Remanded

Uma Prashanth v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2021WP/8791/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court deemed the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of police officers' equivalence claims as not deciding the matter on merits. The Court remanded the case to the Tribunal to decide afresh on merits after a hearing, directing the Tribunal not to adjourn the final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide on merits after hearing parties and interveners.

Uma Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.8868 OF 2020 (S-CAT) CONNECTED WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.8791 OF 2020 (S-CAT)

¶10

IN W.P. NO.8868/2020:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

R. SHIVAKUMARA S/O. RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NON-IPS), KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, JUBLIEE CIRCLE, DHARWAD - 580 001.

¶13

LAKSHMI GANESH S/O. V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (NON-IPS), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CRIME AND TRAFFIC, POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE, A.B. SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE - 575 001.

¶14

¶15

T.J. UDESHA S/O. T.V. JAYADEVA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, B.H. ROAD, NEAR SIDDAGANGA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, TUMKURU – 572 101.

¶16

SACHIN GHORPADE S/O. PARSHURAM GHORPADE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SP COMMUNAL INTELLIGENCE HEAD OFFICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶17

V.J. SAJEETH S/O. JANARDAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NO.5, MILLER ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

... PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH SRI JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADV.)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

¶24

UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DHOLPUR HOUSE, NEW DELHI - 110 001, BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. SRI M.V. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD MAJOR, COMMANDANT, 3^RD BATTALION, KARANTAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 033. 6. SRI BASAVARAJ ZILLE MAJOR, COMMANDANT, VI BATTALION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE, KALBURAGI - 585101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, A.G.A., FOR R-1 & 2; SRI S.K. ACHARYA, ADV., FOR R-3; SRI V.N. HOLLA, ADV., FOR R-4; SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV., FOR R-5 & 6) * * *

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21-6-2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU, IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/355-359/2016 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, AND ALLOW THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/355-359/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AND BENEFITS, AND ETC.

¶26

¶27

IN W.P. NO.8791/2020:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

UMA PRASHANTH D/O. LATE PUTTANNAIAH L.S., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ACB, MANGALORE AND WESTERN RANGE, BANGALORE, SOBHA CITY APARTMENT, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 077.

¶30

SMT. YASHODHA VANTAGODI W/O. SUNIL VANTAGODI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS DCP, CRIME AND TRAFFIC DIVISION, BELGAUM.

¶31

SRIHARI BARGUR ALIAS SRIHARIBABU B.L. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. B.M. LINGANNA, WORKING AS ADSP, RAICHUR DISTRICT.

¶32

SMT. GEETHA PRASANNA ALIAS GEETHA M.S. W/O. PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.702, 10^TH CROSS, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARATHANAGAR, MYSURU – 570 011, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DCRE CELL, MYSURU.

¶33

DR. SHOBHARANI V.J. D/O. JAGANNATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ADSP, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶34

¶35

6.	DR. SOUMYALATHA S.K. W/O. SUSHEEN DUTT H.K., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRAFFIC WEST DIVISION, BANGALORE.
7.	SMT. KAVITHA B.T. W/O. NAGASHAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS DCP, CRIME AND TRAFFIC, MYSURU. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, ADV.)
AND:
1.	STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.	SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3.	UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
4.	UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DHOLPUR HOUSE, NEW DELHI - 110 001, BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS
	(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, A.G.A., FOR R-1 & 2; SRI S.K. ACHARYA, ADV., FOR R-3)

¶36

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21-6-2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00365-377/2016 AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC.

¶38

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The present writ petitions are arising out of order dated 21-6-2019 passed in four original applications preferred by the Karnataka State Civil Police Officers being aggrieved by order dated 23-1-2016 passed by the State Government in terms of Regulation II (j) and (k) which provides for issuance of equivalency order.

¶41

The equivalency order has been issued by the State of Karnataka on 23-1-2016 holding the Assistant Commandants of Karnataka State Reserve Police as equivalent to Deputy Superintendent of Police (State Civil Police Services). The matter was heard by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and judgment has been delivered which is

¶42

¶43

running into 142 pages. The Tribunal has dismissed the original applications holding the validity of order dated 23-1-2016. However, for upholding the validity of order dated 23-1-2016, reference finds place only in paragraph No.23 mean thereby after writing 142 pages, only one paragraph deals with order dated 23-1-2016.

