[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijaya Kumar Chavadannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
-1-
WP No.38263 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO.38263 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
IN W.P. NO.38263 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAYA KUMAR CHAVADANNAVAR
S/O. LATE NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
(NOW WITHOUT POSTING)
RESIDING AT NO.18
23RD CROSS, 2ND BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by (BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA SRI SUBRAMANI M.A., ADVOCATE)
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-2-
WP No.38263 of 2025
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT
3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SRI K. SRINATH
S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF
PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH ORDER DATED 04/12/2025 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION NO.3761/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) II) CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW APPLICATION NO.3761/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 22-01-2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS
DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
WP No.38263 of 2025
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T.)
The petitioner, belonging to the cadre of Chief Engineer in
the Panchayath Raj Engineering Department (hereinafter
referred to as 'PRED') has filed this writ petition to issue a writ
of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to
quash the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred
to as 'Tribunal') in Application No.3761/2025 and consequently
to allow Application No.3761/2025 on the file of the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case of petitioner is as under:
The petitioner belongs to the first respondent's
department (hereinafter referred to as 'DPAR'). Previously the
petitioner was in Public Works Department. By an order dated
07.10.2013 issued by respondent No.1 under Rule 16-A(ii) of
the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules,
1977, the petitioner, who was in the cadre of Superintending
Engineer, has been permanently absorbed to the PRED, which
is a sub-department within second respondent, Rural
Development and Panchayath Raj Department (hereinafter
-4-
WP No.38263 of 2025
referred to as 'RDPR'). Thereafter by a notification dated
11.12.2019 issued by first respondent-DPAR, the petitioner has
been promoted from the cadre of Superintending Engineer to
the cadre of Chief Engineer and he was posted as Chief
Engineer, PRED at Bengaluru.
3. The PRED is a separate department within second
respondent - RDPR. There is a separate cadre and recruitment
rules for the PRED, which is called as the Panchayath Raj
Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021. As
per the said rules, the cadre strength in respect of the cadre of
Chief Engineer is only one post. The post of Chief Engineer is
the head of the PRED. The petitioner has served in PRED for
last 11 years and he has got unblemished service throughout.
As a Chief Engineer from 11.12.2019, the petitioner was the
head of the department in PRED and he has introduced several
measures to reduce financial burden to the State exchequer.
4. On 03.10.2024, the second respondent RDPR
issued a notification, deputing the petitioner to the post of Chief
Engineer, Rural Development Commissionerate, whereas, one
Sreenivas N, who was already working as Engineer-in-Chief at
Karnataka Rural Road Development Agency (KRRDA) has been
-5-
WP No.38263 of 2025
given additional charge in respect of the post of the petitioner,
i.e., Chief Engineer, PRED. Therefore, the petitioner had earlier
filed application No.4886/2024 before the Tribunal, wherein, he
challenged the impugned notification dated 03.10.2024 issued
by RDPR Department and the same was dismissed by the
Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.2025. Challenging the said
order, the petitioner had filed W.P. No.5518/2025 before this
Court and said writ petition came to be allowed on 18.06.2025.
In the said order, the notification dated 03.10.2024 deputing
the petitioner to Karnataka Rural Development
Commissionerate and further giving additional charge of post of
Chief Engineer, PRED to Sreenivas N., third respondent therein
came to be quashed and order of the Tribunal in Application
No.4886/2024, came to be set aside.
5. After passing of order dated 18.06.2025 in writ
petition, the petitioner submitted representation dated
04.07.2025 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 (DPAR and RDPR
Departments) and requested the authorities to continue his
service at PRED. As on 30.07.2025, one T.D. Nanjundappa
was working on deputation from Public Works Department
(hereinafter referred to as 'PWD') as Chief Engineer, PRED and
he was retiring from service on attaining the age of
-6-
WP No.38263 of 2025
superannuation on 31.07.2025. Therefore, the petitioner was
anticipating that he would be posted as Chief Engineer, PRED
as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules and as per the order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.5518/2025 dated 18.06.2025.
However, the first respondent - DPAR issued impugned
notification dated 30.07.2025 and by virtue of the same, the
third respondent, who is in the cadre of Engineer-in-Chief in
Water Resources Department, has been transferred to the post
of Chief Engineer, PRED by temporarily upgrading the said post
as Engineer-in-Chief. Thus, being aggrieved by the Notification
dated 30.07.2025, the petitioner filed Application
No.3761/2025 before the Tribunal. However, the said
application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by
the impugned order, the petitioner filed this petition.
6. Heard Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel for
Sri Subramani M.A., learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for third respondent and
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1
and 2.
7. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
vehemently contended that as per the Panchayath Raj
-7-
WP No.38263 of 2025
Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021, the
post of Chief Engineer is required to be filled up only by way of
promotion and the petitioner is the person who has been
promoted in accordance with law as per notification dated
11.12.2019 and that the posting of an officer from Water
Resources Department is not legally sustainable. Therefore, the
notification dated 30.07.2025 issued by the first respondent is
not in accordance with law.
