Allowed

Sri Edwin Jayakumar v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2024WP/56762/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC Assistant Artisan challenged denial of promotion to Artisan on the ground he lacked a heavy duty driving licence, despite circulars relaxing that requirement for Assistant Artisans over 45 years. The court quashed the endorsement and directed reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure-H) set aside; respondent No.1 directed to reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance with law within four weeks; contentions kept open.

Sri Edwin Jayakumar Vs the Divisional Controller — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7205 WP No. 56762 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.56762 OF 2013 (S-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI EDWIN JAYAKUMAR S/O. H.C. RAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ARTISAN, K.S.R.T.C., DIVISIONAL WORKSHOPS, MANGALORE DIVISION, AND R/AT NO.1, NEAR K.E.B. SUB-STATION, PEERAMANUR POST, MANGALORE – 575 017.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE – 575 001.

¶15

SRI TARANATH NAYAK SUJIR, AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS ARTISAN (AUTO BODY BUILDER), DIVISIONAL WORKSHOPS, K.S.R.T.C. MANGALORE DIVISION, OPP. FIRE STATION OFFICE, MANGALORE – 575 004.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7205 WP No. 56762 of 2013

¶17

SRI I.P. RAMACHANDRA, AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS ARTISAN (AUTO BODY BUILDER), B.C. ROAD DEPOT, K.S.R.T.C BANTWAL TALUK, SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT, B.C.ROAD – 574 211.

¶18

SRI K. SUDHAKAR AMIN, AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS ARTISAN (AUTO BODY BUILDER), DIVISIONAL WORKSHOPS, K.S.R.T.C., MANGALORE DIVISION, OPP. FIRE STATION OFFICE, MANGALORE – 575 004.

¶19

SRI THOMAS JOHN SALDHANA, AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS ARTISAN (AUTO BODY BUILDER), MANGALORE DEPOT–NO.1, K.S.R.T.C., MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE – 575 004.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 TO R-5 ARE SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT, PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2013; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2013, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO GRANT OF PROMOTION TO R2 TO R5 SINCE THE R1 ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF ARTISAN [AUTO BODY BUILDER] THOUGH THE PETITIONER IS SENIOR TO R2 TO 5 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7205 WP No. 56762 of 2013

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for the following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the endorsement dated 28-02-2014 vide reference No. PÀgÁ¸ÁBªÀÄA«B¹±ÁB¹2B4340B13-14 issued by the

¶29

First Respondent the original of which is produced and marked as Annexure-H.

¶30

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order of Promotion dated 20-09-2013 bearing reference No. PÀgÁ¸ÁBªÀÄA«B¹±ÁB¹2B2188B13-14 issued

¶31

by the First Respondent, the true copy of which is produced and marked as Annexure-F insofar it relates to grant of promotion to Respondents 2 to 5 since the First Respondent erred in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Artisan (Auto body builder) though the Petitioner is senior to Respondents 2 to 5.

¶32

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the First Respondent to promote the Petitioner as

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7205 WP No. 56762 of 2013

¶34

Artisan (Auto body builder) with effect from 3006-2011 the date on which his juniors i.e., Respondents 2 to 5 were promoted as Artisan (Auto body builder) with all consequential benefits.

¶35

Petitioner in this writ petition assails the endorsement, issued by respondent No.1 to the effect that the petitioner did not possess heavy vehicle driving licence as on 30.06.2011, and there is no provision to consider the petitioner for promotion, though he was senior as per the Seniority List, and the rules of the Corporation insofar as it relates to grant of promotion to respondent Nos.2 to 5 and further direction to respondent No.1 to promote the petitioner as Artisan (Auto Body Builder) with effect from 30.06.2011, the date on which his juniors’ respondent Nos.2 to 5 were promoted.

¶36

The facts reveal that, the petitioner was appointed as Helper-B in the respondent-Corporation, he was promoted as an Assistant Artisan in Glass Cutter Trade and he belongs to Auto Builder Trade in the post of

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7205 WP No. 56762 of 2013

¶38

Assistant Artisan. The KSRTC made a circular No.1432 stipulating that for Assistant Artisan to obtain promotion to the post of Artisan, one must have three years experience as Assistant Artisan and possess heavy duty driving licence, the petitioner sought extension of time to obtain heavy duty driving licence, in the meanwhile, the corporation issued another circular No.1462 on 09.04.2012 amending the Circular No.1432, by the second circular the condition that assistant artisan should possess heavy duty licence was relaxed and in the said circular, condition of possessing heavy duty licence was not applicable to the assistant artisan who have crossed 48 years of age.

¶39

This being the position, another circular dated 09.04.2012 bearing Circular No.1475 dated 17.10.2012 was issued withdrawing the earlier circular No.1462 and the corporation decided to extend concession to the earlier age limit clause relating to possession of heavy duty driving licence by the Assistant Artisans to consider their

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:7205 WP No. 56762 of 2013

¶41

cases for promotion to the post of Artisans and in view of the Ciicular No.1475, the Assistant Artisan who had crossed the age of 45 years as on 09.04.2012 need not possess heavy duty driving licence and this cannot be a condition for Assistant Artisan to be promoted as Artisan.

¶42

Respondent No.1 promoted respondent Nos.2 to 5 as Artisans though junior to the petitioner.

¶43

The endorsement issued by the respondent at Annexure-H is without considering that Circular No.1475 dated 17.10.2012, the age limit for obtaining heavy duty driving licence by the Assistant Artisans to consider their case for promotion to the post of Artisans is reduced from 48 years to 45 years and the condition that the Assistant Artisans should possess heavy duty driving licence has been relaxed over and above the age of 45 years. The endorsement does not state as on the date of issue of order of promotion dated 20.09.2013 the petitioner was above 45 years and he need not possess heavy duty driving licence.

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:7205 WP No. 56762 of 2013

¶45

In the said circumstances, the endorsement issued by the respondent needs to be quashed.

¶46

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶49

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 28-02-2014 vide reference No.PÀgÁ¸ÁBªÀÄA«B¹±ÁB¹2B4340B13-14 issued by the

¶50

respondent No.1, at Annexure-H is hereby set aside.

¶51

(iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a time frame of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

(iv) All the contentions are kept open to be urged before respondent No.1 – authority.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sri Edwin Jayakumar v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Edwin Jayakumar v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Annegowda Vs M/S J K Tyres and Industries Ltd.

M/S Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of Karnataka

T Y Subramani Vs the Divisional Controller

Central Board of Trustees, Epf, Vs M/S Vijaya Halocoils Pvt. Ltd.

The Management Fdc Limited Vs B Rajakumar

Madegowda Vs the Managing Director