Sunil Kumar T H Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36198 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUNIL KUMAR T.H. SON OF LATE SRI HOMBALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KIADB ZONAL OFFICE, KIADB CIRCLE, HASSAN GROWTH CENTRE INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD, HASSAN-573201.

¶8

RESIDING AT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RESIDENCE, A TYPE QUARTERS, KIADB CIRCLE, HASSAN GROWTH CENTRE INDUSTRIAL AREA, HASSAN-573201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed MOHANKUMARB SHELAR byMOHANKUMARB SHELARDate: 2025.06.24 19:02:58 +0530

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶14

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, A STATUTORY BODY CORPORATE ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER HEAD OFFICE AT NO.49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶18

SRI. T.S LAKSHMEESHA EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MARUTHI GROUP BUILDING 2^ND FLOOR, SIT COLLEGE, NEAR MAIN GATE, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR- 572103.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI.C.M.NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025, I.A.NO.1/2025 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO APPOINTMENT ORDER BEARING NO. KAKAIPRAAMAM/ASEC 80 (B) /8932/94-95 DATED 25.11.1994 (UNDER ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS DATED 07.12.2024 (UNDER ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND QUASH APPOINTMENT ORDER BEARING NO. KAKAIPRAAMAM/ASEC 80 (B) /8932/94-95 DATED 25.11.1994 (UNDER ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION) OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ISSUING WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT, AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS.

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 14.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CAV ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has called in question the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations 2019 as being unconstitutional. He has also sought for quashing the order bearing No.KaKaiPraAMam/ASEC 80 (B)/8932/94-95 dated 25.11.1994 by which, the respondent No.3 was appointed as a Junior Engineer. He has also sought for quashing of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings dated 07.12.2024 insofar as it relates to recommending the promotion of respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer.

¶29

When the petition was filed, the petitioner

¶30

sought the following reliefs:

¶31

(i) to quash the order dated 25-11-94, referred supra, appointing the respondent No.3 as Junior Engineer

¶32

(ii) to quash the DPC proceedings dated 07-12-2024 recommending the promotion of

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer.

¶36

The petitioner contended that he completed his bachelor degree in Civil Engineering and was directly appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) by respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.10.2012. The probation of the petitioner was declared vide Official memorandum dated 02.01.2014. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in terms of notification dated 17.08.2018. He was later promoted as Executive Engineer vide notification dated 22.02.2023.

¶37

He contends that respondent No.3 was appointed as Junior Engineer in terms of an order of appointment dated 25.11.1994 based on his Diploma in Civil Engineering qualification. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 did not disclose that he possessed a bachelor degree in Civil Engineering at the time of his appointment as Junior Engineer. He was later promoted as

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) (Grade-II) by order dated 30.04.2012. Thereafter, he was promoted as Executive Engineer in terms of notification dated 17.08.2019. He contends that since respondent No.3 was selected under the Diploma category, he was granted accelerated promotions, when compared to the candidates who possessed Bachelor degree in engineering. In proof of the above, he referred to the case of Mr.K.C.Shivakumar, who possessed a degree in Civil Engineering and was directly appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 01-09-1984 and was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 21-09-1995 and Executive Engineer on 17-08-2019. He contends that in the Seniority list of Executive Engineers published on 01.01.2024, the qualification of respondent No.3 was shown as Diploma.

¶41

He contends that the respondent No.2 had framed KIADB (C & R) Regulations, 1984 (henceforth referred as Regulations, 1984), which was repealed by the KIADB (C & R) Regulations, 2019 (henceforth referred as

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Regulations, 2019). As per the Regulations, 2019, an executive engineer who has a degree qualification is alone entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and since the respondent No.3 came in the feeder channel of diploma holders, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion. He contends the Departmental Promotion Committee (henceforth referred to as DPC) at its meeting dated 07-12-24 ordered that the documents relating to the completion of the degree of respondent No.3 must be verified before considering him for promotion to Superintending Engineer. The petitioner claimed that the DPC ignoring its resolution dated 07-12-24 recommended the promotion of respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer. The Petitioner submitted his objections to the recommendation but without considering those objections, the respondent No.2 was hurriedly trying to issue an order of promotion to the respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer.

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶46

7 -

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

This Court granted an interim order on

¶49

31-12-2024 restraining the respondents from giving effect

¶50

to the DPC proceeding dated 07-12-2024.