8. Further, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that
previously, respondent No.2 had illegally issued notification
dated 03.10.2024 deputing petitioner to a non-sanctioned post
in Karnataka Rural Development Commissionerate, making
additional charge arrangement for the post of Chief Engineer,
PRED and the said notification was quashed by this Court in
W.P. No.5518/2025, though the said order was communicated
to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 04.07.2025, however,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 without taking into consideration the
order of this Court, have illegally posted third respondent in
PRED, by creating a post called "Engineer-in-Chief". In PRED,
there is only one sanctioned post of Chief Engineer and there is
no post of Engineer-in-Chief at all. As per the Panchayath Raj
Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021 and
-8-
WP No.38263 of 2025
having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P.
No.5518/2025, the only option legally available for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 is to post the petitioner as Chief Engineer in
PRED.
9. He further contended that, the Tribunal also failed
to notice that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not in
accordance with law right from the date of issuing the earlier
notification dated 03.10.2024, deputing the petitioner to a non-
sanctioned post and said illegal action is being continued again
by issuing the notification dated 30.07.2025, temporarily
upgrading the post and posting the third respondent.
10. He further contended that, the Tribunal ought to
have noticed that the respondent authorities have temporarily
upgraded the post of Chief Engineer, PRED, as Engineer-In-
Chief, without amending the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of
Panchayath Raj Engineering Department. Though the word
used in impugned notification as 'transfer', but when an Officer
from Water Resources Department is posted, it cannot be called
as transfer at all, but it has to be treated as 'deputation' only,
but there is no provision for deputation in PRED. When the pay
scales of these two posts are different, respondent Nos.1 and 2
-9-
WP No.38263 of 2025
ought not to have upgraded the post. The impugned
notification is issued only to accommodate the third
respondent.
11. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to
have appreciated that notification dated 30.07.2025 is also
contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Act,
1978 and the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)
Rules, 1977.
12. He further contended that the respondent
authorities are preventing the petitioner from holding the post
of Chief Engineer, Panchayath Raj Engineering Department,
from 03.10.2024. The Petitioner had unblemished service
record for 30 years. When such being the position, depriving
the petitioner, a post which he is legally entitled to hold, is an
unjustifiable action.
13. He further contended that the petitioner is retiring
from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the
month of November 2026. Now, the petitioner has got less
than one year service. Keeping in mind the said aspect, it is
wholly improper to keep the petitioner out of the post of Chief
Engineer, PRED.
- 10 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
14. He further contended that the petitioner has made
representation dated 04.07.2025 to respondent Nos.1 & 2 and
requested them to continue him in PRED. The respondent
authorities have intentionally kept the said request pending.
On 30.07.2025, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have acted swiftly to
post third respondent to the post of Chief Engineer, PRED. This
clearly demonstrates malafide intentions and the arbitrariness,
which is writ large.
15. He further contended that several officers from the
public works department, including the petitioner, have been
absorbed permanently in the PRED by the second respondent
as per order dated 07.10.2013 as per the irrevocable options
submitted by them. Thereafter, recruitment rules have been
framed by the State Government to PRED. By giving posting
through deputation, the very purpose of permanent absorption
to PRED is defeated. On all these grounds, the Senior counsel
prayed to allow the petition.
16. In support of his submissions, learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:
1. M.V.Dixit and Others vs. State of Karnataka
and Others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3802.
- 11 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
2. Union of India and Others vs. N.K. Mohan Ram
in WP No.21009/2012 (S-CAT) disposed by this
Court on 10.07.2012.
17. The respondents have filed statement of objections
to the petition. Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent No.3, contended that the petitioner has challenged
the notification dated 30.07.2025, by which respondent No.3
has been posted as Engineer-in-Chief, PRED, Bengaluru, in
place of one Sri T.D.Nanjundappa, who retired from service on
31.07.2025 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for
relief as sought for by the petitioner. In fact, respondent No.3
is a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) graduate and the petitioner
is a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) graduate. Both the
petitioner and respondent No.3 were initially appointed to the
cadre of AEE-Division-1 through the Karnataka Public Service
Commission in the Public Works Department and thereafter
they were further promoted to the cadre of Superintending
Engineer and Chief Engineer based on seniority-cum-merit.
Respondent No.3 was further promoted in the cadre of
Engineer-in-chief in Water Resources Department.
18. The counsel further contended that the petitioner
has no locus standi to question the posting of respondent No.3,
- 12 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
since the petitioner does not hold a lien over the post as on the
date of passing the impugned order.
19. Learned counsel further contended that all the Head
of the Department posts of Chief Engineer and above are filled
by respondent No.1/DPAR in terms of Schedule-II of the
Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1977.
The Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) Rules were
amended on 16.09.2020 vide Notification dated 30.11.2021.
The DPAR was involved in the process of promotion to the
cadre of Chief Engineer, since the post of Chief Engineer is held
by officers of the rank of Head of the Department. The DPAR
fills the post of Chief Engineer from the combined seniority list
of PWD, the Irrigation Department, and RDPR maintained by
the PWD. As per the said Rules, the administrative control to
appoint, promote, and post officers eligible for
appointment/promotion/posting in respect of 'Head of the
Department' posts was delegated to the concerned
departments. Subsequently, the said amendment was annulled
vide Notification dated 11.06.2024, and the administrative
control to appoint, promote, and post officers in respect of
Head of the Department posts was once again reverted to the
DPAR in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services (General
- 13 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
Recruitment) Rules, 1977. Therefore, the posting of respondent
No.3 as Engineer-in-Chief, PRED, was issued by the competent
authority and is in accordance with law
20. Learned counsel further submits that Rule 16 of the
Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977,
provides that notwithstanding anything contained in General
Recruitment Rules or the rules of recruitment that are specially
made in respect of any service or post, the Government may
appoint an officer holding an equivalent grade by transfer or by
deputation from any other service of the State for recruitment
to which the general recruitment rules apply. It is contended
that this provision overrides the provisions of recruitment and
irrespective of the provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment
Rules; the Government is empowered to depute the
Government servant in equivalent posts under State Civil
Services.
