Allowed

Sri.G.R.Bhvaneshwara v. Smt.M.L.Anuradha

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2023WP/8829/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed writ petitions challenging administrative tribunal orders that promoted petitioners to the cadre of Assistant Registrar based on draft recruitment rules rather than the statutory rules applicable at the time. The court held the promotion was void, declared the posts vacant, and directed fresh promotion of senior applicants without recovery of pay. Dismissal of f

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's order dated 21.04.2021 was quashed. The petitioner's promotion was declared void. The Registrar is directed to consider promotion afresh under rules in force on 09.12.2020. No recovery

Sri.G.R.Bhvaneshwara Vs Smt.M.L.Anuradha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 1 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.8829/2021 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION No.8885/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶10

IN WRIT PETITION No. 8829/2021

¶11

BETWEEN :

¶12

SRI.G.R.BHUVANESHWARA SON OF LATE G M RAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KANDAYA BHAVAN, K .G. ROAD BENGALURU -560 009. RESIDING AT No.119/17-K 14^TH CROSS, 19^TH MAIN 1^ST K – BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶13

….PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI P A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 2 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶16

AND :

¶17

1 . SMT.M.L.ANURADHA WIFE OF B S SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS PERSONAL SECRETARY -CUM JUDGMENT WRITER KARNTAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KANDAYA BHAVAN, K .G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 RESIDING AT NO.401, 8^TH MAIN BYRAPPA ENCLAVE, SHIVANAPURA RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶18

2 . SMT. B R JAYALAKSHMI WIFE OF B R RAMESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS PERSONAL SECRETARY CUM JUDGMENT WRITER KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G .ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 RESIDING AT NO.895, 3^RD ‘A’ MAIN, II STAGE D –BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶19

3 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

4 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, KANDAYA BHAVAN K .G .ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶21

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 3 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶22

5 . SRI S MANJUNATHA SON OF LATE SARJA KRISHNAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KANDAYA BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009. RESIDING AT NO.402 6^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN KANAKASHREE LAYOUT HENNUR - BAGALUR ROAD KANNUR, BENGALURU - 564 921.

¶23

6 . SRI S MAHESH SON OF S SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI BENCH, BELAGAVI RESIDING AT NO.705, 5-C BLOCK PROVIDENT SUNWORTH-2 VENKATAPURA, KENGERI BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI GIRISH S JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI VIJAY KUMAR DESAI, AGA FOR R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERITORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2021 IN A.NOS. 6714 AND 6715/2020, ANNEXURE - A PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI BENCH BELAGAVI BENCH, BELAGAVI AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶27

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 4

¶28

C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶29

IN WRIT PETITION No. 8885/2021

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

1 . S. MANJUNATHA S/o LATE SARJAKRISHNAPPANAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KANDAYABHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009 RESIDING AT No.402 6^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN KANAKASHREE LAYOUT HENNUR – BAGALUR ROAD KANNUR, BENGALURU – 564 921.

¶32

2 . S.MAHESH S/o LATE S. SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI BENCH BELAGAVI RESIDING AT No.705, 5-C BLOCK PROVIDENT SUNWORTH – 2, VENKATAPURA, KENGERI. BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶33

…PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI M NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶37

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 5 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶38

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶39

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KANDAYA BHAVAN, K .G .ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶40

M.L.ANURADHA, W/o B.S.SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS PERSONAL SECRETARY – CUMJUDGMENT WRITER KARANTAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009, RESIDING AT NO.401, 8^TH MAIN, BYRAPPA ENCLAVE, SHIVANAPURA, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶41

B R JAYALAKSHMI W/o OF B R RAMESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS PERSONAL SECRETARY – CUMJUDGMENT WRITER KARANTAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 RESIDING AT NO.895, 3^RD ‘A’ MAIN, II STAGE D –BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR DESAI, AGA FOR R1, SRI GIRISH S JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4

¶44

SRI RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶45

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERITORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.04.2021 IN APPLICATION Nos. 6714 & 6715 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶47

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J , PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

Petitioners in W.P. No. 8885/2021 (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) and petitioner in W.P. 8829/2023 (respondent No.

¶50

have sought for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.04.2021 passed in application Nos. 6714 and 6715/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal’), Bengaluru, as against the petitioners and consequently sought for dismissal of application Nos. 6714 and 6715/2020 filed by the applicants.

