High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order that invalidated an 8% reservation for Hyderabad-Karnataka domiciles in State posts outside the region. The Court relied on a Division Bench judgment upholding the validity of the reservation under Article 371J.
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 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.41222/2017 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN
1 . SRI M BASAVARAJ S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU RESIDNG AT NO.315/2, 6TH CROSS, 6TH LMAIN, VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560034.
2 . SRI. H.N. GANGADHAR S/O CHIKKABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTNAT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS, BENGALURU RESIDING AT NO.108, 6TH "A" CROSS, 2ND MAIN, BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE, ITTGAMADU, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU 560 085.
3 . SRI. B.L. KANTHARAJU S/O LOKAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KARANATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT
2
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 RESIDING AT NO.691, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, KAMALANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 070.
4 . SRI B.N. REVANNA S/O NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KARANATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 RESIDING AT NO.27, 3RD CROS, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, JARAGANAHALLI BENGALURU 560 078.
5 . SMT. TABUSSUM KOWSAR W/O AKRAM PASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, DEPT. OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT BENGALURU RESIDING AT NO.5, 4TH CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, DINNURL MAIN ROAD, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU 560032.
..PETITIONERS
(By SRI : B.OANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI YOGESH D NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KARNATKAA GOVT. SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.
2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
3
KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.
4 . SRI K.E. KEERTHI
WORKING AS ASSISTANT, HOUSING DEPARTMENT(HOUSING-2) KARNATAKA GOVT. LSECRETARIAT MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.17.8.2017 IN APPLICATION NO.4368-4372/2014 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEX-A) AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.4368-472/2014 PRAYED FOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition is arising out of the order dated 17.8.2017 passed in Application Nos.4368-4372/2014 (Sri M Basavraj and others v. The State of Karnataka and others) by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru.
4
read as under;
"13. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Article 371J was introduced by the Constitution of India (one hundred eighteenth amendment) Bill, 2012. The Legislative Assembly of the Karnataka as well as Legislative Council passed resolutions on 17th March, 2010 and 18th March, 2010 respectively, for making a special provision for the
5
Hyderabad-Karnataka areas of the State. Broadly speaking, the Hyderabad-Karnataka region was falling within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad State prior to reorganization of the States. The resolutions passed by the Legislature of the State of Karnataka recognize that this region was most backward region of the State of Karnataka and therefore, it was felt necessary to take steps for reducing intra district and intra regional disparity in the statement of objects and reasons of the Constitution Amendment Bill, it is mentioned that Hyderabad-Karnataka area of the State consists of districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Koppal and Yadgir. It is observed that in addition, it is necessary to include Bellary District in the region. For accelerating growth and development in this most backward region of the State, a provision was made authorizing the Hon'ble President of India to make an order to provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for establishment of a separate Development Board for the aforesaid region, providing for equitable allocation of funds for development of the said region subject to requirements of the State as a whole and to provide equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the said region in matters of public employment, education and vocational training, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 371 J, the said order dated 24th October, 2013 has been promulgated by the Hon'ble President of India providing that the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka shall have a special responsibility for the establishment of separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region and for other matters referred to clause (1) and clause (2) or Article 371J of the Constitution of India The said order provided that Hon'ble Governor shall, for the purposes of sub-clause (1), have power to issue such order as may be necessary. Accordingly, the impugned order has been issued by the Hon'ble Governor.
14. Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J are the matters in respect of which the Hon'ble President is empowered to make an Order providing for special responsibilities of the Governor of Karnataka. Sub-clause (c), deals with the special responsibilities of the Hon'ble Governor for providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the said region in the matter of ‘public employment, educational and vocational training’ subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. Subclause (2) of Article 371J provides that an order made under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) may provide for (i) reservation of a proportion of seats in educational and vocational training institutions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for
6
the students who belong to that region by birth or by domicile and (ii) identification of posts or classes of posts in the State Government or in any body or organization under the control of the State Government in the said region and providing for reservation of a proportion of such posts for the persons who belong to the said region by birth or domicile.