¶51

(i). The writ petition is opposed by respondent

¶52

No.2 who contended that the petitioner was admittedly promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer on 22.02.2023 and therefore as on the date of DPC i.e., 07.12.2024, he had not put in the minimum service of three years in the post of Executive Engineer for consideration to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. Therefore, it contended that the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and hence, he has no locus standi to challenge the promotion of respondent No.3. It contended that the petitioner would be eligible to be considered for promotion only on 21.02.2026. It claimed that the petitioner was not even in the zone of consideration for promotion of Superintending Engineer and therefore he cannot be aggrieved by the

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

recommendation of DPC to promote the respondent No.3 to the post of Superintending Engineer.

¶56

(ii). It also contended that the petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 as Junior Engineer vide appointment dated 25.11.1994 i.e., after 30 years and therefore the petition is hit by delay and laches. It is contended that the petitioner was not even born in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (AE) when respondent No.3 was appointed as Junior Engineer. It is contended that by the time the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer, the respondent No.3 was already placed in a higher cadre i.e., Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore, it contended that the petitioner can have no grievance against the appointment/promotion of respondent No.3. Therefore, it contended that no case was made out for quashing the appointment of respondent No.3.

¶57

(iii). This apart, it contended that the prescribed qualification for the post of Junior Engineer was a Diploma in Civil Engineering, which respondent No.3 possessed. It

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

contended that there is no prohibition in law that a person holding a higher qualification cannot seek employment to a post which requires a lower qualification. It contended that when the recruitment notification dated 31.07.1989 was issued inviting applications to the post of Junior Engineer, the respondent No.3 did not possess a Bachelor degree in Civil Engineering. It contended that as on date of the recruitment notification, the respondent No.3 had rightly disclosed that he possessed a Diploma in Civil Engineering. It contended that the actual appointment order was issued to respondent No.3 on 25.11.1994 by which time, he had acquired higher qualification. Therefore, it contended that respondent No.3 had not suppressed any material fact at the time of recruitment notification and hence, respondent No.3 cannot be accused of suppression of material fact. It contended that after his appointment, respondent No.3 informed that he had acquired higher qualification vide his representation dated 25.06.1997. Hence, it contended that the assertion of the

¶61

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

petitioner that respondent No.3 had suppressed his higher qualification to enter the Junior Engineer cadre for getting fast track promotion is baseless. It also claimed that between the petitioner and the respondent No.3, it was the petitioner who got quicker promotion than the respondent No.3. It also contended that it is not the case of the petitioner that the promotions granted to respondent No.3 were contrary to the C & R Regulations. It further contended that the grievance of the petitioner that Mr. K.C. Shivakumar was placed at Sl. No. 20 while respondent No. 3 was placed at Sl. No. 41, and that therefore respondent No. 3 was not eligible to be considered, is a mischievous statement, as by the time the DPC was convened on 07.12.2024, the said Mr. K.C. Shivakumar had attained superannuation on 31.12.2021 itself.

¶64

(iv). It claimed that reservation to the post of Superintending Engineer was not applicable as the cadre strength was only three. It is claimed that as per the DPC

¶65

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

proceedings, three promotions were effected one of whom

¶68

was Mr.G.R.Narayanappa who was to attain superannuation on 31.05.2025. After the said Mr.G.R.Narayanappa, the petitioner was next in line to be promoted. It is contended that the petitioner has a long tenure, i.e, up to 30.04.2048 and therefore the attempt of the petitioner to stall the process of promotion to respondent No.3 is unfair.

¶69

The respondent No.3 filed an application for vacating the interim order dated 31.12.2024 and reiterated that he completed his Bachelor of Engineering in July, 1993 and when he applied to the post of Junior Engineer against a notification dated 31.07.1989 he possessed only a Diploma in Civil Engineering. He contends that after his appointment as Junior Engineer on 25.11.1994, he submitted a representation on 28.10.1997 informing the respondent No.2, that he completed his Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering. He contended that based on his eligibility and seniority he was promoted as

¶70

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Assistant Engineer on 10.12.2001 and as Assistant Executive Engineer on 30.04.2012, by which time the petitioner was not even appointed. Thereafter, respondent No.3 was promoted as Executive Engineer vide order dated 17.08.2019. He contended that when respondent No.3 was in the cadre of Executive Engineer, the petitioner was in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts and had obtained an interim order. He also contended that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer as he did not have three years experience in the cadre of Executive Engineer.

