The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Revanasiddappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 7336 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
                           AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
           WRIT PETITION NO.6100 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
       DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
       BANGALORE - 560 001

2.     THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
       INFANTRY ROAD,
       BANGALORE - 560 001

3.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (ADMN.)
       OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
       INFANTRY ROAD,
       BANGALORE - 560 001
                                         ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP)


AND:

SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. G.HANUMAPPA,
                             2




WORKING AS CIVIL HEAD CONSTABLE,
SPECIAL ENQUIRY DIVISION, CID,
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                           ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAGENDRA R. NAIK FOR
    SRI G.REVANASIDDAPPA G, ADVOCATES)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.07.2021 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.1347 & 1372 OF 2021
(ANNEXURE    -A)  AND   CONSEQUENTLY      DISMISS   THE
APPLICATION NOS.1347 & 1373 OF 2021, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, P.N.DESAI J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                     ORDER

The petitioners/Government have filed this petition

seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2021

passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for

short hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in Application

Nos.1347 & 1372/2021.

2. It is contended by the petitioners that the

applicant/respondent herein joined the Bengaluru City as

Civil Police Constable on 06.04.2007. The respondent was

thereafter promoted as Head Constable and working in

CID Bengaluru from 05.08.2019. Petitioners - State has

issued an order which was published in the official Gazette

on 24.12.2008 and thereby the State has extended special

status under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India to

Harappanahalli Taluk. Due to inclusion of the Harapanahalli

Taluk into Bellary district, the second petitioner issued a

Memorandum and called upon the employees hailing from

Harappanahalli Taluk to apply under Article 371-J of

Hyderabad-Karnataka Cadre for satisfying the criteria of

local person and who are willing to join the cadre, and to

exercise their option on or before 10.01.2020. The said

date was inclusive of the extended period of 15 days in

place of the original time limit of 30 days and totally 45

days time was extended to apply for special status.

3. Again the third petitioner further extended the

time to submit details till 18.07.2020. It is contended

that the respondent belatedly submitted his representation

i.e., on 03.08.2020. The final modified Seniority list of

civil head constables was issued on 31.12.2020, wherein

the name of this applicant i.e., the respondent herein was

not forthcoming. Then the respondent made

representation and his representation came to be rejected

by first petitioner on 05.02.2021 which has been

challenged by the respondent by filing the application

before the tribunal which is allowed by the tribunal. Hence,

this petition is filed challenging the same.

4. Heard Smt. Shilpa S.Gogi, learned HCGP for

petitioners and Sri. Nagendra R.Naik for Sri.

G.Revanasiddappa G., learned counsel for the respondent.

5. It is contended by learned HCGP that the

tribunal has not taken into consideration any document

and appreciated the facts. In case of eligible employees

who do not exercise their option within 30 days, it shall be

deemed that they are not interested in joining local cadre.

But the respondent has not submitted his application

within the stipulated period to claim special status.

Therefore, learned HCGP prays to allow the petition.

6. It is not in dispute that Harapanahally taluk was

included in Bellary district which is a part of the

Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Earlier the Harapanahalli

Taluk was part of Davanagere district. It is also evident

that a memorandum dated 26.11.2019 was issued calling

upon personnel hailing from the said Harapanahally taluk

to apply for the special status under Article 371-J within 45

days i.e., on or before 10.01.2020. Again another

memorandum dated 09.7.2020 was issued whereby

extending the time upto 18.07.2020. The applicant has

submitted his application on 03.08.2020. There is a delay

of only 15 days in submitting the application by

applicant/respondent herein. He has produced the domicile

certificate dated 08.06.2020 issued by Tahsildar,

Harapanahally and also eligibility certificate dated

08.06.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner,

Harapanahally sub-division which he has obtained to seek

special status benefit under Article 371-J of Constitution of

India.