15. Clause (2) of Article 371J uses the word ‘may provide for’. Sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J is the substantive provision which enables the Hon'ble President to provide for a special responsibility to the Hon'ble Governor for providing equal opportunities and facilities to the people belonging to the said region, in the matters of public employment, education and vocational training. The provision for equitable opportunities and facilities is required to be made to the people belonging to the said region subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. Thus, as per sub clause (c), once a presidential order under clause (1) of Article 371 J is made, it enables the Governor to provide for proportional reservation in the public employment for the people born or domiciled in HyderobadKarnataka region. Similarly, clause (c) authorizes and empowers the Hon'ble Governor to provide for reservation in educational and vocational training institutions. The words ‘subject to the requirements of the State as whole’ indicate that while creating public employment, the requirements of the State as a whole will have to be considered and thereafter, proportional reservation in the posts can be provided for the people of the region. Only for the benefit of the people in the said region, posts cannot be created and only if the State has a need for additional posts, the same can be created in which reservation can be provided to the people of the said region. By way of illustration, if as per the requirements of the State, certain number of posts in a particular cadre are created, Hon'ble Governor can pass an order providing for equitable opportunities and facilities by providing for a proportional reservation considering the proportion of the people of Hyderabad-Karnataka region to the population of the State-On its plain meaning, clause (c) enables the Hon'ble Governor to provide for reservation for the people in Hyderabad Karnataka region with a view to give equal opportunities to the people of HyderabadKarnataka region. Such reservation need not remain confined to the posts in that region.
16. Similarly, in the matter of education, by virtue subclause (c), the Hon'ble Governor can provide for giving equitable opportunities to the students born in HyderabadKarnataka region. Thus, the Hon'ble Governor can direct
7
that a provision should be made for reservation for the students of Hyderabad-Karnataka region in the educational institutions which are outside the region. The reason is that when it comes to the employment, there may not be posts available in the region looking to the backward condition of the region. Similarly, considering the backward condition of the region, there may not be educational institutions established in that region for imparting education in certain fields. Thus, sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J empowers the Hon'ble Governor, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble President, to provide equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the HyderabadKarnataka region, in the public employment available in the State, even outside the said region. If the power of Hon'ble Governor conferred by virtue of special responsibilities entrusted by the Hon'ble President, by passing an Order under clause (1) of Article 371J, was to be circumscribed by providing for equitable opportunities for public employment by imposing reservation only on the posts available in that region, the very purpose of conferring power under Article 371J will be completely defeated. The reason is that in the statement of objects and reasons itself it is stated that the said region is a backward region and therefore, there may not be enough opportunities available in that region in the public employment or in the education to the people belonging to that region.
17. It is for that reason the word ‘may’ is used in clause (2) of Article 371J which enables the Hon'ble Governor to make provision for identification of posts or classes of posts in the State Government or organization under the control of the State in that region and provide for reservation for the people domiciled or born in that region in the said identified posts in the region. Similarly, clause (2) provides for reservation of proportionate seats in the educational institutions in that region for the students belonging to that region. Thus, apart from the power conferred under subclause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J, clause (2) thereof enables the Hon'ble Governor to provide equitable opportunities for employment for the people belonging to the said region in the posts available in the said region. But, in view of sub-clause (c) of clause (1), it is not necessary for the Hon'ble Governor to confine the reservation in the public employment in the posts available in that particular region or to provide for reservation for the students of the said region only in the educational institutions available in that region. Clause (2) of Article 371J is only an enabling provision and it does not control sub-clause (c) in clause (1). In paragraph 13 of the impugned Order, the Hon'ble Governor has provided for equitable opportunities of
8
employment to the persons belonging to the said region in the cadres or posts which are located in any part of the State. Thus, the reservation provided in paragraph 13 of the impugned order is referable to the power of the Hon'ble Governor in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371 J. The said power is not controlled or affected by sub-clause (b) of clause (2).