¶51

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 7

¶52

C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶53

Petitioners were private respondents in the

¶54

applications whose promotions by order dated 09.12.2020 has been challenged under the applications before the Tribunal. The applicants who were working as Personal Secretaries – cum – Judgment Writers in the Tribunal have filed application Nos. 6714 and 6715/2020 challenging the order dated 09.12.2020 by which the petitioners have been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Registrar and sought for their promotion to the next cadre of Assistant Registrar in accordance with the existing C & R Rules of the Tribunal with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 21.04.2021 has allowed the applications and quashed the order dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure – A6) and promotion of the petitioners is declared void-ab-initio and the post of Assistant Registrar held by the petitioners are declared as vacant with immediate effect directing respondent No.2 to consider the promotion to the three vacancies as on 09.12.2020 afresh

¶55

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 8 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶56

and in accordance with the extant 1993 Rules prevailing as on 09.12.2020 – date on which promotions were made and also awarded costs of Rs.5,000/- to each of the applicants which shall be paid by respondent No.2 - Registrar, Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶57

The applicants were in the cadre of Personal Secretary – cum – Judgment Writer, respondent Nos. 3 and

¶58

4 were in the cadre of Section Officers and respondent No.

¶59

5 was in the cadre of Court Officer. Said respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are petitioners in these two writ petitions. The applicants were working as Stenographers and were promoted to the cadre of Personal Secretary – cum – Judgment Writer on the basis of seniority – cum – merit and have been in the said cadre for the last 26 years as on the date of filing of the applications. The method of recruitment and minimum qualification for recruitment for several cadres in the Tribunal are governed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment)

¶60

¶61

Rules, 1993 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the `Rules, 1993’). The Rules, 1993 provide for feeder channels to the cadre of Assistant Registrar. One is from Section Officer/Court Officer cadre and the other from Personal Secretary – cum – Judgment Writer/ Personal Secretary to Registrar. Common seniority list is drawn in respect of feeder cadres from which promotion is made to the cadre of Assistant Registrar strictly based on seniority cum merit. The combined provisional seniority list of the said feeder cadres was notified on 17.03.2020 (Annexure A2). Applicant No. 1 was at Sl.No. 1 and applicant No. 2 was Sl.No.3 while petitioners were at Sl.Nos. 6, 10 and 5 respectively.

¶62

One Sri. Ramarao who was in the cadre of Personal Secretary was promoted as Personal Secretary to Registrar with retrospective effect from 11.08.1994 vide order dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure A3). Since he was given retrospective promotion, provision gradation list dated

¶63

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 10 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶64

17.03.2020 was recalled vide order dated 07.12.2020

¶65

(Annexure A4) to publish a revised seniority list.

¶66

Respondent No. 1 – State published the draft Rules

¶67

vide notification dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure A5) wherein the promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar from the cadre of Section Officers, Court Officers and Personal Secretary – cum – Judgment Writers is proposed in the ratio of 2 : 1 : 2 and that first and second vacancies will be filled up from the cadre of Sections Officers, third vacancy from the cadre of Court Officer and fourth and fifth vacancies from the cadre of Personal Secretary – cum – Judgment Writers. If no suitable candidate is available, then

¶68

the post will be filled by deputation from the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) from the Karnataka Judicial Service. Thereafter, on the very next day, order dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure A6) came to be issued promoting the petitioners to the cadre of Assistant Registrars on the strength of draft Rules. The issue before the Tribunal was, whether the

¶69

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 11 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶70

promotion of the petitioners by an order dated 09.12.2020

¶71

basing on the draft Rules dated 08.12.2020 is justified?

¶72

The method of recruitment and qualification in

¶73

respondent No. 2 is governed under the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment) Rules, 1993 amended from time to time. Rule 2 of the Rules, 1993, reads as follows:

¶74

“2. Method of Recruitment of recruitment,

¶75

qualification etc.- In respect of each category of posts specified in column (1) of the schedule the method of Recruitment and the minimum qualifications, if any, shall be as specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) and (3) thereof.”

¶76

Relevant portion of the schedule relating to

¶77

Assistant Registrar amended as per Notification dated 05.09.2007 is as under:

¶78

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 12 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶79

Assistant Registrar	By promotion from the	For promotion:-
(Rs.7,400 – 13,120)	cadre of Section Officer, Court Officer, Personal Secretary- cum-judgment writer, Personal Secretary to the Registrar on the	(1) Must have in service for less than five y in any of the ca specified column(2):	put not ears dres in
	basis of combined seniority. Seniority being determined on the basis of length of	Provided tha persons who put in a servic not less than	t if have e of five
	service in the respective cadre,	years are available, per	not sons
	seniority interse	who have put	in a
	among persons in a cadre being	service of not than three yea	less rs in
	maintained.	the cadres spe	cified
	If no suitable	in column (2)	may
	candidate is available	be considered	for
	for promotion, by	promotion.
	deputation of an officer in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) from the
	Karnataka Judicial Service.