¶44

Paragraph Nos.23 to 26 of the order passed in the Original Applications reads as under:

¶45

“23. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law on the subject, we hereby declare:

¶46

a) The Karnataka Legislature has the jurisdiction and competence to enact and amend Section 3 of the Karnataka Police Act as it stands today.

¶47

b) In consequence thereof there is only one police force in the State of Karnataka including the State Reserve Police Force established under Section 145.

¶48

¶49

c) All the officers of Karnataka Police, in all streams of policing of the rank of Dy. SP and above with a minimum service of eight years and qualified as per the rules are eligible to be considered for promotion into the Indian Police Service.

¶50

d) As ordered in WP. No.3269/2012 dtd.25.4.2013 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide sub-para-vii of para-71 'the Government decision should contain the reasons either for granting equivalence or refusing to grant equivalence so that the aggrieved person could agitate his rights before this Court'. The order of the Govt. of Karnataka at AnnexureA27, GO No. DPAR 155 SPS 2013 dtd.23.01.2016 while ordering the inclusion of the Assistant Commandants of KSRP as equivalent to Civil Police Services for the purpose of promotion to Indian Police Service, does not contain any reason as ordered by the Hon'ble

¶51

¶52

High Court of Karnataka for not ordering the equivalence of the other police service officers of the police force of the State of Karnataka.

¶53

e) As already noted, as per Section 3 of the Karnataka Police Act, there is only one police force in the State of Karnataka and as such leaving out certain other categories without any valid reason by the Government vide impugned order is not correct. Therefore, there shall be a mandate to the Govt. of Karnataka to specify the reasons for not including the other police service officers for being eligible to be promoted to the Indian Police Service. The validity of order at Annexure-A27 is otherwise upheld.

¶54

24. We, however, make it clear that this equivalence as established by the statute shall only be extendable to the officers recruited into the various branches of the State Police Service based on their minimum qualifications

¶55

¶56

and recruitment through standardised process.

¶57

a common

¶58

25. In view of the various proceedings before this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the decision taken by the Govt. of Karnataka vide order at AnnexureA27, it is clarified that the orders shall take effect only from the date of the impugned order. The OAs.No.355-359/2016, 362364/2016, 365-377/2016 are disposed off as above. No costs.

¶59

26. Regarding OAs.No.631-635/2017, as stated by the respondents, the application is filed against the internal communications between the Government and the DG & IG of Police. The respondents have no other option except to follow the various orders and guidelines relating to the crucial date for inclusion in the select list etc., which are all well established. This they shall do accordingly and therefore these OAs stand dismissed.”

¶60

¶61

Most unfortunate aspect of the case is that, there

¶62

was no prayer for declaring other Police Services in the State of Karnataka as equivalent to the Karnataka Police Civil Services and in spite of aforesaid, direction has been given to treat all the Officers in Karnataka in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and above in all streams with a minimum service of eight years and qualified as per the rules are eligible to be considered for promotion into the post of Indian Police Service. The Tribunal has issued a mandamus to the State of Karnataka to consider Officers

¶63

of other Police services in Karnataka also. The State of Karnataka has other four Police services.

¶64

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal should have gone in detail in respect of the impugned order dated 23-1-2016 and should have decided the matter on merits, after considering all rival contentions of the parties. The same has certainly not been done. With the consent of the parties, matter is being remanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh in

¶65

¶66

accordance with law that too after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. There are certain interveners also in the present case and therefore, interveners are permitted to file intervention application before the Tribunal.

¶67

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that the State is going to send a list of Deputy Superintendent of Police serving under Karnataka Civil Police and their interest is going to be hampered, if such a list is sent.

¶68

Learned Government Advocate has stated before

¶69

this Court that for a period of thirty days, the entire process shall be kept in abeyance.

¶70

Resultantly, without averting into the merits of the case, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8-2-2021. No further notice is required as all parties are

¶71

¶72

present before this Court and even, interveners are present. With the aforesaid directions, writ petitions stand disposed of .

¶73

It is further made clear that the Tribunal will not

¶74

grant any adjournment in the matter and the parties shall co-operate with the final hearing of the matter and in case, any necessity for grant of adjournment arises, the Tribunal shall record reasons for such an adjournment.

¶75

All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

¶76

No order as to costs.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

Sd/JUDGE

¶79

kvk

Uma Prashanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Prashanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Director Vs D Xaviour

The Union of India Vs T Venkatesh

Sri.K.N. Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Shailavva H Bhagavati Vs Union of India

Smt. Clera R X Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Shivakumara Vs State of Karnataka