18. Chapter-1 of the impugned order of the Hon'ble Governor provides for organization of a local cadre by identifying the posts in civil services or civil posts under the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region or the posts in Local Authority or body or organization under the control of the State in the said region. Paragraph 3(3) lays down the percentage of the posts in the region belonging to groups C and D which can be organized into local cadres. Thus, the provisions Chapter-I starting from paragraph 3 of the impugned order are referable to subclause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371J and paragraph 13 of the impugned order in chapter II is enacted under subclause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J.
19. The aforesaid interpretation made by us is the interpretation made by giving a plain or natural meaning to the words used in Article 371 J. We are of the opinion that it a plain and natural meaning is given to the words used in clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371 J, the provisions of Article 371J will become fully workable and therefore, there is no need to do the exercise of making a purposive interpretation. In other words, sub clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of Article 371J can be said to be illustrations of the manner in which the power under the general power provided in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J can be exercised. The sub clause (c) of clause (1) is not controlled by sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371 J. On this aspect, the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Lakhwlnder Kumar (supra) is very relevant. In paragraph 17 of the said decision, it is held thus:
17. In our opinion, when the power is conferred in general and thereafter in respect of enumerated matters, as in the present case, the particularization in respect of specified subject is constructed as merely illustrative and does not limit the scope of general power. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. , AIR 1966 SC 1471, in which it has been held as follows:
9
“.. .. Section 15(1) confers wide powers on the appropriate Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act; and Section 15(2) specifies some of the matters enumerated by clauses (a) to (e), in respect of which rules may be framed. It is well-settled that the enumeration of the particular matters by sub-section (2) will not control or limit the width of the powers conferred on the appropriate Government by sub-section (1) of Section 15; and so, if it appears that the item added by the appropriate Government has relation to conditions of employment, its addition cannot be challenged as being invalid in law…..”
(emphasis added)
20. If the argument of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is accepted, the wider power conferred on the Hon'ble Governor under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J will be curtailed by sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371 J.
21. Some argument is canvassed on the basis of the use of the words “and for other matters referred to in clause (1) and clause (2) of Article 371J of the Constitution in respect of that region”. In clause (2) of the Order of the Hon'ble President, the first part indicates that the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka shall have the special responsibility for the establishment of a separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The words quoted by us mean that the special responsibilities are entrusted to the Hon'ble Governor in respect of other matters in the said region, as provided in sub-clauses (b) and (c) of clause (1). The use of the aforesaid words in the order of the Hon'ble President will have no bearing on interpretation of Article 371 J.
22. We have carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. The said decisions laid down well settled rule regarding interpretation of the statutes. In the case of Doypack Systems Private Limited referred supra, relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the Apex Court held that the words in the statute must be given their ordinary meaning and where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt, the construction giving ordinary meaning must prevail unless there are some strong and obvious reasons to the contrary. The same judgment lays
10
down that the object of interpretation of a statute is to discover the intention of the Parliament and the intention must be primarily gathered from the words used in the statute itself, which must, if they are plain and unambiguous, be applied as they stand.
Conclusion:
23. As stated earlier, by paragraph-13 of the impugned Order, the Hon'ble Governor has provided for reservation of 8% of the posts in the State level offices or state level institutions. 8% reservation is provided, representing the population percentage of the said region in the total population of Karnataka. Thus, the reservation is provided in State level offices which are outside the said region. The exercise of power by Hon'ble Governor by providing reservation in paragraph 13 of the impugned order is fully and legally supported by sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J of the Constitution."
5. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, no further
orders are required to be passed in the present case as the Division Bench has already upheld the validity of the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad – Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, to the extent of 8% representing the population percentage of the said region in the total population of Karnataka.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/-
nd JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the reservation of 8% posts for Hyderabad-Karnataka region domiciles in State offices outside the region is valid under Article 371J.
Whether the orders of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal challenging the 2013 Reservation Order are sustainable in light of the Division Bench judgment.
Whether the power under sub-clause (c) of Article 371J permits reservation for public employment in the State as a whole, not just the region.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.Nos.939-940/2019Relied on¶35
Lakhwinder Kumar (supra)Referred¶52
Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.Referred¶53
Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1471 · Who else cites this
Doypack Systems Private LimitedReferred¶59
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI M BASAVARAJ AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
