Karnataka High Court
Sunil Kumar T H vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
WP No. 36198 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 36198 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SUNIL KUMAR T.H.
SON OF LATE SRI HOMBALE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KIADB ZONAL OFFICE, KIADB CIRCLE,
HASSAN GROWTH CENTRE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HOLENARASIPURA ROAD,
HASSAN-573201.
RESIDING AT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RESIDENCE,
A TYPE QUARTERS, KIADB CIRCLE,
HASSAN GROWTH CENTRE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HASSAN-573201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date:
2025.06.24
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
19:02:58 +0530
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
A STATUTORY BODY CORPORATE ESTABLISHED
UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966
REPRESENTED BY ITS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
WP No. 36198 of 2024
HC-KAR
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
HEAD OFFICE AT NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
3. SRI. T.S LAKSHMEESHA
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MARUTHI GROUP BUILDING
2ND FLOOR, SIT COLLEGE,
NEAR MAIN GATE,
B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR- 572103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI.C.M.NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025,
I.A.NO.1/2025 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS LEADING TO APPOINTMENT ORDER BEARING NO.
KAKAIPRAAMAM/ASEC 80 (B) /8932/94-95 DATED 25.11.1994
(UNDER ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND DEPARTMENTAL
PROMOTION COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS DATED 07.12.2024 (UNDER
ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND QUASH APPOINTMENT
ORDER BEARING NO. KAKAIPRAAMAM/ASEC 80 (B) /8932/94-95
DATED 25.11.1994 (UNDER ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION)
OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY
ISSUING WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT,
AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 14.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board (Cadre and
Recruitment) Regulations 2019 as being unconstitutional.
He has also sought for quashing the order bearing
No.KaKaiPraAMam/ASEC 80 (B)/8932/94-95 dated
25.11.1994 by which, the respondent No.3 was appointed
as a Junior Engineer. He has also sought for quashing of
the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
proceedings dated 07.12.2024 insofar as it relates to
recommending the promotion of respondent No.3 as
Superintending Engineer.
2. When the petition was filed, the petitioner
sought the following reliefs:
(i) to quash the order dated 25-11-94, referred
supra, appointing the respondent No.3 as
Junior Engineer
(ii) to quash the DPC proceedings dated
07-12-2024 recommending the promotion of
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
respondent No.3 as Superintending
Engineer.
3. The petitioner contended that he completed his
bachelor degree in Civil Engineering and was directly
appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) by respondent No.2
vide order dated 31.10.2012. The probation of the
petitioner was declared vide Official memorandum dated
02.01.2014. He was promoted as Assistant Executive
Engineer (Civil) in terms of notification dated 17.08.2018.
He was later promoted as Executive Engineer vide
notification dated 22.02.2023.
4. He contends that respondent No.3 was
appointed as Junior Engineer in terms of an order of
appointment dated 25.11.1994 based on his Diploma in
Civil Engineering qualification. The petitioner contends that
the respondent No.3 did not disclose that he possessed a
bachelor degree in Civil Engineering at the time of his
appointment as Junior Engineer. He was later promoted as
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) (Grade-II) by order
dated 30.04.2012. Thereafter, he was promoted as
Executive Engineer in terms of notification dated
17.08.2019. He contends that since respondent No.3 was
selected under the Diploma category, he was granted
accelerated promotions, when compared to the candidates
who possessed Bachelor degree in engineering. In proof of
the above, he referred to the case of Mr.K.C.Shivakumar,
who possessed a degree in Civil Engineering and was
directly appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on
01-09-1984 and was promoted as Assistant Executive
Engineer on 21-09-1995 and Executive Engineer on
17-08-2019. He contends that in the Seniority list of
Executive Engineers published on 01.01.2024, the
qualification of respondent No.3 was shown as Diploma.
5. He contends that the respondent No.2 had
framed KIADB (C & R) Regulations, 1984 (henceforth
referred as Regulations, 1984), which was repealed by the
KIADB (C & R) Regulations, 2019 (henceforth referred as
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Regulations, 2019). As per the Regulations, 2019, an
executive engineer who has a degree qualification is alone
entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintending
Engineer and since the respondent No.3 came in the
feeder channel of diploma holders, he was not entitled to
be considered for promotion. He contends the
Departmental Promotion Committee (henceforth referred
to as DPC) at its meeting dated 07-12-24 ordered that the
documents relating to the completion of the degree of
respondent No.3 must be verified before considering him
for promotion to Superintending Engineer. The petitioner
claimed that the DPC ignoring its resolution dated
07-12-24 recommended the promotion of respondent No.3
as Superintending Engineer. The Petitioner submitted his
objections to the recommendation but without considering
those objections, the respondent No.2 was hurriedly trying
to issue an order of promotion to the respondent No.3 as
Superintending Engineer.
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
6. This Court granted an interim order on
31-12-2024 restraining the respondents from giving effect
to the DPC proceeding dated 07-12-2024.
7. (i). The writ petition is opposed by respondent
No.2 who contended that the petitioner was admittedly
promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer on
22.02.2023 and therefore as on the date of DPC i.e.,
07.12.2024, he had not put in the minimum service of
three years in the post of Executive Engineer for
consideration to be promoted to the post of
Superintending Engineer. Therefore, it contended that the
petitioner was not eligible to be promoted to the post of
Superintending Engineer and hence, he has no locus
standi to challenge the promotion of respondent No.3. It
contended that the petitioner would be eligible to be
considered for promotion only on 21.02.2026. It claimed
that the petitioner was not even in the zone of
consideration for promotion of Superintending Engineer
and therefore he cannot be aggrieved by the
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
recommendation of DPC to promote the respondent No.3
to the post of Superintending Engineer.