¶73

The petitioner, perhaps apprehensive that the writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of locus standi filed an application to amend the writ petition to challenge the validity of the Regulations, 2019. This application was allowed so as to conclusively deal with all contentions raised.

¶74

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

(i). In order to justify his claim that the Regulations, 2019 are invalid, the petitioner contended that the respondent No.2 in exercise of its power under Section 11 read with Section 41 of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD) had framed the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1984. These regulations provided for various cadres in the Board, prescribed the method of recruitment and the minimum qualification for recruitment. It provided for promotion to the post of Development Officer (Graduate) and Development Officer (Diploma). It also provided for filling up of the post of Chief Development Officer by promotion from the cadres of Development Officer (Graduate) and Development Officer (Diploma). He contends that the Board framed the KIADB (C & R) Regulations (First Amendment) which was published in the Karnataka Gazette extraordinarily on 03.11.1998. This amendment created an additional post of Chief Development Officer and the method of recruitment

¶77

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

was by promotion and the minimum qualification was three years experience in the cadre of Executive Engineer/Development Officer. It is also provided for promotion to the cadre of Chief Development officer (CDO) from the cadres of Additional Chief Development Officer

¶80

(ACDO). Thus, he contends that after the first amendment, a Diploma holder was not eligible for promotion to the cadre of ACDO.

¶81

(ii). He contends that the respondent No.2 proposed certain amendments to the cadre and recruitment Regulations, 1984 and forwarded it to the State Government for approval in terms of a communication dated 20.10.2018. This proposal provided for 90% promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil) from Assistant Executive Engineer (Grade-I) (Degree). The State Government invited objections to this proposed C & R Regulations. The respondent No.3 submitted objections on 15.07.2019 contending that he would be ineligible for promotion to any higher post if provision for promotion

¶82

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

under the Diploma quota is removed. The State government in terms of its note No.216 dated 19.07.2019 decided that provision be made for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer for Diploma holders. The petitioner contends that though the State Government had no authority in law and in violation of Section 41 of the KIAD Act, it published and notified the KIADB (C & R) Regulations 2019. He contends that though in the preamble portion it is stated that the regulations were made by respondent No.2, a perusal of the note-sheet would establish that the Regulations were in fact not notified by the Board, but was finalized by the State Government.

¶85

(iii). He contends that based on the Regulations 2019, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) at its meeting held on 07.12.2024, ordered that the documents relating to the Bachelors degree in Engineering furnished by respondent No.3 be verified before he was considered for promotion from the cadre of Executive Engineer (EE) to

¶86

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Superintending Engineer (SE). He contends that thereafter the DPC at its meeting held on 07.12.2024 recommended the promotion of respondent No.3 from the cadre of Executive Engineer to the cadre of Superintending Engineer. The petitioner submitted his objections on 16.12.2024. However, the respondent no.2 without either replying to the objection or considering it, hastily was trying to formally promote the respondent No.3.

¶89

(iv). He further contends that respondent No.3 has suppressed that he possessed a Bachelor degree in civil engineering when he was appointed as a Junior engineer but had selectively mentioned that he possessed a Diploma in civil engineering. He contends that respondent No.3 had throughout claimed promotion under the Diploma quota which is evident from the communication dated 03.09.2011 addressed by respondent No.2 to the Karnataka State (SC/ST) Commission by which it informed the Commission that there was no vacancies in Diploma quota to consider the case of respondent No.3 for

¶90

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner therefore contends that the respondent No.3 cannot blow hot and cold and claim promotion to the post of Superintending engineer based on his degree qualification. He contends that if the appointment of respondent No.3 was considered under the Diploma Holder category, he could not have been promoted as Executive Engineer and even if he was promoted, he would have been placed below the petitioner in the seniority list of Executive Engineers. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 as Junior Engineer vide appointment order dated 25.11.1994 and to quash the DPC proceedings dated 07.12.2024 recommending the promotion of respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer. He has also challenged the Regulations 2019 as unconstitutional.