21. Learned counsel further contended that, once the
Government Employee has completed the maximum tenure in
that post, ordinarily, he/she will not have any right to complain
when somebody is sought to be posted to his/her place.
- 14 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
22. Learned counsel further contended that, as
admitted by the petitioner, he is a Group-A officer holding the
post of Chief Engineer in the PRED since 11.12.2019 and he
has completed the maximum tenure in that position. Hence,
the petitioner has no legal right to hold the post of Chief
Engineer after the completion of his tenure.
23. Learned counsel further contended that, the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order
passed by respondent No.1 was made with a malafide
intention. The order was issued in the interest of the public
and for administrative reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the order was issued only to accommodate respondent
No.3. He further submits that the impugned order was issued
after the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, as required
under the transfer guidelines and the order was issued in the
interest of the public.
24. Learned counsel further contended that, no
Government servant has a right to seek for a particular posting.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Union of
India and Another vs. Deepk K Niranjannath Pandit,
reported in (2020) 3 SCC 404, has held that the Government
- 15 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
servant cannot claim a posting as of right to a place of his
choice. Further, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge
the transfer order of respondent No.3. Thus, prayed to dismiss
the petition.
25. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2
vehemently contended that, the petitioner has been working in
the cadre of Chief Engineer in Rural Development and
Panchayath Raj Department, Bengaluru and has been waiting
for posting since 03.10.2024. By virtue of order dated
30.07.2025, the third respondent has been posted as Engineer-
in-chief soon after superannuation of one T.D.Nanjundappa. In
fact, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the posting
of third respondent, since he does not hold a lien over the post
as on the date of passing of the impugned order. Further, the
petitioner has completed the maximum tenure in PRED as Chief
Engineer, thus, he has no legal right to hold the post of Chief
Engineer after completion of his tenure. Further, the learned
AGA has reiterated the submissions of learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
- 16 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
26. On the contentions raised, the following points arise
for our consideration.
1. Whether the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2
creating temporary post of Engineer-in-Chief is in
violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Karnataka
Civil Services Act, 1978?
2. Whether the posting of respondent No.3 as
Engineer-in-Chief to PRED from Water Resources
Department is valid?
3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to
challenge the transfer order of respondent No.3 or the
consequential orders?
Reg. point Nos.1 to 3:
Since point Nos.1 to 3 requires common discussion, we
take these points for common discussion in order to avoid
repetition of facts and evidence.
27. The petitioner belongs to first respondent's
department. Previously, the petitioner was in Public Works
Department as Superintending Engineer and later he was
permanently absorbed to the PRED. Thus, PRED is a separate
department within Rural Development and Panchayath Raj
Department and there is separate Cadre and Recruitment Rules
for the PRED namely the Panchayath Raj Engineering Services
- 17 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
(Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021. The record reveals that
the cadre strength in respect of the cadre of Chief Engineer is
only one post. The post of Chief Engineer is head of the PRED.
Whereas the petitioner taken contention that, DPAR created
temporary post of Engineer-in-Chief in PRED, which is contrary
to Section 3 of Karnataka Civil Service Act, 1978.
28. The recruitment to the posts in the PRED is
regulated by the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Engineering
Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021, made by the
Governor of Karnataka in exercise of power under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, in supercession of Karnataka
Panchayath Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment)
Rules, 2021. Rule 2 provides that in respect of each category
of post, specified in column (2) of the Schedule to the Rules,
the method of recruitment shall be as specified in the
corresponding entry in column (3). Item No.1 in the Schedule
to the said Rules relates to the post of Chief Engineer. The
method of recruitment prescribed for the said post is as
follows:
"by promotion, by selection from the cadre of
Superintending Engineer"
- 18 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
29. The minimum qualification for the post of Chief
Engineer is that, he/she must put in service of not less than 3
years in the cadre of Superintending Engineer. Therefore, the
recruitment to post in the PRED is by way of promotion. So
also the recruitment to the posts in the Water Resources
Department is governed by the Karnataka Water Resources
Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2014, made by the Governor of
Karnataka in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India. Rule 2 of said Rules provides that in
respect to each category of posts, specified in column (2) of the
Schedule to the Rules, the method of recruitment shall be as
stated in column (3). Item No.1 in the Schedule to the said
Rules relates to the post of 'Engineer-in-chief'. The method of
recruitment prescribed for the said post is as follows:
"By promotion, by selection from the cadre of
Chief Engineer"
and there is no minimum qualification prescribed for the post of
Engineer-in-Chief under the said Rules.