(ii). It also contended that the petitioner challenged
the appointment of respondent No.3 as Junior Engineer
vide appointment dated 25.11.1994 i.e., after 30 years
and therefore the petition is hit by delay and laches. It is
contended that the petitioner was not even born in the
cadre of Assistant Engineer (AE) when respondent No.3
was appointed as Junior Engineer. It is contended that by
the time the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Engineer, the respondent No.3 was already placed in a
higher cadre i.e., Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore,
it contended that the petitioner can have no grievance
against the appointment/promotion of respondent No.3.
Therefore, it contended that no case was made out for
quashing the appointment of respondent No.3.
(iii). This apart, it contended that the prescribed
qualification for the post of Junior Engineer was a Diploma
in Civil Engineering, which respondent No.3 possessed. It
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
contended that there is no prohibition in law that a person
holding a higher qualification cannot seek employment to
a post which requires a lower qualification. It contended
that when the recruitment notification dated 31.07.1989
was issued inviting applications to the post of Junior
Engineer, the respondent No.3 did not possess a Bachelor
degree in Civil Engineering. It contended that as on date
of the recruitment notification, the respondent No.3 had
rightly disclosed that he possessed a Diploma in Civil
Engineering. It contended that the actual appointment
order was issued to respondent No.3 on 25.11.1994 by
which time, he had acquired higher qualification.
Therefore, it contended that respondent No.3 had not
suppressed any material fact at the time of recruitment
notification and hence, respondent No.3 cannot be accused
of suppression of material fact. It contended that after his
appointment, respondent No.3 informed that he had
acquired higher qualification vide his representation dated
25.06.1997. Hence, it contended that the assertion of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
petitioner that respondent No.3 had suppressed his higher
qualification to enter the Junior Engineer cadre for getting
fast track promotion is baseless. It also claimed that
between the petitioner and the respondent No.3, it was
the petitioner who got quicker promotion than the
respondent No.3. It also contended that it is not the case
of the petitioner that the promotions granted to
respondent No.3 were contrary to the C & R Regulations.
It further contended that the grievance of the petitioner
that Mr. K.C. Shivakumar was placed at Sl. No. 20 while
respondent No. 3 was placed at Sl. No. 41, and that
therefore respondent No. 3 was not eligible to be
considered, is a mischievous statement, as by the time the
DPC was convened on 07.12.2024, the said Mr. K.C.
Shivakumar had attained superannuation on 31.12.2021
itself.
(iv). It claimed that reservation to the post of
Superintending Engineer was not applicable as the cadre
strength was only three. It is claimed that as per the DPC
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
proceedings, three promotions were effected one of whom
was Mr.G.R.Narayanappa who was to attain
superannuation on 31.05.2025. After the said
Mr.G.R.Narayanappa, the petitioner was next in line to be
promoted. It is contended that the petitioner has a long
tenure, i.e, up to 30.04.2048 and therefore the attempt of
the petitioner to stall the process of promotion to
respondent No.3 is unfair.
8. The respondent No.3 filed an application for
vacating the interim order dated 31.12.2024 and
reiterated that he completed his Bachelor of Engineering in
July, 1993 and when he applied to the post of Junior
Engineer against a notification dated 31.07.1989 he
possessed only a Diploma in Civil Engineering. He
contends that after his appointment as Junior Engineer on
25.11.1994, he submitted a representation on 28.10.1997
informing the respondent No.2, that he completed his
Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering. He contended that
based on his eligibility and seniority he was promoted as
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Assistant Engineer on 10.12.2001 and as Assistant
Executive Engineer on 30.04.2012, by which time the
petitioner was not even appointed. Thereafter, respondent
No.3 was promoted as Executive Engineer vide order
dated 17.08.2019. He contended that when respondent
No.3 was in the cadre of Executive Engineer, the petitioner
was in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer.
Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner had suppressed
the material facts and had obtained an interim order. He
also contended that the petitioner was not eligible for
promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer as he
did not have three years experience in the cadre of
Executive Engineer.
9. The petitioner, perhaps apprehensive that the
writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of locus
standi filed an application to amend the writ petition to
challenge the validity of the Regulations, 2019. This
application was allowed so as to conclusively deal with all
contentions raised.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
10. (i). In order to justify his claim that the
Regulations, 2019 are invalid, the petitioner contended
that the respondent No.2 in exercise of its power under
Section 11 read with Section 41 of Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD) had framed the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Cadre and
Recruitment Regulations, 1984. These regulations
provided for various cadres in the Board, prescribed the
method of recruitment and the minimum qualification for
recruitment. It provided for promotion to the post of
Development Officer (Graduate) and Development Officer
(Diploma). It also provided for filling up of the post of
Chief Development Officer by promotion from the cadres
of Development Officer (Graduate) and Development
Officer (Diploma). He contends that the Board framed the
KIADB (C & R) Regulations (First Amendment) which was
published in the Karnataka Gazette extraordinarily on
03.11.1998. This amendment created an additional post of
Chief Development Officer and the method of recruitment
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
was by promotion and the minimum qualification was
three years experience in the cadre of Executive
Engineer/Development Officer. It is also provided for
promotion to the cadre of Chief Development officer (CDO)
from the cadres of Additional Chief Development Officer
(ACDO). Thus, he contends that after the first
amendment, a Diploma holder was not eligible for
promotion to the cadre of ACDO.