¶93

(i). An additional statement of objection to the amended relief sought for by the petitioner, was filed by respondent No.2 contending that the Regulations 2019

¶94

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

was framed by the respondent No.2 with the approval of State Government as prescribed under Section 41 of KIAD Act. It contended that the claim of petitioner that the Regulations was framed by the State Government and not by the Board is unsustainable. Furthermore, it claimed that the petitioner was appointed under 1984 Regulations as amended on 02.11.1998, where qualification for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer is Bachelor of Engineering degree and three years experience in the cadre of Executive Engineer. Therefore, it contended that the petitioner ought to have challenged the Regulations, 2019 at the earliest point in time and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It also contended that the petitioner challenged the Regulations 2019 without arraying all the employees of the Board and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It also contended that the petitioner has not set out as to which provision of the Regulations 2019 are affecting him

¶97

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

as he was not qualified either under the Regulations 1984 or under the Regulations 2019 to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. It contended that academic questions cannot be decided in a writ petition and constitutional validity of sub-ordinate legislation cannot be entertained by this Court to determine a hypothetical question.

¶100

(ii). It contended that even if the promotion granted to respondent No.3 is set-aside, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as he is not qualified to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer.

¶101

(iii). It contended that even if the Regulations 2019 is set-aside, the repealed Regulations 1984 will not be revived. Therefore, if the prayer sought for by the petitioner is granted, it would result in a vacuum. It contended that the contention of the petitioner that the Regulations 2019 are amended to suit the requirement of respondent No.3 is false. It also contended that the petitioner questioned the wisdom of the employer to

¶102

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

provide for promotion avenue to the persons who possessed Diploma and who are in the cadre of Executive Engineer.

¶105

(iv). Along with the additional statement of objection, respondent No.2 has enclosed the recruitment notification dated 31.07.1989 by which it invited applications to the post of Junior Engineers. It has also placed on record the Bachelor Degree in Engineering which was obtained in July, 1993. It has also placed on record the marks card, which shows that the petitioner had completed his degree on 13.09.1993, i.e., after the recruitment notification dated 31.07.1989.

¶106

(i). A rejoinder is filed to the additional statement of objections inter alia contending that mere making of a regulation does not give cause of action to challenge it and that it cannot be challenged in vacuum. It is claimed that the cause of action arose for the petitioner to challenge the Regulations 2019 when the respondent No.3 who was ineligible to be promoted to the post of

¶107

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

Superintending Engineer was considered for promotion under the Regulations 2019. He contends that the illegality regarding the manner of framing of Regulations 2019 came to light only after documents were obtained after the writ petition was filed. Insofar as the contention that the writ petition is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties, it is contended that when a constitutional validity of subordinate legislation is questioned, all the beneficiaries of such legislation need not be made parties. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M., South Central Railway vs. A.V.R.Siddanthi - (1974) 4 SCC 335.

¶110

(ii). It is contended that in the statement of objection filed by respondent No.2, it admitted that the Regulations 2019 were made by the State Government and not by the Board and therefore the Regulations 2019 is ultra vires the KIAD Act. A reference is made to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20555/2007 where the petitioner therein was

¶111

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

given an opportunity of hearing before finalizing the C & R Regulations. It is contended that the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Industries and Commerce, resolved that a new C & R Regulations be prepared and published and the objections be invited from the employees of the Board and if need be, hear the employees and thereafter place it before the Board. It is contended that in the instant case the Board did not invite any objections to the draft C & R Regulations. On the contrary, the State Government considered the statement objection filed by respondent No.3 and made changes to the regulations and finalized it without the Board approving it. Therefore, it is contended that the Regulations 2019 was finalized by the State Government and not by the Board. It is contended that the role of the State Government is only to approve the Regulations placed it by the Board. Thus, it is contended that the State Government usurped the power of the Board in framing the Regulations.

¶114

23 -

¶115

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urged the following contentions :

¶118

i) That the respondent No.3 was appointed as a Junior Engineer on the basis of his qualification- a Diploma in Civil Engineering. He contends that the Regulations 1984 provided for filling up of the post of Assistant Engineers through direct recruitment by persons holding a degree in Civil Engineering and by promotion of Junior Engineers possessing a Diploma in Civil Engineering with four years experience. He contends that the Regulations, 1984 provided for filling-up of the post of Deputy Development Officers, equivalent to Assistant Executive Engineer by direct recruitment and through promotion with separate quotas for Diploma holders and Graduate Engineers with different years of experience. Therefore he contends that there were two separate feeder channels, one being Graduate Engineers and other

¶119

24 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

being Diploma holders in Civil Engineering and these two feeder channels were separate and distinct.