30. As per the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Engineering
Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021, the method of
recruitment and minimum qualification prescribed for
- 19 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
recruitment of Officers and employees to all posts under Sub
Rule (2) viz.,
"(2) Submission of Options for absorption in
Panchayath Raj Engineering Department by various
category employees of Public Works, Ports and Inland
Water Transport Department undertaken as per the
Government Order No.RDP 160 SSK 2019 (1) dated
16.05.2020 is deemed to have been
exercised/undertaken under these rules. The seniority of
the persons who have so expressed their willingness
shall be determined with reference to their inter-se-
seniority in the parent department in accordance with
the Karnataka Government Servants Seniority Rules,
1957 after absorption in Panchayath Raj Engineering
Department in concurrence with their parent
department."
31. Prior to the enactment of the Civil Services Act, the
Rules relating to the method of recruitment and minimum
qualifications were governed by Rules made in exercise of
powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,
whereas creation of cadres, fixing of cadre strength and
prescribing pay scales, were done by separate executive orders
issued under Article 162. This is on the ground that the power
conferred under the proviso to Article 309 can be exercised
only for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service,
and not for creation or abolition of posts, which power vested in
the State under Entry No.41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution.
- 20 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
32. Article 162 of the Constitution defines the extent of
executive power of the State. It provides that subject to the
provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State
shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature
of the State has the power to make laws. The proviso to Article
162 provides that in any matter, with respect to which the
legislature of the State and Parliament have power to make
laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to and
limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by the
Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon Union or
Authorities thereof.
33. The scope of Article 162 and corresponding Article
73 of the Constitution of India with reference to the executive
power of the Union has been enunciated in the case of Rai
Saahib Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported in
AIR 1955 SC 549.
34. In V.R. Shambulinga vs. State of Karnataka
reported in 1980 (1) KAR L.J. 394, this Court observed that:
".................. in the absence of any law made by the
legislature, the executive has the power to create or
abolish any post or posts. In fact, notification sanctioning
the cadre strength of each category of posts in any
service of the State is always issued by the State in
exercise of its executive power. Provisions for regulating
- 21 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
recruitment are only incorporated in the rules made under
the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution."
35. Thus, it is clear that as the executive power of the
State is co-extensive with that of the State Legislature, the
State Executive may make rules relating to any matter within
the competence of State Legislature. But, once the Legislature
enacts a law regulating the matter, the executive power can be
exercised only in accordance with such law and not otherwise.
Therefore, when the State Legislature has enacted the
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 regulating creation
and abolition of posts and requirement and conditions of
service, and such law made by the State Legislature occupies
the field, it follows that the executive power of the State under
Article 162 cannot extend to regulating or providing for the
very same matters. It can only make Rules or Regulations in
accordance with the law made by the State Legislature.
Therefore, after coming into force of the Civil Services Act,
creation and abolition of posts can only be by way of Rules
made in the manner prescribed in Section 3(2) of the said Act
and not by any executive order issued under Article 162 of the
Constitution. The field of regulation of creation and abolition of
posts, method of recruitment and conditions of service is now
occupied by an enactment of State Legislature. Therefore,
- 22 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
exercise of power with regard to regulation of the matters
falling in the occupied field can only be in accordance with the
said Act and not otherwise by an executive order.
36. Whereas in the instant case, the Tribunal was of the
view that, "in the present case it is not clear whether the post
has been upgraded as a part of restructuring. As per the
impugned order, the post of Chief Engineer is temporarily
upgraded to Engineer-in-Chief in public interest and as such the
respondent-State has justified the upgradation of post and the
decision is administrative in nature. There is no change of
eligibility criteria as the post has been temporarily upgraded to
the Engineer-in-Chief. The respondent-State having discretion
to manage its posts in the public interest have temporarily
upgraded the post. Thus, the petitioner not being eligible for
the post of Engineer-in-Chief cannot be considered".
37. The Tribunal further held that, "upgrading the post
of Chief Engineer to that of Engineer-in-Chief is the decision of
respondent Nos.1 and 2/Government. Merely because the
petitioner was hopeful to be posted to that post, the petitioner
cannot contend that he should be posted to same post of Chief
Engineer (PRED). Thus, the petitioner cannot question
- 23 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
temporary upgradation of post with posting of an eligible
person as Engineer-in-Chief under Rule 16 of KCS (General
Recruitment) Rules by the competent authority".
38. The Tribunal also observed that "the petitioner has
worked in the post of Chief Engineer (PRED) from 2019 to 2024
and has completed his maximum period of tenure. Therefore,
he has no right of complaining against temporary upgradation
of post of Chief Engineer to Engineer-in-Chief by competent
authority. It is not the case where the petitioner has been
denied a promotion as per C and R Rules, due to temporary
upgradation of post".
39. The Tribunal further held that, "the post has been
upgraded temporarily in administrative need by DPAR which is
the competent authority. The upgradation emphasizes only
higher pay scale of Engineer-in-Chief without altering the
responsibilities of the post and there is no demotion or
displacement or malice towards the petitioner evident in the
impugned order". Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner.
