Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj Y Ambiger vs State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 29711 OF 2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ Y. AMBIGER,
AGED ABPIT 36 YEARS,
S/O. YAMANAPPA AMBIGER,
WORKING AS JUNIOR LAW OFFICER,
BBMP LEGAL CELL, BBMP HEAD OFFICE,
BANGALORE, RESIDING AT NO.175,
FLAT NO.T-6, III FLOOR, CANARA BANK APARTMENT,
CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARAHBAVI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560072.
2. RAME GOUDA S.K.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O. KRISHNE GOWDA,
JUNIOR LAW OFFICER, BBMP LEGAL CELL,
PRESENTLY WORKING AT JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST),
OPP. TO MANTHRI MALL, BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE-560020.
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA
MANJANNA E
(PETITIONER NO.2 WITHDRAWN
E Date:
2024.02.24
12:02:45
V/O 30/03/2016)
+0530
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R. KALYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS (SERVICES RULES-1),
-2-
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQURE, BANGALORE-560002,
R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. HEAD OF THE LEGAL CELL
CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 484 OF THE KMC ACT,
1976, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.
4. SMT. CHAITRA HONNAPURA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O. PRAVEENKUMAR G.,
WORKING AS JUNIOR LAW OFFICER,
NOW PROMOTED AS ASST. LAW OFFICER,
LEGAL CELL, BBMP, BANGALORE-560002,
RESIDING AT NO.402, I MAIN ROAD,
2ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560043.
5. HANUMANTHAPPA F. TALAWARA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. FAKERAPPA TALAWARA,
WORKING AS JUNIOR LAW OFFICER,
NOW PROMOTED AS ASST. LAW OFFICER,
LEGAL CELL, BBMP, BANGALORE-560002,
RESIDING AT NO.175, S-4, CANARA BANK APARTMENT,
CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560072.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SHRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3;
SHRI R. SUBRAMANYA, ADV. FOR R5;
SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH THE OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.B12(3A)PR/36/14-15
DATED 27.06.2015 AT ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 10.11.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
ORDER
The petitioners are Junior Law Officers working at the
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ("the BBMP"), who
are aggrieved by the promotion granted to respondent
Nos.4 & 5 to the post of Assistant Law Officers.
2. Initially, the petition was filed by Sri. Basavaraj
Y.Ambiger and Sri. Rame Gowda. However, on
30.03.2016, Sri. Rame Gouda S.K., chose to withdraw his
writ petition and consequently, the claim of Sri. Basavaraj
Y.Ambiger alone remains.
3. The principal contention of petitioner No.1 is
that all the backlog vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Law
Officers had been filled up and respondent Nos.4 and 5,
who belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
categories (respectively) could not be promoted to said
posts as against roster point Nos.11 and 12, as backlog
vacancies.
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
4. Before considering the above contention, it
would be necessary to narrate the history of reservations
in the State of Karnataka.
5. On 27.04.1978, the first Government Order
("GO") was issued relating to reservation for Scheduled
Caste ("SC") and Scheduled Tribe ("ST") candidates in
promotional posts up to the lowest category of Class-I
posts. A total of 15% was reserved for SC and 3% was
reserved for ST candidates.
6. A 33 point roster was prescribed in this GO for
giving effect to the above-mentioned reservation system.
The roster prescribed point Nos.2, 9, 17, 24, and 31 for SC
category and point No.16 for ST category. This GO thus
ensured that 15% of the posts were reserved for the SC
category and 3% of the posts were reserved for the ST
category.
7. The senior most candidate belonging to SC/ST
category was required to be promoted irrespective of the
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
seniority assigned to them in the seniority list. Thus, while
effecting promotions, even if an SC candidate was junior
to the senior most candidate, the second point had to be
filled up by an SC candidate even if he was junior to them.
8. Under this GO dated 27.04.1978, it was
specifically stated that no SC or ST vacancies could be
carried forward if there were no SC or ST candidates
available to fill up the promotional posts.
