Partly allowed

Sri Narayana Hemappa Hadimani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024WP/49942/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees petitioned for promotions denied for 12 years due to a society's failure to follow NABARD guidelines requiring 10% of Group-B vacancies be filled by promotion. The court held the pending internal dispute remedy insufficient due to delay, allowing the writ and directing the society to fill these specific vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the Society to implement NABARD guidelines and grant promotions to eligible employees by exhausting 10% of vacancies reserved for promotion within four months.

Sri Narayana Hemappa Hadimani Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8878 WP No. 49942 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 49942 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NARAYANA HEMAPPA HADIMANI, S/O HEMAPPA H. HADIMANI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE AT: D.D.C.C. BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 006.

¶8

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. SHANMUKHA S, S/O SHEKHARAPPA T, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TYPIST, OFFICE AT: D.D.C.C.BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 006.

¶10

SRI. MOHAMED ILYAS, S/O MAHAMED ISHAQ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE AT: D.D.C.C.BANK LTD., HARIHARA BRANCH, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 006.

¶11

SRI. NAGARAJA C, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:8878 WP No. 49942 of 2012

¶14

OCCUPATION: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE AT: D.D.C.C.BANK LTD., DAVANAGERE BRANCH, DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 006.

¶15

SRI. PUTTA NAIK B, S/O BHEEMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE AT: D.D.C.C.BANK LTD., KUKKAWADA BRANCH, KUKKAWADA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 006.

¶16

SRI. ASHOKA NINGAPPA PATIL, S/O NIGAPPA N. PATIL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JUNIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE AT: D.D.C.C.BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 006.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KARNATAKA STATE, NO.1, ALI OSKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:8878 WP No. 49942 of 2012

¶24

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE LTD., NO. 311, A BLOCK, SRI. D. DEVARAJA URS EXTENUATION, DAVANAGERE - 577 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶25

THE NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, JEEVANA PRAKASH ANNEXE, 113/1, J.C.ROAD, P.B. NO.29, BANGALORE - 560 002, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.2024 NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO APPROVE THE CADRE & PROMOTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS & PLACE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANBARD GUIDELINES AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:8878 WP No. 49942 of 2012

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The captioned petition is filed by the employees of respondent No.3-Co-operative Society, feeling aggrieved by the permission granted by respondent No.2-Registrar to respondent No.3-Society to fill up the vacancies by way of direct recruitment and the consequent resolution passed

¶34

by respondent No.3-Society as per Annexure-H resolving to fill up 42 vacancies out of total 75 vacancies by way of direct recruitment. The petitioners have also questioned the recruitment notification as per Annexure-K and L.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No.3Society.

¶36

On examining the records, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence insofar as the recruitment notification dated 22.10.2012, wherein respondent No.2

¶37

has resolved to fill up 42 vacancies by way of direct recruitment. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Society has brought to the notice of this Court that the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:8878 WP No. 49942 of 2012

¶40

recruitment process is completed and the selected candidates are appointed and they are not before this Court. If this factual matrix is accepted, then I am of the view that no indulgence can be granted insofar as the recruitment notification dated 22.10.2012.

¶41

Though learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued and persuaded this Court to examine the permission granted by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-G permitting respondent No.3-Society to fill up 65 vacant posts out of total 75 vacancies on the ground that the permission granted by respondent No.2Registrary is contrary to NABARD guidelines, I am not inclined to accede the said arguments.

¶42

Even in terms of NABARD guidelines, the ratio of direct recruitment to promotion in various cadres clearly indicates that, insofar as group-B is concerned, the ratio is 90% by way of direct recruitment and 10% by way of promotion in various cadres. The petitioners have not disputed that in all 75 vacancies were there in 2012. If 75

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:8878 WP No. 49942 of 2012

¶45

vacancies are available, the notification issued by respondent No.3-Society, thereby resolving to fill 42 vacancies is found to be within the ratio of direct recruitment of 90%. Therefore, the permission granted by respondent No.3-Society as per Annexure-G and the consequent notification issued by respondent No.3-Society as per Annexure-K and L does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court and this Court is not inclined to examine the recruitment notification issued by respondent No.3 while filling up 42 vacancies by way of direct recruitment.

¶46

However, this Court would find that gross injustice is meted out to the in-service employees of respondent No.3-Society. NABARD guidelines clearly contemplate that 10% of vacancies in Group B have to be filled by way of promotion. If 10% of Group-B vacancies is ear marked for promotion, respondent No.3-Society to maintain fairness and equity among in-service employees, is bound to fill up the vacancies by way of promotion to an

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:8878 WP No. 49942 of 2012

¶49

extent of 10%. Such a recourse is not adopted by respondent No.3-Society. On account of inaction on the part of respondent No.3-Society, the petitioners who are asserting that they are entitled to seek promotion are denied promotion for almost 12 years. This is a clear case of injustice that is meted out by respondent No.3-Society to its own employees who, in terms of NABARD guidelines,

¶50

have a legal right to seek promotion. Since there is inaction on the part of respondent No.3-Society, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to issue appropriate directions to respondent No.3-Society. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Society that petitioners have an efficacious remedy of raising a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short, 'Act') cannot be entertained at this juncture. This petition is pending for almost 12 years and no purpose will be served by relegating the petitioners to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the Act, which would further aggravate the injustice that is already meted out to the petitioners on account of inaction on the part of

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:8878 WP No. 49942 of 2012

¶53

respondent No.3-Society in not considering promotions to its own employees in terms of NABARD guidelines. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶56

ii. A mandamus is issued to respondent No.3Society to implement the NABARD guidelines and to grant promotions to the eligible employees by exhausting 10% of the vacancies which is exclusively reserved by way of promotion.

¶57

iii. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

HDK CT: BHK

Sri Narayana Hemappa Hadimani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayana Hemappa Hadimani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. S. M. Rafeeq Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Santhosh Kumar C S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. V.H. Rajiya Begum Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivakumar T.R. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Limited Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

Mrs Geetha H Gowda @ Paggtegar Vs State of Karnataka