40. In the light of the above observation, let us
examine Rule 16 of KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977:
- 24 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
"16. Relaxation of rules relating to appointment and
qualifications:- Notwithstanding anything contained in
these rules or the rules of recruitment specially made in
respect of any service or post, the Government may, for
reason to be recorded in writing-
(a) appoint to a post-
(i) an officer of the Defence Services, an All India
Service or a Civil Service of the Union, or the Civil
Services of any other State;
(ii) an officer holding a post of an equivalent grade, by
transfer or by deputation from any other service of the
State for recruitment to which these rules apply:
[Provided that appointment by transfer under this sub-
clause shall not be made unless the officer has passed the
examination prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services
(Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974
for the post to which he is proposed to be transferred]
[Provided further that, where it is necessary in public
interest to appoint an officer belonging to a service which
has no equivalent grade, an officer holding a post in the
next lower grade in such service may be appointed by
deputation for a period not exceeding two years:
Provided also that no such appointment shall be to a
post which is equivalent to or higher than the next
promotional post to such officer in such other service.]
(iii) an officer who by bodily infirmity is permanently
incapacitated for the post which he holds;
Provided that appointment under this sub-clause shall
not be:-
(1) to a post lower than that held by such officer save
with his consent;
(2) to a post higher than the post held by such officer
except when the Government is of the opinion that there is
no other equivalent post to which such officer can be
appointed:
[(iiia) an officer who by bodily infirmity is temporarily
incapacitated for the post which he holds:
Provided that the duration of appointment under this
sub-clause shall not be for a period longer than the duration
- 25 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
of the bodily infirmity on account of which he is held to be
incapacitated to hold the post in the service to which he
belongs.]
(iv) in the State Civil Services Class 1, on deputation,
a person with specialised qualifications in the service of a
University established by law in India and holding an
equivalent post for such period not exceeding five years and
on such terms as the Government may in each case
determine;
[Provided that, whereas the Government is of the
opinion that in view of the special circumstances of a case
the period of deputation has to be extended beyond five
years as stipulated under this clause, it may, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, extend the same for a further period
of one year at a time subject to a maximum of three years,
so however, that the total period of deputation including the
extended period shall not exceed eight years.]
(b) relax, by notification, for such period as may be
specified therein, the qualifications prescribed for
purposes of direct recruitment in the rules of
recruitment specially made in respect of any service or
post, if candidates possessing the prescribed
qualifications are not available :
Provided that in the case of a post for which recruitment
is required to be made in consultation with the Commission,
such relaxation shall not be made except after consulting the
Commission."
41. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent
No.3 does not belong to PRED and in fact he is an employee of
Resources Department and that as per the Panchayath Raj
Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021, the
post of Chief Engineer is required to be filled up only by
promotion and hence, posting of respondent No.3 to PRED is
contrary to the aforesaid Rules.
- 26 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
42. For better understanding, let us reproduce the
notification dated 11.12.2019:
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ
¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 35 ¸ÉêÀÄÄE 2018
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ ಸ ಾಲಯ,
ಾನ ೌಧ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ಾಂಕ: 11/12/2019.
ಅ ಸೂಚ ೆ
"#ೕ ಜಯಕು&ಾ' ಚವಡಣ+ವ', ಅ ೕ,ಕ ಇಂ./ಯ', 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ 5 ಮತು8 - ಪಂ:ಾಯ;
<ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಇವ@0ೆ ೇತನ Aೆ#ೕB ರೂ.90500-123300ರ ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ' ಹುFೆG0ೆ ಾH ಾಪನI ಬK8
/ೕK, ಇವರನುI ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ("#ೕ
MದGಗಂಗಪO ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಇವರು ಾಯ /ವ PಸುQ8ರುವ ಹುFೆG) ಇRS0ೆ ತ,ಣ ಂದ Tಾ@0ೆ ಬರುವಂUೆ
Vಾಗೂ ಮುಂ ನ ಆFೇಶದವ<ೆ0ೆ ೇ1M ಆFೇ"MFೆ.
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ <ಾಜDYಾಲ ಆFೇAಾನು ಾರ
ಮತು8 ಅವರ Vೆಸ@ನRS,
("#ೕ .. ಸುನಂದ),
ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅ ೕನ ಾಯ ದ" ,
MಬZಂ ಮತು8 ಆಡ[ತ
ಸು ಾರ2ಾ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ
( ೇ ೆಗಳ]-3).
ಇವ@0ೆ,
1. ಪ# ಾನ ಮVಾ>ೇಖYಾಲರು (ಎ ಮತು8 ಇ) ಕ ಾ ಟಕ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
2. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" , ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು,
3. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" , ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
4. &ಾನD ಮುಖD ಮಂQ#ಯವರ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" /ಪ# ಾನ ಾಯ ದ" , ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
5. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" , >ೋ ೋಪcೕd ಬಂದರು ಮತು8 ಒಳ ಾಡು
ಜಲ ಾ@0ೆ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಾಸ ೌಧ.