9. This GO dated 27.04.1978 was clarified by the
GO dated 01.06.1978. It stated that the promotions to all
posts up to and inclusive of posts carrying minimum pay of
Rs.900/- would be eligible for promotion. The GO also
stated that in order to claim the benefit of reservation, the
government servant should secure a certificate in the form
prescribed by the Government from the Tahasildar. Thus,
the level up to which reservations could be made in Class I
posts and the requirement to avail the promotion was
prescribed under this GO.
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
10. On 30.08.1979, the Government proceeded to
substitute the roster which had been prescribed in the
Government Order dated 27.04.1978. In this roster, point
Nos.1, 7, 14, 21 and 27 were earmarked for the SC
category as against the earlier point Nos.2, 9, 17, 24 and
31. Similarly, in respect of ST candidates - point No.2 was
earmarked as against earlier point No.16.
11. On 19.01.1980, a clarification was issued in
respect of earlier two GOs dated 27.04.1978 and
30.08.1979, since there were queries being raised
regarding the implementation of said GOs when it came to
making promotions from two or more lower distinct
cadres. The GO clarified that whenever a post is to be
filled up by promotion from two or more lower cadres, it
was necessary that separate rosters be maintained for
each of the lower cadres of each group and then draw the
required number of the candidates from such cadres.
12. On 01.04.1992, the Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules 1977 ("General
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
Recruitment Rules" for short) were amended and a
proviso was inserted to Rule 8. This proviso stated that the
backlog vacancies in the promotional quota should be
determined and implemented with effect from 27.04.1978.
Thus, the GO dated 27.04.1978, which stipulated that no
vacancies could be carried over was nullified by this
insertion of the proviso and it was mandated that the
backlog vacancies should be determined and implemented
from 27.04.1978.
13. In other words, in the year 1992, it was decided
to ensure all vacancies for SC/ST categories earmarked in
the roster, which were filled up by non-SC/ST candidates
from 1978, because the non-availability of SC/ST
candidates was required to be identified and they were to
be treated as backlog vacancies and SC/ST candidates
were required to be promoted to fill up these backlog
vacancies.
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
14. On 16.11.1992, the Apex Court rendered its
judgment in Indra Sawhney's1 case, in which it was
declared that it was impermissible for making any
reservation in the promotional posts. However, the
Supreme Court also stated that the reservations being
provided to promotional posts could be continued for a
period of five years i.e., up to 15.11.1997.
15. On 17.06.1995, the Constitution was amended
and Article 16(4A) was inserted, which provided for
making reservation even in respect of promotional posts.
16. It may be pertinent to state that here that a
proviso was inserted into Rule 8 of the General
Recruitment Rules, (which mandated the determination
and implementation of backlog vacancies) came to be
challenged before the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the amendment to Rule
8 was non-est and thereby, backlog vacancies could not be
filled up by SC/ST candidates.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
17. The matter was taken up to the Apex Court and
the Apex Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and
directed the State Government to issue guidelines to
operate the backlog. The Apex Court set aside the finding
of the Tribunal that the proviso to Rule 8 could not have
been made with retrospective effect. It also held that the
view of the Tribunal that the Rules were non-est, was
incorrect. The Apex Court stated that the operation of the
Rules would not depend on the guidelines stipulated and
the Government was required to formulate guidelines
under Article 16 of the Constitution as to the manner in
which the backlog vacancies were required to be filled up.
18. On the basis of this decision of the Supreme
Court, the Government proceeded to issue an order on
24.07.1997. The said GO prescribed the manner in which
the posts which had been filled by others or which had
been kept vacant were to be calculated, and also stated
that in order to clear the backlog vacancies identified in
the roster attached to the GO dated 30.08.1979,
- 10 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
additional points were identified for SC candidates at point
Nos.5, 9, 11, 18, 20, 24, 26, 30 and 32 and in respect of
Schedule tribe as point No.16.
19. For a better understanding of this - the
vacancies, the additional points identified earlier and
subsequent vacancies are stated herein in a tabular
column.
SCHEDULE CASTE
Original
Additional
Points
Sl. Points as
as per
No. per the
the 1978
1997 GO
GO
5 27 11
SCHEDULE TRIBE
Sl. Original Additional
No. Point Point
- 11 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
20. Thus, in order to ensure that the backlog
vacancies were filled up, additional points were earmarked
and on the vacancies being identified, eligible candidates
from reserved categories were required to be filled up as
against these additional points.