¶123

ii) He contends that the Regulations, 1984 were amended on 02.11.1998 creating an additional post of Additional Chief Development Officer equivalent to Superintending Engineer and promotions to the post was to be from the cadres of Development Officer/Executive Engineer with three years experience. He therefore contends that even as per the 1998 Regulations, which were in force till the Regulations 2019 came into effect, the respondent No.3 was not entitled to be promoted to the post of ACDO/EE.

¶124

iii) He contends that the KIAD Act is enacted for the purposes of establishing industrial areas in Karnataka and to promote the entitlement and orderly development of industries therein by establishing a Board and incorporating it under Section 5 of the Act. He contends that in order to ensure independence

¶125

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

and autonomy of the Board, it is constituted as a body Corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal. Under Section 41 of the Act, the Board may with the previous approval of the State Government by notification make Regulations consistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder. He contends that under Section 17 of the Act, the State Government is authorized to issue to the Board such directions of a general nature as it may think necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out the purpose of the Act and the Board is bound to follow and act upon such directions. He contends that the power under Section 17 of the Act is confined to directions which are necessary to carryout the purposes of the Act while the role of the State Government in the matter of service conditions

¶128

of the employees of the board is limited to granting previous approval for regulations as provided under Section 11(2) of the Act. He contends that the Board

¶129

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

had framed the Regulations 1984 which provided for various cadres, method of recruitment, minimum qualification, promotion etc.,. It further provided for filling up of the post of Chief Development Officer by promotion from the cadre of Development Officer (Graduate) and Development Officer (Diploma). He contends that the Regulations 1984 was amended on 02.11.1998 which created the post of ACDO and the method of recruitment as promotion and the minimum qualification was from the cadre of Development Officer/Executive Engineer (Graduate) with three years experience. He contends that in view of this amendment a Diploma holder is not eligible for promotion to the post of ACDO or higher.

¶132

iv) He contends that the Board forwarded a draft of the Regulations 2019 proposing changes to the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. The draft provided for 90% promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil) from the cadres of Assistant Executive

¶133

27 -

¶134

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

Engineer (Grade-I) (Graduate). He contends that the State Government had invited objections and the respondent No.3 submitted his objections on 15.07.2019 contending that he would be ineligible for promotion to any higher post, if provision for promotion to Diploma holders to higher posts is removed. He contends that the State Government in terms of its note No.216 dated 19.07.2019 decided that provision be made for promotion to the cadre of Superintending Engineer from Executive Engineer possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering. He contends that this exercise of power by the State Government is contrary to Section 41 of the KIAD Act. He contends that after such amendment, the Regulations 2019 were notified and published in the gazette. Though in the preamble, it is mentioned that the regulations are made by the Board with the previous approval of the State Government, a perusal of the note sheet shows that the objections

¶137

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

were not considered by the Board and it was not finalized by the Board. On the contrary, the regulations were finalized by the State Government. This, he contends is contrary to Section 41 of the KIAD Act, 1966. In support of this, he relies upon the following judgments :-

¶140

a) AnirudhSinhji Karansinhji Jadeja & Anr v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302;

¶141

b) Babu Varghese & Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 422;

¶142

c) A Manoharan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 641;

¶143

d) Managing Director, Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Bhubaneswar v. Sarat Chandra Patnaik & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 590.

¶144

v) Therefore, he contends that the Regulations 2019 are amended to suit the requirement of respondent No.3 and hence Regulations 2019 are liable to be set at naught. He has extensively referred to the file notes leading to the approval of the Regulations 2019. He contends that it is not forthcoming when the draft

¶145

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

regulations were adopted by the Board and submitted to the State Government and whether revisions to the Draft Regulations were adopted by the Board before addressing the letter dated 20.10.2018. He also contends that the State Government while suggesting revisions had referred to the proceedings in W.P.No.20555/2007 and had undertaken that the draft regulations would be published; objections would be invited and considered. He contends that without complying this, the Regulations 2019 were notified. Thus, he contends that the Regulations 2019 is not in line with Section 11 of the Act, 1966. He also contends that the respondent No.2 did not obtain a report of the Expert Committee as directed by this Court in W.P.No.13808/2001 before revising the C & R Regulations.

¶148

vi) He contends that respondent No.3 represented to the State Government that quota for Diploma holders

¶149

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶150

HC-KAR

¶151

was taken away by the draft Regulations 2019, though Diploma Engineers were not eligible to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer when it was created by the first amendment to the Regulations 1984.

