This High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Bangadi Co-operative Agriculture Society challenging an order that upheld an employee's eligibility for promotion to Assistant Executive Officer, rejecting the Society's claim regarding service rules applicability.
The writ appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO.527/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
THE BANGADI CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY INDABETTU VILLAGE, BANGADI POST, BELTHANGADI TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.KESHAVA BHAT A., ADV. FOR SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR C/R1)
AND:
1 . SRI BALAKRISHNA S/O BOOCHANAIK, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O KUVETHYAR HOUSE, BANAGADI POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KARNATAKA-574 214
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
2
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR S., AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 15.02.2021 IN W.P.NO.8201/2020 (S-RES) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.8201/2020 (Sri Balakrishna K. v. The State of Karnataka and three others).
employee who was appointed as clerk on temporary basis serving in the Bangadi Co-operative Agriculture Society (for short 'Society'), Indabettu village, Bangadi Post, Belthangadi Taluk, Dakshina Karnataka was regularized in 1997. By virtue of his good service record, he was subsequently promoted as Branch Manager on 01.04.2009 and at present also he is holding the post of Branch Manager. The next higher post in the Society is the Assistant Executive Officer and certainly the Branch Managers are in the feeder cadre. A
3
Notification was issued on 29.05.2020 initiating process of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive Officer. The respondent-employee was eligible to be considered for promotion, came up before this Court by filing a writ petition as the post was being filled up by direct recruitment. A prayer was made for quashment of the Notification dated 29.05.2020. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the paragraphs-5 to 9 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:
"5. The vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer arose in the year 2018. In terms of the said Rules, the petitioner claims to be eligible to be considered for such appointment as he had by then completed 10 years of service as Branch Manager.
4
“ 8 . Therefore, it is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that while selecting officers, minimum requisite qualifications and experience for promotion specified in the relevant column, should be taken into consideration against vacancies existing as on 1st April of the year of selection. But since the Rules came to be amended and the amendment became effective with immediate effect and clause (11-B) of Rule 24-A indicates that options have been given to the Government or the appointing Authority, as the case may be, to revise the select list as existing as per the law as on the date of the appointment or as may be directed by a competent court, selection is required to be made by the concerned DPC. An appointment made, after selection as per the procedure, to the vacancies existing prior to the amendment, is valid. But the question is whether selection would be made, in the case of appointment to the vacancies which admittedly arose after the amendment of the Rules came into force, according to the amended Rules or in terms of Rule 9 read with Rules 23 and 24-A, as mentioned hereinbefore. This Court has considered the similar question in para 9 of the judgment above-cited. This Court has specifically laid that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed
5
by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court had held that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose. Undoubtedly, the selection came to be made prior to the amendment of the Rules in accordance with law then existing since the anticipated vacancies also must have been taken into consideration in the light of Rule 9 of the Rules. But after the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules would be required to be applied for and given effect to. But, unfortunately, that has not been done in the present case. The two courses are open to the Government or the appointing authority, viz., either to make temporary promotions for the ensuing financial year until the DPC meets or in exercise of the power under Rule 24-A(11-B), they can revise the panel already prepared in accordance with the Rules and make appointments in accordance therewith.” (emphasis supplied)
6
7
employee was eligible for promotion as he has been put in 10 years of service as Branch Manager and he was holding the qualification for the post of Branch Manager. Resultantly, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pending IAs., if any, shall stand disposed of.
SD/JUDGE
SD/JUDGE
TL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal filed by the appellant Society challenging the Single Judge's order upholding the employee's eligibility for promotion is maintainable.
Whether the Single Judge's order dismissing the original writ petition regarding the quashment of the direct recruitment notification warrants interference in this writ appeal.
Whether the respondent-employee is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Officer under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and OthersReferred¶31
State of Rajasthan Vs. R. Dayal and Others (1997) 10 SCC 419 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Bangadi Co Operative Agriculture Society Indabettu Village
The State of Karnataka
The Registrar of Co Operative Societies
The Assistant Registrar of Co Operative Societies Puttur
Satish Chandra Sharma
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