21. The GO also stipulated that if after effecting the
review of promotions, adjustments and fitment, some
more persons belong to SC/ST categories already
promoted against the backlog vacancies could not be
adjusted due to the want of number of adequate
vacancies, such persons would be adjusted in respect of
future vacancies and until such time, they were required
to be continued against supernumerary posts.
22. Since the Apex Court had ordered that the
reservations and promotions posts would continue till
15.11.1997 and the Constitution was amended on
17.06.1995 to insert Article 16(4A), the same enabled the
State to provide for reservation in matters of promotion.
The Government issued an Order that reservation to
- 12 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
persons belonging to the SC/ST categories to the extent of
15% and 3% (respectively) would continue beyond
15.11.1997, till such time representation of each of the
above categories reached the prescribed percentage.
23. On 07.09.1998, the Government issued another
order which made it clear that reservations to promotion
would not be applicable to a single post.
24. On 03.02.1999, the Government issued an
order providing reservations for promotion in favour of
persons belonging to SC/ST categories in view of Article
16(4A) of the Constitution of India. The Order stated that
the reservation would continue in respect of posts, in
which no direct recruitment was prescribed or when direct
decruitment was for a maximum of 66.66% i.e., 2/3rd
percent posts, at the rate of 15% and 3%, respectively. It
was stated that the percentages of representation of the
persons belonging to SC/ST categories would be
determined with reference to the working strength in a
cadre.
- 13 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
25. It is also stated that the promotion against the
backlog vacancies would be accorded only if in any cadre,
representation of the persons belonging to the SC/ST
categories was less than 15% and 3% (respectively) and
the filling up of vacancies would be restricted to the extent
of the short fall. It is also stated that the promotions made
against the backlog vacancies would be taken into account
for calculating the percentage of representation of 15%
and 3%.
26. Thus, this GO sought to restrict the number of
SC/ST candidates who could be promoted to the backlog
vacancies, by stating that the persons subsequently
promoted should also be taken into consideration for
determining the percentage of posts held by the SC/ST
candidates.
27. However, by another GO dated 13.04.1999,
paragraph Nos.7 and 8, which provided for limiting the
promotions of reservations to the extent of shortfall and
the promotions made against the backlog vacancies to be
- 14 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
taken into account for calculating the percentages was
substituted with new paragraphs which clarified that the
promotions would be continued in accordance with the
earlier GO dated 24.06.1997. It also made clear that the
provisions in the GO dated 24.06.1997 continued to
operate until the existing backlog was cleared and by
making promotions thereafter, the representation would
be maintained to the extent of 15% and 3%, respectively.
28. Thus, this GO stated that the backlog vacancies
were to be filled up in accordance with the GO dated
24.06.1997, which had come about as a result of the Apex
Court upholding the reservation in the proviso to Rule 8.
In other words, the requirement of identifying backlog
vacancies and implementing the same with effect from
27.04.1978 stood revived and the subsequent promotions
given to SC/ST candidates were not to be considered.
29. On 04.03.2015, the Government issued an
order regarding roster system that was to be followed at
the time of according promotions against backlog
- 15 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
vacancies. This GO stated that in respect of SC -additional
roster points of 5, 9, 11, 18, 20, 24, 26, 30 and 32; and in
respect of ST - additional roster point 16, both of which
were provided for under the GO dated 24.06.1997, were
being rescinded forthwith.
30. The GO went on to state that in order to fill the
backlog vacancies at the time of promotion of SC
employees, for the purpose of providing reservation in the
33 roster points in addition to the prescribed 1, 7, 14, 21
and 27 points, a total of 9 additional points were to be
considered in one roster cycle.
31. Thus, in effect, the specified additional roster
point introduced vide the GO dated 24.06.1997 were done
away with and it was clarified that, in all, additional 9
points could be considered in one roster cycle. Similarly, in
respect of the ST category, as against the specified point
16, the GO stated that one additional point could be
considered in a roster cycle.
