Karnataka High Court
K C Umesh vs Government Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
WP No. 2791 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.2791 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
K.C. UMESH
S/O. LATE G.V. CHINNASOMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RETIRED AS A ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BBMP, KENGERI DIVISION, BENGALURU,
RESIDING AT NO.1011, BSK VI STAGE
I BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 098. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DANAPPA P. PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ENERGY DEPARTMENT,
Digitally VIKASA SOUDHA, II FLOOR,
signed by
KIRAN BANGALORE - 560 001.
KUMAR R
Location: 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
KARNATAKA SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL-KALI)
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
GANESH GUDI, UTTARA
KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 365. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRINCE ISSAC, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI PRADHYUMNA L.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
WP No. 2791 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09/01/2023 BEARING NO.A1 P2
D/3078 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 30/09/2020 BEARING NO.A1 P2 D/2044
PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These facts are not in dispute.
2. The petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer
at the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) and by
an order dated 05.12.2014, he was promoted as a
Superintending Engineer and was given the posting to
BTPS, Ballari. However, the petitioner failed to report for
duty and consequently, the order of promotion made in his
favour was canceled. This led to the petitioner filing
W.P.No.35497/2015. This Court, after hearing the parties,
came to the conclusion that the cancellation of promotion
of the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer
could not be found fault with, since the KPCL could not be
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
expected to wait for the petitioner to report for the
promoted post for years on end. However, this court
passed a further direction in the following terms:
"10. Rule 15.13 of Cadre and Recruitment
Rules of the first respondent-Corporation reads as
follows:
"15.13: If for any reason an employee
does not accept the promotion/upgradation
to a higher post (either on seniority-cum-
merit or on selection) he/she will not be
considered for that post for a period of 2
years from the date of order of promotion
which has not been accepted."
The above rule would make it clear that if, for any
reason, an employee does not accept promotion to
the higher post, he will not be entitled for
consideration of his case for promotion for a period
of 2 years from the date of earlier order of
promotion. In terms of the above Rule, though
case of the petitioner could not have been
considered for promotion from 05.12.2014 for a
period of 2 years i.e., till 04.12.2016, but,
thereafter, the Corporation was required to
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion.
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
11. having regard to the above Rule, if the
petitioner makes appropriate representation to the
first respondent-Corporation, the first respondent-
Corporation shall consider the same for promotion
to the post of Superintending Engineer in the light
of rule 15.13 of Cadre and Recruitment Rules. "
3. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner submitted a
representation requesting that he be promoted with effect
from 04.12.2016 i.e., on the expiry of two years from the
date of the earlier order of promotion. However, this
request has been rejected in the following terms:
"¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ²æà PÉ.¹.GªÉÄñï, JEE[¹]¤ªÀÈvÀÛ gÀªÀgÀÄ
¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ CªÀjUÉ EE[¹] ºÀÄzÉݬÄAzÀ
J¸ïE[¹] ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÄÝ, F PɼÀPÀAqÀ
PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ CºÀðgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
• 2013-2014 CªÀ¢ü¬ÄAzÀ 2019-2020gÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ ¥Áåqïì
¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
• ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.02.2012 jAzÀ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ
CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÇ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÀ¢
ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
• ¢£ÁAPÀ:12.11.2019jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:13.09.2020gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ
¤UÀªÀÄzÀ°è C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ:24.11.2022gÀ°è PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ EE[¹]
ºÀÄzÉݬÄAzÀ J¸ïE[¹] ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä
CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
4. To the post of Superintending Engineer, the method
of appointment prescribed is by way of promotion on
selection and only two conditions are prescribed i.e., the
possession of a Bachelor's Degree or its equivalent in the
relevant engineering discipline and service of five years as
an Executive Engineer in the Corporation. The petitioner
was promoted on 05.12.2014 and this was obviously
because he was found to possess all the requisite
qualification and was suitable to be selected to the post of
a Superintending Engineer, by way of promotion. This
selection of the petitioner as a Superintending Engineer,
on consideration of his antecedents, cannot be nullified
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
merely merely because he did not accept the order of
promotion or as held by this Court, he chose to not act
upon the order of promotion.
5. The fact that the petitioner was promoted as a
Superintending Engineer presupposes that he was eligible
in all respects and it is only for this reason, the KPCL
Obviously had decided to promote him as a
Superintending Engineer. The KPCL, which was bound to
reconsider his case for promotion on the expiry of two
years from the date of the earlier order of promotion,
cannot sit in judgment over the promotion that it had itself
granted in the year 2014. To put it differently, if the KPCL
had found that the petitioner was eligible for promotion in
the year 2014, the same KPCL could not have come to the
conclusion that the petitioner became ineligible for
promotion in the year 2016.
6. As could be seen from the impugned order, two
reasons given by the KPCL are in relation to the events
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
which were prior to 2014. Obviously, if these two
conditions of the petitioner's conduct existed in the year
2014 and yet the KPCL did promote the petitioner on
05.12.2014. Therefore, the two reasons given by the KPCL
cannot be of any consequence at all.
7. The third reason given by the KPCL was that the
petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 12.11.2019 to
13.09.2020. It may be pertinent to state here that this
Court, while disposing of the earlier petition filed by the
petitioner, has recorded a finding that there was an order
of deputation passed by the BBMP on 20.07.2019,
whereby the Government notification dated 12.07.2019
extending the period of deputation of the petitioner by a
period of one year, was referred to. In this petition, along
with the rejoinder, the petitioner has produced the
Government notification dated 12.07.2019, which reads as
follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåvï ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀzÀ ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ
²æÃ.PÉ.¹.GªÉÄñï, PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ(¹«¯ï) EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
PÀÆqÀ¯Éà eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ CxÀªÁ ªÀÄÄA¢£À
DzÉñÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÆà C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ §ÈºÀvï
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ°è£À PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄgÀĸÀܼÀ ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¹ DzÉò¹zÉ."
8. As could be seen from the above, the Government
had deputed the petitioner for a period of one year from
12.07.2019 and it is, therefore, obvious that the
petitioner, in due compliance of the said order, served the
BBMP on the direction of the Government. Hence, the
KPCL could not, have come to the conclusion that the
petitioner was in unauthorized absence and was, hence,
disentitled for being promoted as a Superintending
Engineer.
9. In my view, as already held above, since the
petitioner was already promoted in the year 2014, the
question of going into his eligibility afresh would not arise.
The petitioner, having not accepted the order of
promotion, suffered the consequence of getting his
promotion postponed by a period of two years. The KPCL,
NC: 2023:KHC:44242
by reason of the fact that the petitioner did not accept the
promotion, cannot embark upon a fresh consideration of
the petitioner's eligibility for promotion. I am, therefore, of
the view that the KPCL is required to promote the
petitioner with effect from 04.12.2016 and pass necessary
orders. The petitioner would also be entitled to all
consequential benefits that would arise out of this order.
10. In the result, the impugned orders are quashed.
11. It is needless to state that the salary of the
petitioner, as well as the pension shall be re-fixed on such
promotion being granted to the petitioner from
04.12.2016, within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
