IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 3 rd day of September, 2012 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA WRIT PETITION NOS TO 5143 OF 2012 (S-KAT) BETWEEN 1. M K MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGE: 47 YEARS S/O KALLAPPA, TALUK OFFICE, HOSADURGA, R/O C/O. R.JAYANNA VIDYANAGAR, HOSADURGA 2. P. SHANTHAPPA AGE: 52 YEARS S/O PAPANNA, NELAGETHANAHATTI, R/O NELAGETHANAHATTI NAIKANAHATTI HOBLI TQ: CHALLAKERE

2 2 3. H.K PRANESH AGE: 45 YEARS S/O HANUAMNTHAPPA MALLAPURA R/O MALLAPURA, TQ. & DIST. 4. M. RANGANATH AGE: 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MYLARAPPA KELAGOTE, R/O MUNICIPAL COLONY 5. N.G. PRASHANTH KUMAR AGE: 39 YEARS, S/O N.G. GOVINDA REDDY, DYAMAVANAHALLI R/O. MUNICIPAL COLONY KELAGOTE, CHALLAKERE 6. H. NAGARAJ AGE: 50 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, SONDEKOLA, R/O SONDEKOLA KASABA HOBLI, 7. G.M. RAVIKUMAR AGE: 38 YEARS,

3 3 S/O ISHANNA, HULLEHAL, R/O HULLEHAL, TQ & 8. G.M. SHIVAKUMAR AGE: 39 YEARS, S/O MAHANTAPPA, ICHAGHATTA R/O. ICHAGHATTA TALYA HOBLI, TQ: HOLALKERE 9. B.M. SHIVANANDAMURTHY AGE: 45 YEARS, S/O MALLAIAH, V. PALYA, R/O V. PALYA, TQ. & 10. K.B. VENKATESH AGE: 40 YEARS, S/O BHIMA REDDY, RAMAJOGIHALLI R/O RAMAJOGIHALLI KASABA HOBLI, TQ. CHALLAKERE... PETITIONERS (By Sri R A SHIRAGUPPI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AGE: MAJOR,

4 4 TALUK OFFICE, HOSADURGA 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT, 4. T. PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O THIPPESWAMY, TALUK OFFICE, HOLALKERE 5. T. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O THIPPAIAH, TALUK OFFICE, MOLAKALMURU 6. S. SIDDARAMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O BASAVALINGAPPA, TALUK OFFICE, 7. H.M. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE MAYANNA,

5 5 TALUK OFFICE, 8. J.T. JANARDHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O J. THIMMAPPA, TALUK OFFICE, 9. N. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O NANJAPPA, TALUK OFFICE, 10. H.M. KANUMAPPA AGE: MAJOR, TALUK OFFICE, HOSADURGA 11. S.A. THIPPESWAMY AGE: MAJOR, TALUK OFFICE, CHALLAKERE, 12. A.G. MOODALAGIRI 13. G. CHANDRAPPA

6 6 HOSADURGA 14. B. R. KRISHNAPPA HIRIYUR 15. H. SABULAL HIRIYUR 16. N. JAYAPPA CHALLAKERE 17. P.O. NAGARAJ MOLAKALMURU 18. R. NAGESH MOLAKALMURU 19. H.R. THIPPESWAMY

7 7 HIRIYUR 20. S.P. DHARENENDRAKUMAR HOSADURGA... RESPONDENTS (By Sri JAVID HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R4,6,7 & 9; SMT. REVATHY ADINATH NARDE, HCGP, FOR R1 TO R3; R5 AND 8 ARE SERVED; R10 TO 20 ARE DELETED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO APPLICATION NO.1057 TO 1062 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1057 TO 1062 OF 2011 BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND FURTHER HOLD THAT THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO SERVICE IN THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT THE SENIORITY SHOULD BE COUNTED ONLY FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE IN THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND NOT FROM THE DATE THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO SERVICE IN SUPERNUMERY POSTS AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PREPARE THE SENIORITY LIST ON THE ABOVE TERMS KEEPING CONTESTING RESPONDENTS BELOW THE APPLICANTS, & ETC.,