- 16 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
32. The GO also clarified that if any additional
roster point had been utilized, it would have to be ensured
that the maximum number of 9 additional roster points to
fill-up the backlog vacancies were adhered to. It was also
clarified that in case the backlog vacancies could not be
adjusted in the present roster cycle, the same would have
to be carried forward into the next roster cycle and the
same procedure was required to be followed.
33. Thereafter, the Government issued a Circular
dated 06.11.2021 containing guidelines relating to the
SC/ST candidates being entitled for promotions on their
own eligibility without the benefit of claiming the
reservation quota. The Circular stated that those
candidates who became entitled to be promoted on their
own merit, without claiming the benefit of reservation,
could not be taken into consideration for calculating 15%
and 3% quota, but would have to be considered as
belonging to the unreserved category.
- 17 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
34. The entire history of reservation, in a nutshell,
is that reservations to the extent of 15% and 3% were
provided for the first time in 27.04.1978 and it was made
clear that if suitable SC/ST candidates were not available
for being promoted, those vacancies could not be carried
forward. However, this was sought to be undone by the
amendment to the General Recruitment Rules, which
mandated that backlog vacancies in the promotional quota
should be determined and implemented with effect from
27.04.1978. This Rule was upheld by the Apex Court and
the Government thereafter proceeded to issue a GO dated
24.06.1997, which identified additional points for filling up
and clearing the backlog vacancies.
35. Subsequently, the Government, by the GO
dated 03.02.1999 sought to limit promotions against the
backlog vacancies only if there was a shortfall in
representation of 15% and 3%, as mentioned above. But
subsequently, it withdrew this limitation.
- 18 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
36. Thereafter, in the year 2015, as against the
prescribed additional points, the Government earmarked a
maximum of 9 additional points to be utilized for filling up
of backlog vacancies.
37. In the ultimate analysis, the Government has
basically ensured that the posts which had not been filled-
up since 1978 because eligible SC/ST candidates were not
available, were to be identified and those posts were
required to be filled up by eligible SC/ST candidates right
from the date on which the first GO was issued regarding
reservation in the promotional categories i.e., from
27.04.1978.
38. In the present case, the filling up of the roster
points in the following manner is not in dispute;
Points Category Description
1 SC (existing Shri A.Pitchamutu belonging to the
roster point) schedule caste was promoted.
2 ST (existing Since no candidate was available, it
roster point) treated as a backlog post and Shri
Nagaraj, the candidate belonging to
unreserved category was promoted.
3 Unreserved Shri Narasimahaiah a person belonging
to the unreserved category was
promoted.
4 Unreserved Shri B.Shivalingaiah a person belonging
- 19 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
to unreserved category was promoted.
5 SC (Additional Since there was no schedule caste
point as per GO candidate available, Shri S.Shreedhar
dated Murthy a person belonging to unreserved
24.6.1997) category was promoted.
6 Unreserved Shri I.J.Sudhakar a person belonging to
unreserved category was promoted.
7 SC (existing Shri B.K.Ramegouda the 2nd petitioner
roster point) herein was promoted since Shri Muniraju
M, the schedule caste candidate, for
promotion did not have requisite
eligibility. Hence, this post was
considered as backlog.
8. Unreserved Sri Muniraju a person belonging to
schedule caste was promoted.
9 SC (Additional Since no eligible candidate was available,
Point Shri Manohar S.Haligeri a person belong
to the schedule tribe was promoted.
10 Unreserved Sri N.A.Jayachandra Raddy senior most
belonging to the unreserved category
was promoted.
11 SC (Additional Shri Hanumathappa F.Talawara, the 5th
point) respondent herein belonging to the
schedule tribe was promoted.
12 Unreserved Smt.Chaitra Honnapura, the 4th
respondent herein belonging to schedule
caste was promoted.
39. The argument of the petitioner is that Sri.
Muniraju M. - the candidate promoted as against the
roster point No.8 had to be considered as having been
promoted to fill-up the SC backlog vacancy of point No.7
and Sri. Manohar Haligeri, the candidate belonging to the
ST category had to be considered as having filled up the
backlog vacancy in relation to roster point No.2.