(ii). He contends that the respondent No.2 proposed
certain amendments to the cadre and recruitment
Regulations, 1984 and forwarded it to the State
Government for approval in terms of a communication
dated 20.10.2018. This proposal provided for 90%
promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil) from
Assistant Executive Engineer (Grade-I) (Degree). The
State Government invited objections to this proposed C &
R Regulations. The respondent No.3 submitted objections
on 15.07.2019 contending that he would be ineligible for
promotion to any higher post if provision for promotion
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
under the Diploma quota is removed. The State
government in terms of its note No.216 dated 19.07.2019
decided that provision be made for promotion to the cadre
of Executive Engineer for Diploma holders. The petitioner
contends that though the State Government had no
authority in law and in violation of Section 41 of the KIAD
Act, it published and notified the KIADB (C & R)
Regulations 2019. He contends that though in the
preamble portion it is stated that the regulations were
made by respondent No.2, a perusal of the note-sheet
would establish that the Regulations were in fact not
notified by the Board, but was finalized by the State
Government.
(iii). He contends that based on the Regulations
2019, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) at its
meeting held on 07.12.2024, ordered that the documents
relating to the Bachelors degree in Engineering furnished
by respondent No.3 be verified before he was considered
for promotion from the cadre of Executive Engineer (EE) to
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Superintending Engineer (SE). He contends that thereafter
the DPC at its meeting held on 07.12.2024 recommended
the promotion of respondent No.3 from the cadre of
Executive Engineer to the cadre of Superintending
Engineer. The petitioner submitted his objections on
16.12.2024. However, the respondent no.2 without either
replying to the objection or considering it, hastily was
trying to formally promote the respondent No.3.
(iv). He further contends that respondent No.3 has
suppressed that he possessed a Bachelor degree in civil
engineering when he was appointed as a Junior engineer
but had selectively mentioned that he possessed a
Diploma in civil engineering. He contends that respondent
No.3 had throughout claimed promotion under the
Diploma quota which is evident from the communication
dated 03.09.2011 addressed by respondent No.2 to the
Karnataka State (SC/ST) Commission by which it informed
the Commission that there was no vacancies in Diploma
quota to consider the case of respondent No.3 for
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The
petitioner therefore contends that the respondent No.3
cannot blow hot and cold and claim promotion to the post
of Superintending engineer based on his degree
qualification. He contends that if the appointment of
respondent No.3 was considered under the Diploma Holder
category, he could not have been promoted as Executive
Engineer and even if he was promoted, he would have
been placed below the petitioner in the seniority list of
Executive Engineers. The petitioner is therefore before this
Court challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 as
Junior Engineer vide appointment order dated 25.11.1994
and to quash the DPC proceedings dated 07.12.2024
recommending the promotion of respondent No.3 as
Superintending Engineer. He has also challenged the
Regulations 2019 as unconstitutional.
11. (i). An additional statement of objection to the
amended relief sought for by the petitioner, was filed by
respondent No.2 contending that the Regulations 2019
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
was framed by the respondent No.2 with the approval of
State Government as prescribed under Section 41 of KIAD
Act. It contended that the claim of petitioner that the
Regulations was framed by the State Government and not
by the Board is unsustainable. Furthermore, it claimed
that the petitioner was appointed under 1984 Regulations
as amended on 02.11.1998, where qualification for
promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer is
Bachelor of Engineering degree and three years experience
in the cadre of Executive Engineer. Therefore, it contended
that the petitioner ought to have challenged the
Regulations, 2019 at the earliest point in time and hence
the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches. It also contended that the petitioner
challenged the Regulations 2019 without arraying all the
employees of the Board and therefore the petition is liable
to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It
also contended that the petitioner has not set out as to
which provision of the Regulations 2019 are affecting him
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
as he was not qualified either under the Regulations 1984
or under the Regulations 2019 to be promoted to the post
of Superintending Engineer. It contended that academic
questions cannot be decided in a writ petition and
constitutional validity of sub-ordinate legislation cannot be
entertained by this Court to determine a hypothetical
question.
(ii). It contended that even if the promotion granted
to respondent No.3 is set-aside, no relief can be granted
to the petitioner as he is not qualified to be promoted to
the post of Superintending Engineer.
(iii). It contended that even if the Regulations 2019
is set-aside, the repealed Regulations 1984 will not be
revived. Therefore, if the prayer sought for by the
petitioner is granted, it would result in a vacuum. It
contended that the contention of the petitioner that the
Regulations 2019 are amended to suit the requirement of
respondent No.3 is false. It also contended that the
petitioner questioned the wisdom of the employer to
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
provide for promotion avenue to the persons who
possessed Diploma and who are in the cadre of Executive
Engineer.
(iv). Along with the additional statement of
objection, respondent No.2 has enclosed the recruitment
notification dated 31.07.1989 by which it invited
applications to the post of Junior Engineers. It has also
placed on record the Bachelor Degree in Engineering which
was obtained in July, 1993. It has also placed on record
the marks card, which shows that the petitioner had
completed his degree on 13.09.1993, i.e., after the
recruitment notification dated 31.07.1989.
12. (i). A rejoinder is filed to the additional
statement of objections inter alia contending that mere
making of a regulation does not give cause of action to
challenge it and that it cannot be challenged in vacuum. It
is claimed that the cause of action arose for the petitioner
to challenge the Regulations 2019 when the respondent
No.3 who was ineligible to be promoted to the post of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Superintending Engineer was considered for promotion
under the Regulations 2019. He contends that the illegality
regarding the manner of framing of Regulations 2019
came to light only after documents were obtained after the
writ petition was filed. Insofar as the contention that the
writ petition is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties, it is
contended that when a constitutional validity of sub-
ordinate legislation is questioned, all the beneficiaries of
such legislation need not be made parties. In this regard,
reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of G.M., South Central Railway vs.
A.V.R.Siddanthi - (1974) 4 SCC 335.
