IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA Writ Petition Nos.42328-42338 OF 2017 (S-RES) Between:
1. Sri.Nataraj Urs S/o Srinivasaraju, Aged about 55 years, Working as First Division Assistant, KSTDC, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC Building, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022.
2. Sri.Mani Sheker R S/o N.Rangaswamy, Aged about 59 years, Working as Information Assistant, KSTDC, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC Building, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022.
3. Sri.R.Nagaraja Murthy S/o B.Rajashekar, Aged about 56 years, Working as Information Assistant, KSTDC, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC Building, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022.
4. Sri.B.Prabhakar S/o C.Balakrishna Aged about 53 years, Working as Information Assistant, KSTDC, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC Building, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022.
5. Smt.C.Pankajavalli D/o Late Channaiah Aged about 58 years, Working as Receptionist, KSTDC, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC Building, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022.
6. Sri.K.Nagaraja Rao S/o Krishnaji Rao, Aged about 55 years, Working as Receptionist, KSTDC, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC Building, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022.
7. Sri.D.Arun Kumar S/o D.V. Baladev, Aged about 55 years, Working as Steward, KSTDC, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC Building, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022.
8. Sri.S.Mejeeb Rahaman S/o Abdul Wahab, Aged about 46 years, Working as Assistant Mechanic, Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Workshop, No.13, Near KSDC, Marappana Palya, Yeshwanthpura Sub-Urb, Bengaluru – 560 022.
9. Sri.Azam Pasha S/o Gouse Peer, Aged about 54 years, Working as Assistant Mechanic, Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Workshop, No.13, Near KSDC, Marappana Palya, Yeshwanthpura Sub-Urb, Bengaluru – 560 022.
10. Sri.D.Murugan S/o M. Doraiswamy, Aged about 49 years, Working as Assistant Mechanic (Tyre), KSTDC, BMTC Bus Stand, TTMC Building, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022.
11. Sri.K.V.Balakrishna Raj Urs S/o Venkat Raj, Aged about 52 years, Working as Assistant Mechanic, Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Workshop, No.13, Near KSDC, Marappana Palya, Yeshwanthpura Sub-Urb, Bengaluru – 560 022.
(By Sri. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate) ... Petitioners And:
1. The Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Reptd., by its Managing Director, No.49, Wing Second Floor, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., No.49, Wing Second Floor, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondents (By Smt. M. Savithri for Sri Gururaj Joshi, Advocates) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned notification dated 29.07.2017 of respondent No.2(Annexure-N) in so far as it relates to appointment on contract basis to the posts of Assistant Manager (Admin) one post, Assistant Manager (Finance) five posts, Assistant Manager (Hotel) three posts, Assistant Manager (Tour) one post, Mechanic three posts and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R The petitioners who are working under respondents as First Division Assistant, Information Assistant, Receptionists, Steward and Assistant Mechanic are before this Court for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification dated 29.07.2017 issued by 2nd respondent as per Annexure – N, in so far as it relates to appointment on contract basis to the posts of Assistant Manager (Admin) – one post; Assistant Manager (Finance) – five posts; Assistant Manager (Hotel) – three posts; Assistant Manager (Tour) – one post; Mechanic – three posts and also writ of mandamus to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the higher posts of Assistant Manager (Admin) – one post; Assistant Manager (Admin & Finance); Assistant Manager (Hotel); Assistant Manager (Transport); Mechanic, by considering the representation dated 31.07.2017 as per Annexure – P.
2. When the matter came up for admission on 18.09.2017, Sri.Gururaj Joshi learned counsel for respondents on instructions submitted that impugned Annexure – N dated 29.07.2017 inviting applications for 113 different categories of posts on contract basis will not affect the promotional avenues of the present petitioners and agreed to file necessary affidavit in this regard before this Court. Accordingly, today Sri.Gururaj Joshi learned counsel for the respondents filed an affidavit of General Manager of the respondent- Corporation which reads as under:
“AFFIDAVIT I, K.Nagendra Prasad, General Manager, KSTDC, Khanija Bhavana, Bangalore – 1, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. That, I am the General Manager of the Respondent Corporation, as such, I know the facts of the case.
2. That, in view of the Regulation No.4 of Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, of the KSTDC., the KSTDC has power to appoint any employees on contract basis as per Regulation No.3(1)(e).
3. That, the proposed advertisement for the employment as per Annexure-N dt.29.7.2017 purely on contract basis for a period of one year, and the said appointment does not affect the prospects of promotions of the eligible permanent employee’s of the corporation including the petitioners.
4. That, the contents of this affidavit are true and correct.
Deponent Hence deposed. General Manager(Admin) Karnataka State Tourism Bangalore. Development Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Date : 03.10.2017 Identified by, Advocate”
3. In view of the said affidavit filed by the General Manager, Sri.Vijaya Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that first prayer sought in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The submission is placed on record.
4. The present writ petitions, now confines only to the second prayer with regard to mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 31.07.2017.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that they are working as regular employees in the cadre of First Division Assistant, Information Assistant, Receptionists, Steward and Assistant Mechanic in the second respondent Corporation and they are qualified and eligible to be promoted to the next higher post i.e., Assistant Manager (Finance and Administration), Assistant Manager (Transport), Assistant Manager (Hotel) and Mechanic, respectively. It is the further case of the petitioners that they also requested the respondents to promote them to the next higher post. Instead of promoting the petitioners, the second respondent issued the impugned notification to fill up the above said posts among others on contract basis, contrary to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. It is further case of the petitioners that all the petitioners are qualified and eligible to be promoted to the higher post. Therefore, they made representations dated 02.10.2016 and 31.07.2017. The same have not been considered by the respondents. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court for a writ of mandamus as sought for.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petitions, confined his arguments to the second prayer and submits that though the petitioners are eligible and qualified for promotion to the higher posts, the second respondent has neither considered their case for promotion nor passed any orders on the representations dated 02.10.2016 and 31.07.2017. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions.
8. Per contra, Smt. Savithri, learned counsel for Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for caveator/ respondents 1 and 2, reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, submits that the proposed advertisement for employment as per Annexure-N dated 29.07.2017 is purely on contract basis for a period of one year and the said appointment does not affect the prospects of promotions of the eligible permanent employees of the Corporation including the petitioners and therefore, the representations made by the petitioners will be considered by the second respondent and orders will be passed, in accordance with law.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are working as regular employees in various capacities viz., First Division Assistant, Information Assistant, Receptionists, Steward and Assistant Mechanic in the second respondent Corporation appointed between 1986 to 1994 and it is also not in dispute that the second respondent issued notification on 29.07.2017 to fill up the posts of Assistant Manager in various cadres on contract basis. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court to quash the said notification.
10. The question of quashing the notification dated 29.07.2017 would not arise at all, in view of the affidavit dated 03.10.2017 filed by the General Manager of the respondent corporation stating that the proposed advertisement for employment as per Annexure-N dated 29.07.2017 is purely on contract basis for a period of one year and the said appointment does not affect the prospects of promotions of the eligible permanent employees of the Corporation including the petitioners.
11. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners made representations dated 02.10.2016 and 31.07.2017 stating that they are all qualified and eligible to be promoted to higher post. Inspite of the same, respondents have not considered the said representations and no orders are passed till today. Therefore, petitioners have made out a case for issue of a writ of mandamus, as prayed for.
12. For the reasons stated above, writ petitions are allowed in part. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the second respondent to consider the representations dated 02.10.2016 and 31.07.2017, and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE UN/kcm