43. Later, the petitioner challenge the order dated
03.10.2024 issued by first respondent transferring the
petitioner as Chief Engineer at Commissionerate, Rural
- 27 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
Development Department and posting one Sreenivas N. in his
place as Chief Engineer, PRED. The notification dated
03.10.2024 is reproduced as under:
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ
¸ÀASÉå: 0ಾ#ಅಪ 304ಎfಎf ೆ2024
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ ಸ ಾಲಯ
ಬಹುಮಹKಗಳ ಕಟgಡ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ಾಂಕ: 03.10.2024
ಅ ಸೂಚ ೆ
"#ೕ ಜಯಕು&ಾ' ಚವಡಣ+ವ', ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL
ಇ>ಾ?ೆ ಇವರನುI ಾವ ಜ/ಕ Vಾಗೂ ಆಡ[Uಾತlಕ Pತದೃmgnಂದ ತ,ಣ ಂದ Tಾ@0ೆ ಬರುವಂUೆ Vಾಗೂ
ಮುಂ ನ ಆFೇಶದವ<ೆ0ೆ 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ 5 ಆಯು ಾ8ಲಯ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇRS ?ಾR ಇರುವ ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ'
ಹುFೆG0ೆ /cೕಜ ೆ oೕ>ೆ ೇ1M ಆKMFೆ.
ಸದ@ಯವರ /cೕಜ ೆnಂದ Uೆರ ಾದ ಹುFೆG0ೆ "#ೕ "#ೕ/ ಾf
f ಎp, ಪ# ಾನ ಇಂ./ಯ',
PÉ.Dgï.Dgï.r.J. ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವರನುI Vೆಚುqವ@ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°èj¹ ಆFೇ"MFೆ.
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è
(ZÉÃvÀ£À. JA)
ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅ ೕನ ಾಯ ದ" , ( ೇ ೆಗಳ]-3).
0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ 5 ಮತು8 - ಪಂ. <ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ
ಇವ@0ೆ,
1. ಮVಾ>ೇಖYಾಲರು, ಕ ಾ ಟಕ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
2. &ಾನD ಮುಖDಮಂQ#ಯವರ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" , ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
3. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಾಯ ದ" ಗಳ], MಬZಂ & ಆಡ[ತ ಸು ಾರ2ೆ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ.
4. ಆಯುಕ8ರು 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ 5 ಆಯು ಾ8ಲಯ ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
5. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಉಪ ಾಯ ದ" ಗಳ], M.ಆ.ಸು. ಇ>ಾ?ೆ ( ೇ ೆಗಳ]) ಾನ ೌಧ.
6. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" ಯವರ ಆsತ ಾಯ ದ" ಯವರು, ಾನ ೌಧ. ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
7. ಪ# ಾನ ಇಂ./ಯ', ಕ ಾ ಟಕ 0ಾ#1ೕಣ ರ ೆ8 ಅ3ವೃ 5 ಸಂ ೆH, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
6. ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
9. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅ ೕನ ಾಯ ದ" , M.ಆ.ಸು.ಇ>ಾ?ೆ ( ೇವಗಳ]-6), ಾನ ೌಧ,
10.&ಾನD 0ಾ#.ಅ.ಪಂ.<ಾ= ಸ ವರ ಆಪ8 ಾಯ ದ" , ಾಸ ೌಧ.
- 28 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
11. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" ಯವರ ಆಪ8 ಾಯ ದ" , 0ಾ#.ಅ.ಪಂ.<ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ
12.ಸ ಾ ರದ Aೇಷ ಾಯ ದ" (ಆಡ[ತ-1) ಇವರ ಆಪ8 ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ 0ಾ#.ಅ.ಪಂ.<ಾ=
ಇ>ಾ?ೆ.
13 Aಾ?ಾ ರuಾ ಕಡತ/ Vೆಚುqವ@ ಪ#Qಗಳ].
44. Being aggrieved by the notification dated
03.10.2024, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in
Application No.4886/2024 and same was dismissed on
23.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this
Court in W.P. No.5518/2025, challenging the Notification issued
by respondent No.2 dated 03.10.2024 and the order of the
Tribunal dated 23.01.2025. In turn, the Co-ordinate Bench
allowed the writ petition and the operative portion of W.P.
No.5518/2025 dated 18.06.2025 reads as under:
i) Writ petition is Allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 23.01.2025, in
Application No.4886/2024 passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Benglauru, is set-aside.
iii) Impugned Notification bearing
No.RDP/304/SSK/2024, dated 03.10.2024,
Annexure-A4 is quashed.
45. On 30.07.2025, the first respondent issued one
more notification posting respondent No.3 to PRED as Engineer-
in-Chief. The said notification is reproduced as under:
- 29 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ
¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 152 J¸ï¹E 2025
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ ಸ ಾಲಯ
ಾನ ೌಧ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು, ಾಂಕ: 30.07.2025
ಅ ಸೂಚ ೆ
"#ೕ x.K. ನಂಜುಂಡಪO ಪ# ಾನ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು, >ೋ ೋಪcೕd ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಪ#ಸು8ತ, /cೕಜ ೆ
oೕ>ೆ ಪ# ಾನ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು, ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೇಂದ# ಕyೇ@, ೆಂಗಳ ರು
ಇವರು ಾಂಕ: 31.07.2025 ರಂದು ವcೕ/ವೃQ8 VೊಂದRದುG, ಸದ@ಯವರ ವcೕ/ವೃQ8nಂದ ಮುಖD
ಇಂ./ಯ' ವೃಂದ ೆz /«ÄäÃಕರಣ0ೊಳ{Rರುವ ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL
ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೇಂದ# ಕyೇ@, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಈ ಹುFೆGಯನುI ಆಡ[Uಾತlಕ Pತದೃmgnಂದ ಪ# ಾನ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು
ವೃಂದ ೆz UಾUಾzRಕ ಾd ಉನIQೕಕ@M, ಸದ@ ಸHಳ ೆz, "#ೕ "#ೕ ಾ} ೆ. ಪ# ಾನ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು, ಅ2ೆಕಟುg
ಸುರ,Uಾ ¸ÀA¸ÉÞ ಆನಂದ<ಾ~ ವೃvÀÛ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇವರನುI ಮುಂ ನ ಆFೇಶದವ<ೆ0ೆ ವ0ಾ nM ೇ1MFೆ.