7. The tribunal observing that a local person who

is eligible to be considered for the benefit as such, cannot

be deprived of the benefit under law by State as long as

he claimed under reasonable time and directed the second

and third petitioners to consider the case of applicant i.e.,

respondent herein for inclusion of his name in the local

cadre list of State Level Local cadre of final seniority list

dated 31.12.2020, if he is otherwise eligible and also

consider his case for inclusion in eligibility list and

promotion list. The said order is challenged by the State

in this petition.

8. The tribunal at paragraph No.7 of the impugned

order stated as under:

"7. We are of the considered view, that the right to be in included in the local cadre as a local person, cannot be abridged by any time limit specified in the Order or Rules. In this regard in the judgment in A2513/2020, it has already been held in sub-para of para 18 that Rule 6 of Karnataka public employment (reservation in appointment for Hyderabad- Karnataka region) (organisation of local cadres and allotment of transfer of persons) rules, 2013, to the extent that 'In case of eligible employees who do no exercise their option within 45 days it shall be deemed that they are no interested in joining a local cadre', is untenable. A local person who is eligible to be considered for benefit as such cannot be deprived of the benefit under law by the State as long as he has claimed it in reasonable time."

9. Learned High Court Government Pleader would

submit that the order passed by the tribunal in application

No.2513/2020, wherein the provision of Rule 6 of

Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in appointment

for Hyderabad -Karnataka region) (organisation of local

cadres and allotment of transfer of persons), Rules, 2013

to the extent that if the eligible employee who do not

exercise their option within 30 days, it shall be deemed

that they are not interested in joining the local cadre, is

held as untenable and the said order is challenged by the

State before this court and there is an interim stay granted

by this court.

10. The learned HCGP further contended that the

benefit claimed by respondent cannot be upheld as other

persons who are similarly situated also may again seek

such benefits belatedly. The apprehension of petitioners'

authorities does not hold good, in view of the facts and

circumstances of this case.

11. It is evident that, the eligibility list was

prepared on 01.03.2021. There was sufficient time for the

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to consider the name of the

applicant/respondent herein for inclusion of his name in

the eligibility list, since the respondent has made the claim

on 03.08.2020. It is evident that the respondent has

submitted his claim much before the finalisation of the

gradation list or seniority list dated 31.12.2020 and

residual parent cadre list of 12.02.2021. The time fixed

earlier as 45 days for submitting exercising the option was

10.01.2020. Again by memorandum dated 09.7.2020 the

second petitioners themselves extended the time upto

18.7.2020. No records were produced to show that

applicants were intimated about the time limit. Even

though the respondent had obtained domicile certificate

and eligibility certificate on 08.06.2020 itself and there is

some time lapse in filing them according to prescribed

procedure. Therefore, the benefit of claiming above said

provision by the respondent cannot be denied when he has

filed an application along with required certificates within

very short and reasonable period.

12. It is to be noted, that the entire world was

suffering with Covid-19 pandemic during that period. From

22nd March, 2020, the Government of India declared

lockdown throughout India. Thereafter, after some

months, though the lockdown was partially lifted, but in

Karnataka and other States the restrictions on movement

of the public vehicles and functioning of the offices

partially continued and limited lockdown was also

continued. Infact, the Supreme Court of India taking into

consideration, the situation prevailing in our country due

to surge in Covid-19 has passed an order extending the

limitation for filing all types of suits and applications before

any courts and tribunal in India from 15.03.2020 to

28.02.2022 in suo-moto W.P.No.3/2020. The petitioners'

authorities ought to have considered the negligible delay,

if any, by the respondent when they themselves have

extended the time.

13. If at all, the earlier order of the tribunal striking

down Rule 6 is challenged and if there is any Stay

operating on such order, then the consideration of

application of respondent and further consequential

decision taken by petitioners, if any, shall be subject to

outcome of result of said writ petition.

14. This order passed shall be confined to the

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case only and

cannot be taken as precedent, in view of the situation that

was prevailing in the State and country due to Covid-19

pandemic.

15. We find no illegality or perversity in the order

passed by the tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order

passed by the tribunal needs no interference.

Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE HJ