- 20 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
40. It is therefore contended that the filling up of
point No.11, which was an additional point for SC category
by the 5th respondent could not have made. Similarly, the
filling up of point No.12, which was meant for unreserved
category, could not have been filled up by the 4th
respondent who belonging to the SC category.
41. The argument is that the backlog vacancies
pertaining to SC/ST category have been filled up by
promoting Sri. Muniraju M. against the 8th point and Sri.
Manohar Haligeri against the 9th point and, therefore, it
was impermissible to once again fill up the additional point
Nos.11 and 12 with SC/ST categories. It is contended that
since the backlog vacancies have already been filled up,
the BBMP has basically made promotions in excess of the
percentage prescribed for the SC/ST categories.
42. The Deputy Commissioner, BBMP has filed an
affidavit in which he has stated that point Nos.8 and 9,
which were both unreserved points in the roster, were no
doubt filled by Sri. Muniraju M. and Sri. Manohar Haligeri
- 21 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
who belonged to SC and ST categories, but both of them
were promoted on their own eligibility without them
claiming or without them being given the benefit of
reservation. It is stated that since both of them had
acquired requisite seniority and were entitled to be
promoted on the basis on their own eligibility, the question
of applying the roster points and granting them
promotions under the promotional quota did not arise. The
affidavit also annexed the Roster Register, which reads as
follows:
1. QjAiÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj ªÀÈAzÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÉ ¨sÀrÛ
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
PÀæªÀÄ gÉÆøÀÖgï PÀbÉÃj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
£ËPÀgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ µÀgÁ
¸ÀASÉå ©AzÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj
©12(3)¦Dgï/373/96- ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃrzÉ ºÁUÀÆ
1 ¥Àj¶ÖvÀ eÁw ²æÃ. J ¦ZÀÆåªÀÄÄvÀÄÛ
97, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-12-1997 ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ
¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj
ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃrzÉ. ¥Àj²µÀÖ
¥Àj¶ÖvÀ ©12(3)¦Dgï/373/96-
2 ²æÃ. eÉ £ÁUÀgÁeï ¥ÀAUÀqÀzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ
¥ÀAUÀqÀ 97, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-12-1997
®¨sÀå«®èzÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå
ªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÉ.
©12(3)¦Dgï/372/98- ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj
3 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ²æÃ. J.f £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå
99, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21-01-1999 ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃrzÉ.
©12(3)¦Dgï/372/98- ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj
4 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ²æÃ. ²ªÀ°AUÀAiÀÄå
99, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21-01-1999 ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃrzÉ.
²æÃ. ²æÃzsÀgï ªÀÄÆwð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj
©12(3)¦Dgï/211/05-06,
5 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå (¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå) ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃrzÉ.
¢£ÁAPÀ:07-12-2005
6 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ²æÃ. ¦.f.¸ÀÄzsÁPÀgï ©12(3)¦Dgï/211/05-06, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj
- 22 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
(¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07-12-2005 ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃrzÉ.
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj
²æÃ. ©.PÉ gÁªÉÄÃUËqÀ ©12(3)¦Dgï/211/05-06, ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃrzÉ. ¥Àj²µÀÖ
7 ¥Àj¶ÖvÀ eÁw (¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26-06-2006 eÁw C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀå«®èzÀ
PÁgÀt ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUÀðPÉÌ
¥ÀjUÀt¹zÉ.
¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå C¨sÀåy𠮨sÀå«®èzÉ
EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ CºÀðvÉ
²æÃ. JA. ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw
©12(3)JSï¦Dgï/15/11-12,
8 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå (¥Àj¶ÖvÀ eÁw) ²æÃ. JA. ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ Q.PÁ.C
¢£ÁAPÀ:10-10-2011
EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
C¢üPÁj ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ
¤ÃqÀSÁVzÉ.
¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå C¨sÀåy𠮨sÀå«®èzÉ
EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ CºÀðvÉ
²æÃ. ªÀÄ£ÉÆúÀgï J¸ï ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ¥Àj²µÀÖ
©12(3)JSï¦Dgï/36/11-12
9 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ºÁ°UÉÃj (¥Àj¶ÖvÀ ¥ÀAUÀqÀzÀ ²æà ªÀÄ£ÉÆúÀgï
¢:
¥ÀAUÀqÀ) Q.PÁ.C EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C¢üPÁj ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ
ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃqÀSÁVzÉ.