(ii). It is contended that in the statement of
objection filed by respondent No.2, it admitted that the
Regulations 2019 were made by the State Government
and not by the Board and therefore the Regulations 2019
is ultra vires the KIAD Act. A reference is made to the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.20555/2007 where the petitioner therein was
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
given an opportunity of hearing before finalizing the C & R
Regulations. It is contended that the Principal Secretary to
Government, Department of Industries and Commerce,
resolved that a new C & R Regulations be prepared and
published and the objections be invited from the
employees of the Board and if need be, hear the
employees and thereafter place it before the Board. It is
contended that in the instant case the Board did not invite
any objections to the draft C & R Regulations. On the
contrary, the State Government considered the statement
objection filed by respondent No.3 and made changes to
the regulations and finalized it without the Board
approving it. Therefore, it is contended that the
Regulations 2019 was finalized by the State Government
and not by the Board. It is contended that the role of the
State Government is only to approve the Regulations
placed it by the Board. Thus, it is contended that the State
Government usurped the power of the Board in framing
the Regulations.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
13. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
urged the following contentions :
i) That the respondent No.3 was appointed as a Junior
Engineer on the basis of his qualification- a Diploma
in Civil Engineering. He contends that the Regulations
1984 provided for filling up of the post of Assistant
Engineers through direct recruitment by persons
holding a degree in Civil Engineering and by
promotion of Junior Engineers possessing a Diploma
in Civil Engineering with four years experience. He
contends that the Regulations, 1984 provided for
filling-up of the post of Deputy Development Officers,
equivalent to Assistant Executive Engineer by direct
recruitment and through promotion with separate
quotas for Diploma holders and Graduate Engineers
with different years of experience. Therefore he
contends that there were two separate feeder
channels, one being Graduate Engineers and other
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
being Diploma holders in Civil Engineering and these
two feeder channels were separate and distinct.
ii) He contends that the Regulations, 1984 were
amended on 02.11.1998 creating an additional post
of Additional Chief Development Officer equivalent to
Superintending Engineer and promotions to the post
was to be from the cadres of Development
Officer/Executive Engineer with three years
experience. He therefore contends that even as per
the 1998 Regulations, which were in force till the
Regulations 2019 came into effect, the respondent
No.3 was not entitled to be promoted to the post of
ACDO/EE.
iii) He contends that the KIAD Act is enacted for the
purposes of establishing industrial areas in Karnataka
and to promote the entitlement and orderly
development of industries therein by establishing a
Board and incorporating it under Section 5 of the Act.
He contends that in order to ensure independence
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
and autonomy of the Board, it is constituted as a
body Corporate with perpetual succession and a
common seal. Under Section 41 of the Act, the
Board may with the previous approval of the State
Government by notification make Regulations
consistent with the Act and the rules made
thereunder. He contends that under Section 17 of the
Act, the State Government is authorized to issue to
the Board such directions of a general nature as it
may think necessary or expedient for the purpose of
carrying out the purpose of the Act and the Board is
bound to follow and act upon such directions. He
contends that the power under Section 17 of the Act
is confined to directions which are necessary to
carryout the purposes of the Act while the role of the
State Government in the matter of service conditions
of the employees of the board is limited to granting
previous approval for regulations as provided under
Section 11(2) of the Act. He contends that the Board
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
had framed the Regulations 1984 which provided for
various cadres, method of recruitment, minimum
qualification, promotion etc.,. It further provided for
filling up of the post of Chief Development Officer by
promotion from the cadre of Development Officer
(Graduate) and Development Officer (Diploma). He
contends that the Regulations 1984 was amended on
02.11.1998 which created the post of ACDO and the
method of recruitment as promotion and the
minimum qualification was from the cadre of
Development Officer/Executive Engineer (Graduate)
with three years experience. He contends that in
view of this amendment a Diploma holder is not
eligible for promotion to the post of ACDO or higher.
iv) He contends that the Board forwarded a draft of the
Regulations 2019 proposing changes to the Cadre
and Recruitment Regulations. The draft provided for
90% promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer
(Civil) from the cadres of Assistant Executive
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Engineer (Grade-I) (Graduate). He contends that the
State Government had invited objections and the
respondent No.3 submitted his objections on
15.07.2019 contending that he would be ineligible for
promotion to any higher post, if provision for
promotion to Diploma holders to higher posts is
removed. He contends that the State Government in
terms of its note No.216 dated 19.07.2019 decided
that provision be made for promotion to the cadre of
Superintending Engineer from Executive Engineer
possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering. He contends
that this exercise of power by the State Government
is contrary to Section 41 of the KIAD Act. He
contends that after such amendment, the
Regulations 2019 were notified and published in the
gazette. Though in the preamble, it is mentioned that
the regulations are made by the Board with the
previous approval of the State Government, a
perusal of the note sheet shows that the objections
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
were not considered by the Board and it was not
finalized by the Board. On the contrary, the
regulations were finalized by the State Government.
This, he contends is contrary to Section 41 of the
KIAD Act, 1966. In support of this, he relies upon the
following judgments :-
a) AnirudhSinhji Karansinhji Jadeja & Anr v. State of
Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302;
b) Babu Varghese & Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala &
Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 422;
c) A Manoharan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(2008) 3 SCC 641;
d) Managing Director, Orissa Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar v. Sarat
Chandra Patnaik & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 590.
v) Therefore, he contends that the Regulations 2019 are
amended to suit the requirement of respondent No.3
and hence Regulations 2019 are liable to be set at
naught. He has extensively referred to the file notes
leading to the approval of the Regulations 2019. He
contends that it is not forthcoming when the draft
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
regulations were adopted by the Board and
submitted to the State Government and whether
revisions to the Draft Regulations were adopted by
the Board before addressing the letter dated
20.10.2018. He also contends that the State
Government while suggesting revisions had referred
to the proceedings in W.P.No.20555/2007 and had
undertaken that the draft regulations would be
published; objections would be invited and
considered. He contends that without complying this,
the Regulations 2019 were notified. Thus, he
contends that the Regulations 2019 is not in line with
Section 11 of the Act, 1966. He also contends that
the respondent No.2 did not obtain a report of the
Expert Committee as directed by this Court in
W.P.No.13808/2001 before revising the C & R
Regulations.
