TA & QC, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009.
3. SRI N. NAGARAJ S/O SRI NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MIS, CAUVERY BHAVAN KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., BANGALORE-560 009 4. SRI A S PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE A SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TECHNICAL SECTION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009 5. SRI SATHISH S/O SRI ANANTH RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AUDIT, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560009 6. SRI S A SATHISH KUMAR S/O LATE S. D. ANANTHARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NORTH CIRCLE OFFICE BESCOM, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD, A STATUTORY CORPORATION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. GENERAL MANAGER M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE 3. SRI GOLEYA BHIMSA NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER O & M CIRCLE GESCOM, BELLARY 4. SRI S V MANJUNATH POSTED AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER T.B.H.S. T.B. DAM HOSPET BELLARY DISTRICT.
5. SRI D NARASIMHA MURTHY POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MESCOM, MANGALORE 6. SRI N R M NAGARAJAN POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O & M DIVISION GESCOM, RAICHUR 7. SRI D NAGARAJUNA POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O & M DIVISION GESCOM, BELLARY 8. SRI V. KRISHNAPPA POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER O & M CIRCLE, CESC, MYSORE 9. SRI S. S. MUNINARAYANA POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HOTLINES DIVISION KPTCL, S.R.S PEENYA, BANGALORE-560058 10. SRI R SHIVALAL BIDAGI POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER O & M CIRCLE, GESCOM, BIDAR 11. SRI VISHWANATH NAIK POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KPTCL, SHIMOGA 12. SRI H BASAPPA WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CORPORATE OFFICE HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI 13. SRI ANANTHU HANUMANTHA KAMBLE POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O & M DIVISION HESCOM, HAVERI 14. SMT. G SHEELA POSTED AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER C O & M CENTRAL DIVISION, BESCOM, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE.
15. SRI DURGAPPA B, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O & M SUB DIVISION MESCOM, SHIKARIPRUA SHIMOGA DISTRICT 16. SRI MAHADEVASWAMY PRASANNA K M WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O & M DIVISION, GESCOM BIDAR 17. SRI GANGARAJU M WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 220 K V RECEIVING STATION KPTCL, ANTHARASANAHALLI TUMKUR DIST.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRATIK PANY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUNDARASWAMY & RAMADAS, ADVs. FOR R1 & R2; SRI VIJAY V BAJENTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R12 & R14; R13, R15, R16 AND R17 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) **** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 27.7.2005 ISSUED BY THE R2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE J ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for the following reliefs raising various grounds:
“Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing a) impugned notification dated 27.7.2005 issued by Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-J.
b) impugned notification dated 5.1.2008 issued by Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-M.
c) impugned seniority list of the Executive Engineers as on 1.1.2006, issued by respondent published vide Official Memorandum dated 19.4.2006 produced at Annexure-N.
d) the impugned Endorsement dated 27.5.2008 issued by Respondent No.2, produced at Annexure-R.
e) the impugned notification dated 17.7.2008 issued by Respondent No.2 found at Annexure-S.
f) further issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent 1 and 2 to give the petitioners appropriate ranking in the seniority lists of Assistant Executive Engineers, and Executive Engineers by placing the petitioners above Respondents 1 to 17 in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers and above Respondents 1 to 14 in the seniority list of Executive Engineers, and to give all consequential promotions to the petitioners and to give consequential financial benefits. “ 2. It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties that these writ petitions do not survive for consideration in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavithra & Others v. Union of India & Others in Civil Appeal No.2368/2011 and connected matters, decided on 9th February 2017.
3. In the above dictum, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeals, set aside the judgment impugned therein and declared the provisions of 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” to the extent of doing away with the ‘catch up’ rule and providing for consequential seniority under Sections 3 and 4 to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on promotion against roster points to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. In view of the above, the petitioners have been promoted reverting certain private Respondents in these writ petitions and others. As on today, the prayer sought in the present writ petitions do not survive for consideration in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme in B.K. Pavitra case cited supra. But the apprehension of the petitioners is that in furtherance of any order passed by the State Government, if they revert back again, they shall be given liberty to approach this Court.
5. In view of the subsequent developments and in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavithra cited supra, these writ petitions do not survive for consideration. However, it is needless to observe that if any order is passed by the State Government or any competent authority adverse to the interest of the petitioners, it is always open for them to approach this Court in accordance with law.
With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-