43. As could be seen from the above Roster
Register, it is clearly stated that respondent Nos.8 and 9
were not promoted against the backlog vacancies, but
were promoted on their own merit.
44. Clause (1) of the GO dated 06.11.2021 reads as
follows:
"(i) ¸ÀéAvÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃSÉ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è
£ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀ J¸ï.¹., J¸ï.n. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ »AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À
C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀéAvÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃSÉ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw
ºÉÆA¢ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ªÀÈAzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀéAvÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃSÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ
ºÉÆA¢zÀ J¸ï.¹. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¸ï.n. £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ÄøÀSÁw PÉÆÃmÁ
JzÀÄgÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀAw®è. §zÀ°UÉ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå
C¨sÀåyð/£ËPÀgÀgÉAzÀ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CAzÀgÉ, CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ°è
- 23 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
EgÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÆà D ªÀÈAzÀzÀ°è J¸ï.¹. CxÀªÁ J¸ï.n. «ÄøÀSÁw
PÉÆÃmÁ ¥Áæw¤zsÀåvÉ SÉPÀÌ ºÁPÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀAw®è. DzÀgÉ G½zÀ J¸ï.¹. CxÀªÁ J¸ï.n. £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁvÀæ DAiÀiÁ «ÄøÀSÁw ªÀUÀðzÀ CrAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ªÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
GzÁºÀgÀuÉUÉ, QjAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀÈAzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ
¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è, «ÄøÀSÁw ¥Áæw¤zsÀå SÉPÁÌZÁgÀ ºÁPÀĪÁUÀ
¸ÀéAvÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀÈAzÀPÉÌ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw
ºÉÆA¢zÀ J¸ï.¹./J¸ï.n. £ËPÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß CxÀªÁ ¸ÀéAvÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ
DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ QjAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀÈAzÀPÉÌ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀÈAzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀéAvÀ CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ
ºÉÆA¢zÀ J¸ï.¹./J¸ï.n £ËPÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ°è ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå
ªÀUÀðzÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÉAzÉà ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
45. It is thus clear that the promotions granted to
Sri. Muniraju M. and Sri. Manohar Haligeri will have to be
considered as promotions under the unreserved category
and not under the benefit of reservation, and,
consequently, there would be no question of them filling
up the backlog vacancies.
46. It is also to be stated here that if an SC/ST
candidate is eligible to be promoted on his own merit and
is promoted because of his own merit and eligibility, such
promotion cannot be considered as being against the
reservation quota.
- 24 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
47. As necessary consequence, it is clear that the
backlog vacancies pertaining to the 7th point had not been
filled up and consequently, the same was required to be
filled up. However, since the additional points that were
prescribed in the GO dated 24.07.1997 was rescinded and
the Government stated that the promotions could be made
to fill-up the shortfall by granting 9 additional points,
without reference to a specified roster point, it is obvious
that the promotions could be made to fill-up the next
available roster point and take that point to be an
additional point for filling up the backlog vacancies.
48. In other words, in order to clear the backlog
vacancies, the BBMP could have promoted the next eligible
SC/ST candidate without reference to the roster point
prescribed earlier i.e., the 7th point and the 2nd point, could
have been done without reference to specific points
earmarked in the 1997 GO.
49. In this case, since there were admitted backlog
vacancies in the SC and ST quota, the BBMP was justified
- 25 -
WP No. 29711 OF 2015
in promoting respondents Nos.4 and 5 to fill up the
backlog vacancies. As already stated above, the promotion
of Sri. Muniraju M. and Sri. Manohar Haligeri, being
promotions conferred on them because of their own
eligibility and not under the reservation quota, the
argument that the backlog vacancies had already been
filled up, cannot be accepted. Consequently, the
promotions made in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5
cannot be found fault with, at all.
50. I find no merit in the writ petition and it is
therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM/CT:BCK