vi) He contends that respondent No.3 represented to the
State Government that quota for Diploma holders
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
was taken away by the draft Regulations 2019,
though Diploma Engineers were not eligible to be
promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer
when it was created by the first amendment to the
Regulations 1984.
vii) He contends that the C & R Regulations have to be
framed and adopted by the Board and thereafter sent
for approval by the State Government. However, he
contends that the file relating to approval of the C &
R Regulations shows that it is not the Board but the
State Government which had finalized the
regulations. Hence, he contends that the Regulations
2019 have no legs to stand and hence consequently,
the constitution of a DPC to consider promotion to
the post of Superintending Engineer to respondent
No.3 is illegal. He therefore contends that order
granting promotion to respondent No.3 to
Superintending Engineer is liable to be set aside.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
viii) He contends that the petitioner is entitled to
challenge the promotion of respondent No.3 to the
post of Superintending Engineer on the ground that
he is not eligible to be promoted. In support of this,
he relied upon the following judgments :
a) N Mohan Kumar & Ors v. Karnataka Slum
Clearance Board & Ors. (2006) 2 KantLJ 90;
b) S N Parashuramegowda v. H M Mohan Kumar &
Ors. W.A.No.303/2006 - 18.09.2006;
c) M S Jayaraj v. The Commissioner of Excise,
Kerala & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 552;
d) K Shekar v. Indiramma & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 586;
e) P Lal v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 393;
f) M V Dixit v. State of Karnataka & Ors. ILR 2004
KAR 3802; and
g) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr v. The
Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors. AIR 2024
SC 135.
ix) In so far as the delay in challenging Regulations 2019
is concerned, he contends that the petitioner cannot
challenge the Regulations in vacuum and is entitled
to challenge only when an occasion arises. Hence, he
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
contends that respondent No.3 is granted promotion
to which he is not entitled to based on an illegal
Regulations 2019, petitioner is entitled to challenge
it. In support of this contention, he has relied upon
the judgment in the case of M/s. Rajashree Cement
and others vs. State of Karnataka and others - ILR
2005 KAR 1356.
x) He contends that the State Government was only
entitled to approve the regulations and not go
beyond it. He has referred to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Vijaydevi Naval Kishore
Bhartiya vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another -
(2003) 5 SCC 83 which deals with the meaning of
the approval.
xi) He contends that the State Government has
misdirected itself in providing for promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer in the Regulations
2019 as in the first amendment of the year 1998, the
post of Superintending Engineer would be filled-up by
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
an Executive Engineer by graduate engineers.
Therefore, he contends that the Regulations 2019 is
without application of mind. In support of this
contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-
a) State of Mysore v. P R Kulkarni & Ors. (1973) 3
SCC 597; and
b) State of Punjab & Anr v. Gurdial Singh & Ors.
(1980) 2 SCC 471.
xii) He also contends that respondent No.2 has no
inherent power to make rules on its own but is
circumscribed by restrictions mentioned in the
statute. Therefore, respondent No.2 is bound to
function within the purview of statute and not go
beyond. If it does, it is ultra vires and cannot be
given effect to. In support of this, he relied upon the
following judgments:
a) Kerala Seb v. Thomas Joseph (2023) 11 SCC 700;
b) Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE (2016) 3
SCC 643;
c) Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa v. Manubhai
Paragji Vashi (2012) 1 SCC 314;
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
d) Pune Municipal Corporation v. Kausarbag Co-
operative Housing Society (2014) 15 SCC 753;
and
e) Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India (2006) 12 SCC
753.
xiii) He contends that writ of a quo warranto can be
issued where an appointment is not made is in
accordance with the governing statute. In this
regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth and
another vs. Chancellor Kannur University - AIR 2024
SC 135.
xiv) He also contends that it is not necessary for the
petitioner to array all persons affected by the
Regulations 2019 and it would suffice, if the
petitioner arrays the respondent No.3 as a party
whose promotion is challenged. In support of this, he
relied upon the judgment in General Manager, South
Central General Manager South Central Railway,
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Secunderabad and another vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And
Ors. (1974) 4 SCC 335.
xv) He contends that the State Government has not filed
any objections to the writ petition meaning thereby it
accepted that the Regulations 2019 are framed by it
and not by the Board.
14. (i). In reply, the learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has
belatedly called in question the appointment of respondent
No.3 dated 25.11.1994 and hence it is hit by delay and
laches.
(ii). He contends that the petitioner cannot challenge
the Regulations 2019 as he was promoted as Executive
Engineer under the Regulations 2019. Therefore, the
petitioner is estopped by conduct from challenging the
Regulations 2019. He contends that the petitioner by
being promoted to the post of Executive Engineer under
the Regulations 2019 has waived his right to challenge the
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Regulations 2019. In support of this, he relied upon the
judgment in Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi &
Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 309.
(iii). He contends that the effect of quashing the
Regulations 2019 would be enormous inasmuch as several
appointments/promotions were made from 2019 and if the
Regulations are quashed, it would affect the
appointees/promotes. Therefore, he contends that the writ
petition without impleading all the appointees/promotes is
liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
(iv). He contends that if the Regulations 2019 is
quashed or is restricted to the promotion granted to
respondent No.3, it would result in a vacuum as the
repealed Regulations 1984 cannot be restored back.