8 8 THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R These writ petitions are preferred challenging the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the application filed by the respondents holding that the seniority list of Village Accountants dated are defective and the seniority of the respondents ought to have been considered on the basis of the date of regularisation of each employee initially in the supernumerary post. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the application before the Tribunal. 3. The applicants before the Tribunal are Second Division Assistants/Village Accountants. They were originally working as SDAs on daily wages in

9 9 Sericulture/Irrigation/Public Works Department from different dates. During 1991, their services were regularised in pursuance of the Supreme Court s decision. Since there were no regular posts in which they could be regularised, they were regularised in supernumerary post in the year After regular vacancy became available in the Revenue Department, they were allocated to Revenue Department in 1996 and they have been appointed to regular posts. They have been working in Chitradurga in Revenue Department. While finalising the gradation list of Village Accountants as on , respondents-4 to 8 and 14 to 24 were placed at Sl.No.509 onwards, taking into consideration the dates of their entry into service as direct recruits in So far as the applicants are concerned, their date of entry on regular basis in the Revenue Department was taken into consideration, i.e., 1996 and were assigned ranking at Sl.No.674 onwards. Contending that for the purpose of seniority, the date of entry into supernumerary post ought to have been taken into consideration, the applicants approached the Tribunal.

10 10 4. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties was of the view that, though the applicants were allocated to the Revenue Department in the year 1996, as their services were regularised in the year 1992, which is earlier to the entry of the respondents by way of direct recruitment, they are seniors and therefore found fault with the seniority list and directed correction of the seniority list. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents are before this Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents assailing the impugned order of the Tribunal contends that the respondents entered into the cadre of Village Accountants by way of direct recruitment in the year The applicants entered into the cadre of Village Accounts in the Revenue Department in the year Therefore the respondents are seniors to the applicants. Though the applicants services were regularised much prior to the entry of the respondents into service, the said services can be taken note of for granting monetary benefits, but it cannot be taken into consideration for

11 11 the purpose of promotion. Therefore he contends that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and requires to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. 7. Therefore in the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arise for our consideration is: For the purpose of seniority and promotion, is it the date of entry into supernumerary post or is it the entry into the cadre of Village Accountants in the Revenue Department, which should be taken into consideration. 8. The facts are not in dispute. In the State of Karnataka, large number of persons were appointed as daily wagers. Ultimately the Apex Court had to come to the rescue and it held that all those daily wagers who are working prior to 1994, for a period of more than 10 years are to be regularised

12 12 and issued a direction to the State of Karnataka to regularise their services keeping in mind the qualification prescribed to the post and having regard to the nature of duties assigned to that post. It is in pursuance of the said direction, the Government of Karnataka has regularised the services of these applicants who were appointed as daily wagers and who had completed more than 10 years of continuous service without the aid or cover of a Court order. 9. On the day the services of the applicants were regularised, there were no posts available to accommodate them. Therefore the supernumerary posts were created and all these persons who were regularised were accommodated in such posts. If the posts were available, they would have been posted against those vacant posts. But one thing is certain, by virtue of the order of regularisation, it is in pursuance of the direction issued by the Apex Court, these applications entered the services of the State on the date of regularisation. These persons were working in various departments. In 1996 when

13 13 posts became vacant, these persons were accommodated in the said vacant post. Prior to accommodating them in the said post, notifications had been issued for recruitment to the post of Village Accountant in the Revenue Department. Respondents applied against the notification and after the process of selection, they were selected and posted as Village Accountants. They were posted in the post of Village Accountants earlier to the applicants being accommodated in the post of Village Accountants. Therefore they seem to think that as these applicants entered the Revenue Department against the post of Village Accountants, subsequent to their entry into the Revenue Department, they are juniors to them. The Revenue Department also had placed them above the applicants in the seniority list prepared. While preparing the said list, the Revenue Department forgot to take note of the fact that though these applicants entered the Revenue Department in the year 1996, they were very much in service in the Government from 1991, much prior to the appointment of the respondents in service. Therefore the services rendered by

14 14 these applicants in these supernumerary posts cannot be excluded from consideration. Once that post is taken into consideration, they are senior to respondents. When they entered into service, the respondents were nowhere near the said post. Therefore, it is for want of posts, they were working in supernumerary post and once they are accommodated in the post, they carry with them the services held in the supernumerary post and therefore not only they are entitled to all monetary benefits, but also the benefit of seniority for the purpose of promotion. That is what the Tribunal has held, which is in accordance with law. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ksp/-