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ <ಾಜDYಾಲರ ಆFೇAಾನು ಾರ
ಮತು8 ಅವರ Vೆಸ@ನRS,
(£ÁUÀ¥Àà J¸ï ¥ÀjÃl)
ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅ ೕನ ಾಯ ದ" ,
MಬZಂ ಮತು8 ಆಡ[ತ ಸು ಾರ2ೆ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ,
( ೇ ೆಗಳ] -3)
ಇವ@0ೆ:
1. ಪ# ಾನ ಮVಾ>ೇಖYಾಲರು, (f&ಎf.ಎ)/(ಇ & ಆ'.ಎf.ಎ) ಕ ಾ ಟಕ Vೊಸ ಕಟgಡ,
ಆK• ಭವನ, ಅಂ:ೆ Yೆxg0ೆ ಸಂ?ೆD:5398, ೆಂಗಳ ರು-01
2. ಪ# ಾನ ಮVಾ>ೇಖYಾಲರು, (ಎ ಮತು8 ಇ), ಕ ಾ ಟಕ, Yಾ• Vೌf ರ ೆ8, ಅಂ:ೆ Yೆxg0ೆ
ಸಂ?ೆD:5329, ೆಂಗಳ ರು-01
3. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" , ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ ಾ ರ ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು:
4. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" , ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು,
5. &ಾನD ಮುಖDಮಂQ#ಯವರ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" / ಪ# ಾನ ಾಯ ದ" / ಾಯ ದ" ,
ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
6. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" /ಸ ಾ ರದ ಪ# ಾನ ಾಯ ದ" /ಸ ಾ ರದ
ಾಯ ದ" /ಜಲಸಂಪನೂlಲ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ/>ೋ ೋಪcೕd ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಾಸ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
- 30 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
7. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯ ದ" , 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ 5 ಮತು8 ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ,
ಬಹುಮಹKಗಳ ಕಟgಡ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
8. &ಾನD ಉಪ ಮುಖDಮಂQ#ಯವರ ಆಪ8 ಾಯ ದ" , ಾಸ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು:
9. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಾಯ ದ" , MಬZಂ ಮತು8 ಆಡ[ತ ಸು ಾರ2ೆ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
10. ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೇಂದ# ಕyೇ@,
0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ 5 ಭವನ, ಆನಂದ<ಾ~ ವೃತ8, ೆಂಗಳ ರು
11. ಸ ಾ ರದ ಉಪ ಾಯ ದ" , M.ಆ.ಸು.ಇ>ಾ?ೆ ( ೇ ೆಗಳ]), ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
12. ಖTಾ ೆ ಆಯುಕ8ರು, ಖTಾ ೆ ಆಯು ಾ8ಲಯ, 6 ೇ ಮಹK, ೆ.‚.M.J¯ï d#ೕp ƒR„ಂL ಅರಮ ೆ ರ ೆ8, ೆಂಗಳ ರು-
560001.
13. ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁj
14. Aಾ?ಾ ರuಾ ಕಡತ/ Vೆಚುqವ@ ಪ#Q.
46. Therefore, it appears that the State Government
posted third respondent from Water Resources Department to
PRED, by creating temporary post of Engineer-in-Chief, which is
not at all created under statue by well established principles of
law.
47. After coming into force of the Civil Services Act, the
creation and abolition of posts can only be effected by way of
Rules made in the manner prescribed under Section 3(2) of the
said Act and not by any executive order issued under Article
162 of the Constitution. The field relating to the creation and
abolition of posts, method of recruitment and conditions of
service is now occupied by an enactment of the State
Legislature. Therefore, the exercise of power with regard to
matters falling within the occupied field can only be in
- 31 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
accordance with the said Act and not otherwise by way of an
executive order.
48. Further, Rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, states that notwithstanding
anything contained in the General Recruitment Rules or the
Rules of Recruitment specially made in respect of any service or
post, the Government may appoint to a post an officer holding
a post of an equivalent grade by transfer or by deputation from
any other service of the State for recruitment to which the
General Recruitment apply. The said provision of General
Recruitment Rules will not override the provisions of
Recruitment Regulations and hence, irrespective of the
provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, the
Government is not empowered to depute respondent No.3 to
PRED.
49. It is contended by the third respondent, who
belongs to Water Resources Department that Section 3(1)
merely provides that the State Government may, by
notification, make rules relating to recruitment and conditions
of service, and specify the different categories of posts, number
of posts, nature of posts and scale of pay; and that Section
- 32 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
3(1) is only an enabling provision permitting the State to make
Rules in the manner stipulated and until Rules are made under
Section 3(1), the executive power is not taken away in regard
to matters specified in Section 3(1). It is submitted that as no
Rule as contemplated in Section 3(1) has been made
prescribing the cadre strength of the PRED or their number and
nature of posts in each category in respect of PRED, the
executive power of State to create or abolition of posts is not
taken away; and as a consequence, the State can by executive
order, bifurcate any cadre or create a cadre by reducing the
strength of an existing cadre and at the same time, create new
cadre consisting of the downgraded or upgraded posts.