¶80

From the above Rule it is clear that the post of

¶81

Assistant Registrar is required to be filled from the feeder

¶82

cadres of Sections Officers, Court Officers, Personal Secretary – cum – Judgment Writer, Personal Secretary to Registrar on the basis of combined seniority and such

¶83

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 13 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶84

seniority is to be determined based on the length of service in the respective cadres. When the Rules relating to the method of recruitment for the cadre of Assistant Registrar was in force, draft Rules dated 08.02.2020 were notified in the Gazette dated 08.12.2020 wherein promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar from the cadre of Sections Officers, Court Officers, Personal Secretary – cum – Judgment Writer is proposed to be in the ratio of 2 : 1 : 2 and the first and second vacancies to be filled up from the cadre of Section Officers, third vacancy from the cadre of Court Officer and fourth and fifth vacancies from the cadre of Personal Secretary – cum – Judgment Writers and Personal Secretary to Registrar. If no suitable candidate is available, then the post will be filled up from deputation from the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) from the Karnataka Judicial Service. Said draft Rules became Rules by Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2021. Said Rule 1(2) of

¶85

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 14 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶86

the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2021 reads as follows:

¶87

“(2) they come into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette.”

¶88

Said Rules were notified in the Official Gazette on

¶89

30.01.2021. Therefore, said amended Rules came into force

¶90

only on 30.01.2021. Publication of the draft Rules in the Gazette dated 08.12.2020 is an opportunity to the persons affected to make representations and to show cause why the said Rules shall not be confirmed. The operation of the Rules, 1993 subsisting as on the date of the promotion was in any manner affected by the publication of the draft Rules on 08.12.2020. When the Rules, 1993, were subsisting on 09.12.2020, promotion could have been made only on the basis of Rules, 1993 and not on the basis of the draft Rules of 08.12.2020 which cannot be acted upon in the place of statutory Rules, i.e, Rules, 1993 that were subsisting and

¶91

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 15

¶92

C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶93

holding the filed in the matter of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrars.

¶94

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Pondichery and another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 4295 has held as under:

¶95

“28. Valid rules made under proviso appended to article 309 of the Constitution of India operate so long the said rules are not repealed and replaced. The draft rules, therefore, could not form the basis for grant of promotion, when rules to the contrary is holding the field. The principle that draft rules can be acted upon, will apply when there are more rules governing the matter and where recruitment is governed by departmental instructions or executive orders under article 162 of the Constitution.”

¶96

Said aspect has also been considered by the

¶97

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.

¶98

Mahesh Narain reported in 2013 (4) SCC 169 and has

¶99

held as under:

¶100

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 16 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶101

11. We, however, have no hesitation in holding that this contention is fit to be rejected outright as the rules cannot be held to be made effective from the date of their preparation but will attain legal sanctity and hence be capable of enforcement only when the rules are made effective and the date on which they are to be made effective would obviously be the date when the rules are published vide the gazette notification. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the respondents’ plea that they possessed the requisite experience of five years on the post of Scientific officer as they had already put in five years of service from the publication of the amended Rules of 1990 and, therefore, they were rightly held eligible for consideration of promotion to the next post of Assistant Director. We are thus pleased to approve and uphold the view taken by the High Court on this count.”

¶102

Promotion of the petitioners to the post of

¶103

Assistant Registrar has been considered on 09.12.2020 and as on that date Rules 1993 were in force. The amended

¶104

Rules came into force only on 30.01.2021.

¶105

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 17 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶106

As on the date of the impugned order of

¶107

promotion dated 09.12.2020 the combined senior list existed notwithstanding the fact that the provisional seniority list of 17.03.2020 was recalled by order dated 07.12.2020. The petitioners are not seniors to the applicants in the combined seniority list of persons for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar. We are of the considered view that promotion needs to be based on the seniority position as on the date of the order. Admittedly the petitioners are juniors to the applicants in the final seniority list of 29.12.2016 that existed as on the date of promotion.

¶108

In the case of R.B. Desai Vs. S.K. Khanolker

¶109

reported in 1999 (7) SC 54 it is held that if a candidate comply with the eligibility, then seniority will prevail. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Palure

¶110

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 18 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶111

Bhaskar Rao and others Vs. P. Ramaseshaiah and

¶112

others reported in 2017 (5) SCC 783 has held as under:

¶113

“16. Seniority and eligibility are also distinct concepts. As far as promotion or recruitment by transfer to a higher category or different service is concerned if the method of promotion is seniority-cum-merit or seniority per se, there is no question of eligible senior being superseded. Other things being equal, senior automatically gets promoted. But in the case of selection based on merit – cum – seniority, it is a settled principle that seniority has to give way to merit. Only if merit being equal senior will get the promotion.”

¶114

In view of Rules, 1993, the method of promotion

¶115

to the cadre of Assistant Registrar is seniority – cum – merit, and as such, the applicants who were seniors were required to be considered for promotion. Promotions based on seniority – cum – merit are required to be based on seniority list that exists as on the date of promotion.