(v). He contends that even as per the Regulations
1998, for the petitioner to be eligible for promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer, he had to put in three
years of experience as Executive Engineer. He contends
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
that the petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer
only on 22.02.2023 and therefore he has no locus standi
to question the promotion granted to respondent No.3.
(vi). As regards the challenge to the Regulations
2019, he contends that the State Government is entitled
to suggest corrections to the draft regulations that were
sent for approval. He contends that the word 'approval'
does not mean merely affixing a seal to what is placed
before it but, the State Government is entitled to look into
the regulations to check whether the same is done in
accordance with law. He contends that the State
Government has got over arching powers under Section 17
of the Act and hence, the corrections suggested by the
State Government were in exercise of power under Section
17 of the Act, 1966.
15. (i). The learned counsel for respondent No.3
supported the contentions of learned Senor Counsel for
respondent No.2. In addition, he submitted that the
petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.17442/2021 where he
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
had challenged the appointment of Mr.Adarsh K., as
Assistant Executive Engineer in the respondent No.2 by
permanent transfer under the provisions of
Rule 16(a)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General
Recruitment Rules) 1977 as violative of the Regulations
2019. He therefore contends that the petitioner cannot on
the one hand contend that the Regulations 2019 is just
and proper and on the other challenge the validity of the
Regulations 2019 itself. In support of this contention, he
relied upon the following judgments :
a) H C Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors vs Dinesh
Kumar Pandey & Ors AIR 2015 SC 2342;
and
b) Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi &
Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 309.
(ii). He contends that the eligibility of petitioner for
promotion to the Superintending Engineer would arise in
the year 2026 and therefore petitioner cannot challenge
the promotion of respondent No.3. He contends that the
petitioner cannot espouse public interest to challenge the
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
promotion granted to respondent No.3. He further
contends that the petitioner has a long tenure of service
and would attain the age of superannuation in the year
2048 by which time he can occupy the highest post of
Chief Engineer in the respondent No.2. Thus, he contends
that that the petitioner should refrain from challenging the
appointment of the respondent No.3 who would be retiring
in the year 2028 after more than 30 years of service.
(iii). He contends that when the respondent No.3
was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on
17.08.2019, the petitioner was still an Assistant Executive
Engineer and was promoted as Executive Engineer on
22.02.2023. Therefore, he contends that respondent No.3
for all practical purposes is Senior than the petitioner and
therefore entitled to promoted to the post of
Superintending Engineer.
16. (i). In reply, the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner contends that there is no estoppel against law or
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
statute and hence the petitioner is entitled to question the
promotion granted to respondent No.3.
(ii). The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a
memo on 10.03.2025 stating that he would not press the
reliefs in so far as the challenge to the appointment of the
respondent No.3 as a Junior engineer. Therefore, the writ
petition is now restricted to the validity of the Regulations
2019 and the recommendations of the DPC to promote the
respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer.
17. The learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent No.1 supported the contentions
of the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2.
18. I have considered the submissions of the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Senior counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel
for respondent No.3 and the learned AGA.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
19. For the sake of easy reference, the dates of
appointments/promotion of the petitioner and respondent
No.3 is mentioned in the table below :
Petitioner Respondent No.3
Junior Engineer -- 25.11.1994
Assistant Engineer 31.10.2012 12.12.2001
Assistant Executive
17.08.2018 30.04.2012
Engineer
Executive Engineer 22.02.2023 17.08.2019
20. The respondent No.2 had framed the C & R
Regulations, 1984 for its employees which provided for
various posts, prescribed methods of recruitment,
eligibility experience etc.,. For the sake of easy
understanding and for the purpose of this case, it is
relevant to note that the Regulations, 1984 provided for
the posts of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Deputy
Development Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer,
Development Officer/Executive Engineer and Chief
Development Officer/Chief Engineer. As per the
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Regulations, 1984 the following were the methods of
recruitment and the eligibility/experience insofar as the
aforesaid posts are concerned :
Chief Development Promotion from Executive
Officer Engineer/Development Officer with BE
with five years experience as Executive
Engineer.
Promotion from Executive
Engineer/Development Officer with
Diploma in Civil Engineer with ten years
experience as Executive Engineer.
Development 25% promotion from Deputy Development
officer Officer possessing BE with four years
experience
25% promotion from Deputy Development
Officer possessing Diploma in Civil
Engineering with eight years experience
as DDO.
Deputy 50% promotion from cadres of Assistant
Development Engineer with BE and five years
Officer experience as Assistant Engineer.
25% promotion from cadres of Assistant
Engineer with diploma and eight years
experience as Assistant Engineer.
Assistant Engineer Direct recruitment
Promotion from cadres of Junior Engineer
with diploma in Civil Engineering and four
years experience as Junior Engineer.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
21. The Regulations, 1984 therefore indicate that
the cadre of Deputy Development Officer and Assistant
Executive Engineer were equivalent, cadre of Development
Officer and Executive Engineer were equivalent and Chief
Development Officer and Chief Engineer were equivalent.
It also shows that an Executive Engineer with a Diploma
qualification was eligible to be promoted to the post of
Chief Engineer on he/she gaining ten years of experience
as a Development Officer/Executive Engineer. Therefore,
the feeder channel for promotion to the post of Deputy
Development Officer/AEE, Development Officer/Executive
Engineer and Chief Development Officer/CE included
candidates not only possessing a BE degree in Civil
Engineering but also diploma in civil engineering.
However, the difference was only in the experience that
they possessed in their cadre for promotion.
