Disposed

Bharath Kumar S v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2020WA/432/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenges an interim order directing re-doing of in-charge arrangements for five officers. The High Court disposed of the appeals by allowing the existing temporary in-charge arrangement to continue pending the main writ petitions and reserved liberty for the Board to seek redressal thereafter.

What did the court decide?

In-charge arrangement continued for the five appellants pending main writ petitions; liberty reserved for respondent to seek directions from single judge.

Bharath Kumar S Vs Bangalore Water Supply and… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.432/2020 (S-PRO)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BHARATH KUMAR .S S/O. SHIVALINGAIAH G.N., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.62, PUNNYAKOTI, 6^TH MAIN, DATTATREYA NAGAR, HOSKERHALLI, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEBBAL STP, BWSSB.

¶11

PRESENTLY WORKING AS: INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEBBAL STP, BWSSB.

¶12

NAVNEET .K.L S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA .K AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT #53, MOSQUE ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 003. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WWM-H-3, OPP. LUMBINI GARDENS, HEBBAL STP PREMISES, BENGALURU.

¶13

PRESENTLY WORKING AS: INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WWM-HEBBAL VALLEY DIVISION.

¶14

ASHOK GOWDA .T.P S/O. PRAKASH .T.S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT 135, MALOO PARK ROYAL APARTMENTS, 3^RD FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS,

¶15

¶16

VINAYAKA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WEST-2, R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶17

PRESENTLY WORKING AS: INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WEST DIVISION.

¶18

SUHAS .H.P S/O. PUTTASOMAPPA .H.S AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT #301, SRISHTI VANASIRI APARTMENT, KRISHNA GARDEN MAIN ROAD, R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NORTH WEST-5, PEENYA, BENGALURU.

¶19

PRESENTLY WORKING AS: INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NORTH WEST DIVISION.

¶20

SRINIVAS .R S/O. RAVINDRA .D AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT #115/8, SWATI HOME, 3^RD FLOOR, 5^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 72. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K-4-2, MALLESHWARAM.

¶21

PRESENTLY WORKING AS: INCHARGE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K-4 DIVISION. ... APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 1^ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AND SECRETARY.

¶25

¶26

SRI DINAKAR .A.S S/O. LATE A. YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BWSSB, WWM (K&C)-2, KAPILA BHAVAN, JAYANAGAR BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 041. 3. SRI B.M. NAGENDRA BABU S/O. B.V. MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BWSSB, CAUVERY-4 DIVISION, MALLESHWARAM, KASHI MUTT ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 055.

¶27

SRI NARAYAN SWAMY B.M. S/O. MUNIKADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.3 SUB-DIVISION, BWSSB, D-BLOCK, 8^TH MAIN, SAHAKAR NAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶28

SRI BALAKRISHNA .M.P S/O. LATE N.M. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BWSSB, CAUVERY HEAD WORKS, N-4 SUB-DIVISION, T.K. HALLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 6. SRI ANAND K.M. S/O. LATE MAHESHWRAPPA .K AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BWSSB, DCW-1 SUB-DIVISION, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. 7. S.T. SURESH S/O. S. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BWSSB, STP, ARKAVALLI VALLEY, SUB-DIVISION-1, SHIMSHA BHAVANA, 46^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 8^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 082. ... RESPONDENTS

¶29

¶30

(BY SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. ASHWINI OBULESH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHARADA BAI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-7)

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NOS.41266-71/2019 (S-PRO) AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2020.

¶32

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1/Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (“BWSSB/Board”) as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 who are the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.41266-271/2019.

¶35

The private respondents herein have filed the writ petitions, inter alia , assailing the seniority list prepared by respondent No.1/BWSSB . The background to the same is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶36

B.K.Pavitra vs. Union of India [(2017)4 SCC 620) (B.K.Pavitra I) and B.K.Pavitra vs. Union of India [AIR 2019 SC 2723) (B.K.Pavitra II) . In the writ petitions, by an interim order dated 04/09/2019, the final seniority list

¶37

¶38

dated 13/08/2019 was stayed. Thereafter, it appears that the Board has taken steps under Rule 32(a) and thereby, placed the appellants herein (respondent Nos.2 to 66 in the writ petitions) in the in-charge post. The same was subject matter of the controversy and by the impugned order dated 10/08/2020, the learned single Judge directed re-doing of the in-charge arrangement. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by five such officers.

¶39

We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶40

During the course of submission, it was brought to our notice that the main writ petition is pending adjudication. That in this appeal, by interim order dated 17/08/2020, has directed that the direction contained in the impugned order shall not be acted upon insofar as these appellants are concerned.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/BWSSB submitted that insofar as two other officers are concerned, their in-charge arrangement has been withdrawn, but in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the in-

¶42

¶43

charge arrangement in respect of these five appellants has been continued.

¶44

In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal by reserving liberty to respondent No.1/BWSSB to file an appropriate application before the learned single Judge with regard to any in-charge arrangement to be made and seek directions in the writ petitions pending before the learned single Judge. In the meanwhile, the incharge arrangement made insofar as these five appellants are concerned, shall continue until further orders to be made in the writ petitions.

¶45

It is needless to clarify that the in-charge arrangement made with regard to these five appellants is only by way of a temporary arrangement and would not in anyway confer any advantage to them and shall be subject to the orders to be made in the writ petitions.

¶46

All contentions on both sides are left open to be urged before the learned single Judge.

¶47

At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents herein states that the writ petitions could be disposed of at an early date.

¶48

¶49

If such a request is made, learned single Judge may consider the same.

¶50

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending

¶51

applications stand disposed.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Bharath Kumar S v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath Kumar S v. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary Vs Lakshmaiah

Mr Tamil Selvam Vs Union of India

Fugro Survey (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dredging Corporation of India Limited

State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Vasanthi Hegde

Mr Ravi K Sapare Vs Mrs Uma

Wonderla Karmika Sangha Vs M/S Wonderla Holidays Limited