¶116

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 19 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶117

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the promotion of the petitioners is without any basis and without regard to their seniority.

¶118

Promotion is governed by the Rules prevailing as on the date of promotion. The Rules prevailing as on the date of promotion of the petitioners is Rules, 1993 and not the draft Rules of 08.12.2020. Therefore, promotion ought to have been done under the Rules, 1993 and not under the draft Rules. The Registrar, Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) grossly erred in issuing the impugned promotion order of 09.12.2020 and the Tribunal found that there is no other reason than the need to favour the petitioners the impugned order has been issued and it is not justifiable at all.

¶119

While none has a vested right of promotion yet,

¶120

concerned who are in the zone of consideration for

¶121

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 20 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶122

promotion have vested right for consideration for promotion

¶123

when promotion is effected. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tripura and others Vs.Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty and others reported in 2017 (3) SCC 646 has held as under:

¶124

“9. …a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, ‘rules in force as on the date’ the consideration takes place…”

¶125

When promotion was effected on 09.12.2020 the

¶126

applicants had got vested right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the extant Rules, 1993. There

¶127

is no material on record that the applicants were indeed considered for promotion in accordance with the extant Rules, 1993 and based on the prevailing seniority list in which the applicants were ranked above the petitioners. As

¶128

on the date of issue of order of promotion dated

¶129

09.12.2020 by which petitioners were promoted, the

¶130

21 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶131

applicants had a better claim for promotion than the petitioners. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Agarval and another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2011 SCW 2138 has held as under:

¶132

“It is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the ‘rule in force’ on the date the consideration took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old rules is interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be considered for promotion. The right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in Y.V. Rangaiah case lays down any particular time-frame, within which the selection process is to be completed. In the present case, consideration of promotion took place after the Amendment came into operation. Thus, it cannot be accepted that any

¶133

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 22

¶134

C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶135

accrued or vested right of the appellants has been taken away by the amendment.”

¶136

(emphasis supplied)

¶137

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend

¶138

that the draft Rules was finalized and Rules called Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as `Rules, 2021’) was issued by way of Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2021, as on the date of order of the Tribunal in the applications, i.e, 21.04.2021 the method of recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Tribunal was governed by the said Rules, 2021. He contends that on publication of the said amended Rules, 2021, the C and R Rules of the year 1993 insofar as the same relates to the method of recruitment for the post of Assistant Registrar ceases to be in force with effect from 1993 itself in view of the fact that the amendment by Notification dated 30.01.2021 is by way of substitution and

¶139

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 23 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶140

the same is evident from the Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2021 itself. Even if the said contention is considered for the sake of argument, the promotion is not given after coming into force of the amended Rules, i.e, on or after 30.01.2021 giving retrospective effect. Substituted Rules will not ratify the earlier acts taken prior to the date of amendment coming into force, i.e, 30.01.2021. There is no saving clause of the actions taken under the draft Rules in the amended Rules which came into effect from 30.01.2021. Incorporation of condition that promotion is subject to the final Rules does not make the consideration valid under law since even consideration under the draft Rules was impermissible as on the date of promotion of the petitioners on 09.12.2020. Therefore the order of promotion of petitioners is not in accordance with the Rules prevailing as on the date of the order of promotion. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the promotion of the petitioners dated 09.12.2020 is void-ab-initio as it is

¶141

¶142

C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶143

dehors the relevant Rules. We are of the considered opinion

¶144

that there are no grounds made out to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶145

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioner in W.P. No. 8829/2021 is now retired and his pension has been fixed and there shall not be any order for recovery and his pay fixed requires to be protected.

¶146

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 has held as under:

¶147

“ 18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein

¶148

WP.No. 8829 OF 2021 25 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶149

recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶150

i. Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

¶151

ii. Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶152

iii. Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

¶153

iv. Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶154

v. In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.

¶155

26 C/W WP.No. 8885 OF 2021

¶156

The petitioners have discharged the duties of higher post and have been paid accordingly, even though they were rightfully required to work against an inferior post and therefore, there shall not be any recovery as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih‘s case. Therefore, there shall not be any recovery from the petitioners. The Registrar, Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, shall consider the promotion to the three vacancies as on 09.12.2020 afresh and in accordance with the extant Rules, 1993 prevailing as on 09.12.2020 within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶157

With the above observations, both the petitions are dismissed.

¶158

Sd/JUDGE

¶159

Sd/JUDGE

¶160

LRS.

Sri.G.R.Bhvaneshwara v. Smt.M.L.Anuradha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.G.R.Bhvaneshwara v. Smt.M.L.Anuradha

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

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs Cec Soma Cici Joint Venture

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri.Appaji Gowda

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri N Mohan

Sri. Mohamed Mustafa Vs the Director

Union of India Vs Sri M N Narasimha Murthy