22. The respondent No.3 had applied to the post of
Junior Engineer based on his Diploma in Civil Engineering
as per the recruitment notification dated 31-07-1989. He
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
pursued higher education and acquired a Bachelor's
Degree in civil engineering in the year 1993. However, the
order appointing respondent No.3 as Junior Engineer was
issued on 25.11.1994. The respondent No.3 has placed on
record representations dated 28.10.1997, 26.05.1998,
22.07.1998, 26.10.1998, 11.02.1999, 15.02.1999,
17.02.2001, 17.06.2000 submitted by him to the
respondent No.2 by which he informed respondent No.2
that he acquired a Bachelors Degree in Engineering. The
petitioner was later promoted as Assistant Engineer after
seven years though the minimum service prescribed under
the Regulations, 1984 was four years. He was thereafter
promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer after more than
ten years, though the minimum service prescribed was
eight years. It is no doubt true that in the seniority list of
Executive Engineers, the respondent No.3 is shown to be
holding a Diploma in Civil Engineering and was continued
in the same feeder channel.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
23. Therefore, if the respondent No.2 had finalized
the appointment of respondent No.2 as Junior Engineer at
the earliest, he stood a chance to be promoted to the post
of Chief Engineer if the Regulations, 1984 continued to
apply.
24. However, the Regulations 1984 were amended
by the first amendment on 02.11.1998 in terms of which,
a post of additional Chief Development Officer was created
and the method of recruitment was shown as follows :-
Additional Promotion from the cadre of Executive
CDO Engineer/Development Officer (Graduate)
with three years experience.
Consequent to the above, promotion to the post of CDO as
prescribed in the Regulations, 1984 was changed as
follows:-
CDO From the cadre of Additional Chief
Development Officer with minimum
service of two years.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
25. Therefore, by the first Amendment 1998, a
candidate possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering was
ineligible from seeking promotion to the post of Additional
CDO/ Superintending Engineer which was restricted only
to graduate Engineers.
26. Following the directions issued by this Court in
W.P.No.15777/2007, the respondent No.2 submitted draft
C & R Regulations, proposing the following amendment to
the Regulations, 1984 as amended by First amendment,
1998, insofar as the post of Superintending Engineer was
concerned :
Superintending By promotion from Must have put in
Engineer the cadre of a service of not
Development Officer less than 3 years
and Executive in the cadre of
Engineer (Graduate) Executive
with three years Engineer (Civil
experience. Graduate)
By this proposed amendment, an Executive Engineer with
Diploma in Civil Engineering was deprived of promotion to
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
the post of Superintending Engineer and consequently to
the post of Chief Engineer.
27. The State government invited objections to the
above proposal. The respondent No.3 who was by then an
Executive Engineer filed objections contending that if the
proposed amendment was accepted then the Diploma
Holders would be ineligible to be promoted to higher posts.
28. The State government while considering the
objections received to the Regulations, 2019 held as
follows:
"216) ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ
¸ÀA¸À¢ÃAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ°è ¹«¯ï
r¥ÉÇèêÀiÁ PÉÆÃmÁ CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß
PÉÊ©qÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀgÉ, ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÈAzÀPÌÉ
G¥À C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÈAzÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄA§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ
¥ÀæQAæ iÉÄAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðZÀlĪÀnPÉ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ¢AzÀ®Æ
eÁjAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F G¥À C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÈAzÀzÀ°è ¹«¯ï
¥ÀzÀ«ÃzsÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹«¯ï r¥ÉÇèêÀiÁ PÉÆÃmÁ CrAiÀÄ°è
ªÀÄÄA§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. F ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ zÀȶ׬ÄAzÀ
¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt, F ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀÄxÁªÀvÁÛV
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ®Ä PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è
¥ÀjμÀÌgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ."
Consequent thereto, the Regulations 2019 was approved
allowing promotions to Superintending Engineer from the
cadre of Executive Engineer subject to two conditions
namely (i) that he or she must have put in not less than
three years in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil) (ii)
Must be holder of a Bachelor degree in Engineering (Civil)
or passes equivalent qualification.
29. The petitioner is aggrieved by the words "or
passes equivalent qualification" and contends that this is
done specifically to help the respondent No.3 as he had no
chance of being promoted to the post of SE. Therefore, the
petitioner has challenged the validity of the Regulations,
2019 on the ground that under Section 41 of the KIAD Act,
1966, the power to make Regulations is in the exclusive
domain of the Board and the role of the State Government
is to merely "approve" the Regulations and not to tinker
with them. It is the case of the petitioner that the State
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
government by suggesting amendments to the draft
regulations did not merely "approve" it but the Regulations
were made by the State Government and thrust on the
Board.
30. The above argument of the petitioner has to fail
on two counts namely (i) The petitioner was promoted as
Executive Engineer on 22.02.2023 which is after the
Regulations 2019 were published. Therefore, the petitioner
having once taken the benefit of the Regulations, 2019
cannot turn around to contend that Regulations, 2019 are
not valid. If this contention is accepted then the promotion
granted to the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer
has to be over turned. (ii) Rule 17(1) of the Karnataka
Government (Transaction of Business) Rules 1997,
prescribes the procedure to be followed for conducting
business of the State government and the same is
extracted below:
17.(1) No Department shall, without previous
consultation with the Finance Department or as
the case may be, the internal financial Adviser
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
and Ex-officio Deputy Secretary to Government
concerned in accordance with the Government
of Karnataka (Consultation with Financial
Adviser) Rules. 1982 authorize any orders
(other than orders pursuant to any general
delegation made by the Finance Department)
which,
(a) either immediately or by their
repercussions, will affect the finances of the
State, or which, in particular (i) involve any
grant of land or assignment of revenue or
concession, grant, lease or license of mineral or
forest rights or right to water, power or any
easement or privilege in respect of such
concession: or (ii) in any way involve any
relinquishment of revenue; or
(b) relate to the number of grading or cadre of
posts or the emoluments or other conditions of
service.