50. A combined reading of Article 162 of the
Constitution and Section 3 of the Civil Services Act shows that
the said contention raised by the respondents is not tenable. As
noticed above, executive power in regard to a subject comes to
an end when a law is made in regard to such subject by the
State Legislature and such law occupies the field. Prior to the
enactment of Karnataka State Civil Services Act, the
recruitment and conditions of services were not regulated by
any law made by the Legislature. In those circumstances, the
manner of recruitment and minimum qualifications therefore
- 33 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
were regulated by Rules made under Article 309; and the
creation and abolition of posts with prescription of cadre
strength and pay scales were regulated by executive orders
under Article 162 of the Constitution.
51. Once the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 was
enacted and came into force on 04.03.1992, the field relating
to recruitment and conditions of service (including creation of
abolition of posts, fixing the number and nature of posts)
became a field occupied by law made by the State Legislature.
The law is made in regard to 'recruitment' in a wider sense
which includes not only the method of recruitment, but also
creation and abolition of posts by specifying different categories
of posts in different branches of public service specifying total
number of posts, nature of such posts and scales of pay
admissible to such posts. As the field relating to creation and
abolition of posts is occupied by an enactment of the State
Legislature, regulating the entire field of recruitment, the State
can abolish or create posts only by making rules as
contemplated in Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services
Act and not by an executive order under Article 162.
- 34 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
52. We are, therefore, of the view that the cadre
strength of PRED could not have been altered by the
Government by issuing an executive order under Article 162 on
30.07.2025, but it is only by way of making Rules as
contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil
Services Act.
53. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that all rules
relating to matters referred to in sub-section (1) and in force
on the date of commencement of Civil Services Act shall be
deemed to be the rules made under sub-section (1) of Section
3 and shall continue in force until they are modified or replaced
by rules made under the said Act.
54. When the State Government issues notification
sanctioning the establishment of any particular cadre, or
creating or abolishing any post or determining the strength of
each cadre and character of the post therein, such notification
issued in exercise of executive power under Article 162 will
have to be considered as "Rules made by the Government
under any law for the time being in force". In fact, such
executive order is not permissible.
- 35 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
55. The categorical provision in sub-section (3) of
Section 3, after the State Civil Services Act, 1978 came into
force, the State can modify or replace any notification or
Government control relating to establishment of cadres or
fixing the strength of the cadre or number and character of the
posts only by the rules made in terms of Section 3(2) of Civil
Services Act and not by any Executive Order under Section
162.
56. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to PRED
department, in Panchayath Raj Rural Development Department,
who is working as Chief Engineer in the PRED, against posts
which is to be filled exclusively by promotion from the PRED. If
any order is passed by the Government in violation of the
recruitment rules, the PRED who are denied those posts will be
the persons aggrieved. Any attempt to undermine such
independence, will lead to unhealthy results.
57. If it is to be held that the petitioner do not have
any locus standi, then the result will be that any illegal decision
relating to such a matter by PRED/respondent Nos.1 and 2, will
not be open to question at all. The contention that the
- 36 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order dated
30.07.2025 or the consequential order is untenable.
58. From the material on record and from the rival
contentions, it is clear that, it is unfortunate how at the highest
level, highly placed officers with blemishless records are being
treated at the fag end of their career. The transfer orders are
passed without there being any vacancy and the Senior officers
are made to suffer being helpless and if they were to approach
the Tribunals and Courts and get the relief, action is taken
against them vindictively and in order to justify their action,
actions are taken against the said Officers, which is a clear case
of abuse of the power. Under these circumstances, the
notification issued by respondent No.1 dated 30.07.2025 is
contrary to the rules. Therefore, the order passed by the
Tribunal on 04.12.2025 as well as the Notification dated
30.07.2025 issued by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained and
they have to be set aside. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to all
the benefits.
59. Admittedly, the petitioner will superannuate in the
month of November, 2026. By virtue of the order passed on
03.10.2024 and on 30.07.2025, the petitioner has become a
- 37 -
WP No.38263 of 2025
scapegoat at the hands of the persons who are wielding power
without responsibility. The Tribunal has not done justice to the
person to whom injustice has been caused. This is a fit case
where the extraordinary power of this Court under Article 226
has to be exercised, as justice has been done to the petitioner.
We are satisfied that this is a fit case where exemplary cost has
to be imposed on respondent Nos.1 and 2 for causing
inconvenience to the petitioner, as respondent Nos.1 and 2 has
not complied the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in
W.P. No.5518/2025 disposed on 18.06.2025. Accordingly, we
impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Hence, we answer Point Nos.1 to 3 accordingly and pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned order dated 04.12.2025
passed by Tribunal in Application No.3761 of
2025 is set aside and consequently, the
Notification dated 30.07.2025 passed by
respondent No.1 is hereby quashed;
iii) The petitioner will be entitled to all
consequential reliefs and benefits.
- 38 -
iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay cost of
Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioner within a
period of four weeks from today.
v) Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/MN