(2) No proposal which requires previous
consultation with the Finance Department under
this rule but in which the Finance Department
has not concurred may be proceeded with
unless a decision to that effect has been taken
by the Cabinet.
Provided that where the Finance Department
has not given its concurrence but the Cabinet
has overruled the opinion of the Finance
Department and concurred with the proposal
with or without modification. any order issued in
pursuance of such concurrence shall indicate
the following,- "This order falls within the
purview of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 17
of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Business) Rules. 1977 and is issued
accordingly"
"Provided further that no such decision would
be taken if it does not satisfy the requirement of
sub-section (4) of section 6 of the Karnataka
Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2002"
(3) No re-appropriation shall be made by
any Department other than the Finance
Department except in accordance with such
general delegation as the Finance Department
may have made.
(4) Except to the extent that the power may
have been delegated to the Department under
the rules approved by the Finance Department,
every order of an Administrative Department,
conveying a sanction to be enforced subject to
audit shall after obtaining the concurrence of
the Finance Department or as the case may
be, the Internal Financial Advisor and Ex-
officio Deputy Secretary to Government be
communicated to the audit authorities by the
Administrative Department and the fact of such
concurrence shall be indicated in the order.
(5) Nothing in this Rule shall he construed as
authorizing any Department including the
Finance Department, to make re-appropriation
from one grant specified in the Appropriation
Act to another such grant.
The procedure for a department to dispose of business is
prescribed in Rule 30 which is extracted below:
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
The Secretary of a Department shall,
save as provided in sub-rule (2), submit
a case for orders to the Minister-in-
charge or to the Minister of State or the
Deputy Minister, if any, as the case may
be,
(2) Subject to the general or special
directions of the Minister-in-charge,
routine cases and cases of minor
importance, namely, cases covered by
rule, decided policy or precedent which
do not involve the over-ruling of a Head
of a Department and which raise no
points of delicacy, may be disposed of by
the Secretary of the Department on his
own responsibility. The Secretary of the
Department may also dispose of in the
absence of the Minister-in-charge or the
Minister of State or the Deputy Minister
cases requiring immediate action, on his
own responsibility.
(3) The Minister-in-charge may
direct that cases of minor importance
may be disposed of by a Deputy
Secretary or an Under Secretary of the
Department,
(4) A copy of every direction given under
sub-rule (3) shall be submitted to the
Governor.
(5) Before the second day of every week
a compilation of abstract of orders issued
during the preceding week, relating to
policy decisions and matters of
importance shall be prepared and
submitted immediately to the Chief
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Secretary for transmission to the Chief
Minister and the Governor.
"Note 1:- Where the case relates to a
matter in which a Minister is personally
interested, it shall be sent to the Chief
Minister who may dispose of it himself or
pass it on to any other Minister for
disposal.
2:- Where sanction or approval of
Government is required for any proposal
from any company, society, local body or
other institution it shall be examined by
the Department concerned in the same
manner as a case belonging to such
department".
(underlining by Court)
In view of Note 2 to Rule 30, whenever, approval of the
government is required for any proposal from respondent
No.2, the Secretary of Industries and Commerce is entitled
to examine the proposal in the same manner as a case
belonging to such department. The respondent no.2 which
is part of the Department of Industries and Commerce is
controlled by the Ministry of Large and Medium Industries
and therefore the word "approval" found in Section 21 has
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
be understood in the light of Note 2 to Rule 30 quoted
above.
31. The respondent No.2, no doubt, had forwarded
a draft of the Regulations 2019 for approval by the State
Government. As per this draft, the post of Superintending
Engineer had to be filled-up by promotion from Executive
Engineers with Bachelor degree in civil Engineering
qualification, thereby meaning that the Executive
Engineers who possessed Diploma in Civil Engineering
were deprived of any further promotion prospect. The
respondent No.3 therefore escalated his grievance before
respondent No.1 in terms of his letter dated 15.07.2019.
The Regulations 2019 was placed by respondent No.2 for
consideration before the department of Industries and
Commerce which sought for certain clarifications from
respondent No.2 and accordingly after clarifications were
obtained, it was sent for concurrence of Department of
Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation which perused the
promotional avenue to the post of Superintending
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
Engineer and suggested that promotion to the post of
Executive Engineers should be restricted to graduate
engineers. It was also suggested that Assistant Executive
Engineers of Grade-II may be transferred as Assistant
Engineers Grade-I. It was also suggested that for
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer Grade-I from
Junior Engineer, a candidate should possess a Bachelor's
Degree. Subject to the above, the Department of
Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation, recommended that
approval can be granted to the modified Regulations 2019.
Based on the above, discussions were held with the
Director (Technical Cell) and it was held that, provision
was made earlier for promotion of Deputy Development
Officers to the post of Development Officer and therefore,
it was appropriate to continue the said process in the
interest of respondent No.2. The Regulations 2019 was
thereafter approved and published in the Gazette, in terms
of which, promotion to the post of Superintending
Engineer was to be from amongst Executive Engineers
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
who possessed a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering or who
passed equivalent qualification. The petitioner did possess
a Bachelor's decree in Engineering and therefore, the
proceedings dated 07-12-2024 of the Departmental
Promotion Committee recommending to promote the
respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer cannot be
assailed by the petitioner.
32. This apart, the petitioner who was promoted as
Executive Engineer under the Regulations 2019 had no
chance of being promoted to the post of Superintending
Engineer unless he completed three years of service as
Executive Engineer. The petitioner would qualify for the
same only on 21.02.2026 and therefore, he cannot have
any grievance for the present in challenging the promotion
of the respondent No.3. Therefore, the contentions urged
by the petitioner cannot be accepted and hence, the writ
petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20244
HC-KAR
33. In view of the above, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SN