¶152

vii) He contends that the C & R Regulations have to be framed and adopted by the Board and thereafter sent for approval by the State Government. However, he contends that the file relating to approval of the C & R Regulations shows that it is not the Board but the State Government which had finalized the regulations. Hence, he contends that the Regulations 2019 have no legs to stand and hence consequently, the constitution of a DPC to consider promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer to respondent No.3 is illegal. He therefore contends that order granting promotion to respondent No.3 to Superintending Engineer is liable to be set aside.

¶153

31 -

¶154

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶155

HC-KAR

¶156

viii) He contends that the petitioner is entitled to

¶157

challenge the promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Superintending Engineer on the ground that he is not eligible to be promoted. In support of this, he relied upon the following judgments :

¶158

a) N Mohan Kumar & Ors v. Karnataka Slum Clearance Board & Ors. (2006) 2 KantLJ 90;

¶159

b) S N Parashuramegowda v. H M Mohan Kumar & Ors. W.A.No.303/2006 – 18.09.2006;

¶160

c) M S Jayaraj v. The Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 552;

¶161

d) K Shekar v. Indiramma & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 586;

¶162

e) P Lal v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 393;

¶163

f) M V Dixit v. State of Karnataka & Ors. ILR 2004 KAR 3802; and

¶164

g) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors. AIR 2024 SC 135.

¶165

ix) In so far as the delay in challenging Regulations 2019 is concerned, he contends that the petitioner cannot challenge the Regulations in vacuum and is entitled to challenge only when an occasion arises. Hence, he

¶166

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

contends that respondent No.3 is granted promotion to which he is not entitled to based on an illegal Regulations 2019, petitioner is entitled to challenge it. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s. Rajashree Cement and others vs. State of Karnataka and others - ILR 2005 KAR 1356.

¶169

x) He contends that the State Government was only entitled to approve the regulations and not go beyond it. He has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijaydevi Naval Kishore Bhartiya vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another – (2003) 5 SCC 83 which deals with the meaning of the approval.

¶170

xi) He contends that the State Government has misdirected itself in providing for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Regulations 2019 as in the first amendment of the year 1998, the post of Superintending Engineer would be filled-up by

¶171

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶172

HC-KAR

¶173

an Executive Engineer by graduate engineers. Therefore, he contends that the Regulations 2019 is without application of mind. In support of this contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-

¶174

a) State of Mysore v. P R Kulkarni & Ors. (1973) 3 SCC 597; and

¶175

b) State of Punjab & Anr v. Gurdial Singh & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 471.

¶176

xii) He also contends that respondent No.2 has no inherent power to make rules on its own but is circumscribed by restrictions mentioned in the statute. Therefore, respondent No.2 is bound to function within the purview of statute and not go beyond. If it does, it is ultra vires and cannot be given effect to. In support of this, he relied upon the following judgments:

¶177

a) Kerala Seb v. Thomas Joseph (2023) 11 SCC 700;

¶178

b) Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE (2016) 3 SCC 643;

¶179

c) Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa v. Manubhai Paragji Vashi (2012) 1 SCC 314;

¶180

34 -

¶181

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶182

HC-KAR

¶183

d) Pune Municipal Corporation v. Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 15 SCC 753; and

¶184

e) Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India (2006) 12 SCC 753.

¶185

xiii) He contends that writ of a quo warranto can be issued where an appointment is not made is in accordance with the governing statute. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth and another vs. Chancellor Kannur University – AIR 2024 SC 135.

¶186

xiv) He also contends that it is not necessary for the petitioner to array all persons affected by the Regulations 2019 and it would suffice, if the petitioner arrays the respondent No.3 as a party whose promotion is challenged. In support of this, he relied upon the judgment in General Manager, South

¶187

Central General Manager South Central Railway,

¶188

35 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶189

HC-KAR

¶190

Secunderabad and another vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And

¶191

Ors. (1974) 4 SCC 335.

¶192

xv) He contends that the State Government has not filed any objections to the writ petition meaning thereby it accepted that the Regulations 2019 are framed by it and not by the Board.

¶193

(i). In reply, the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has belatedly called in question the appointment of respondent No.3 dated 25.11.1994 and hence it is hit by delay and laches.

¶194

(ii). He contends that the petitioner cannot challenge the Regulations 2019 as he was promoted as Executive Engineer under the Regulations 2019. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped by conduct from challenging the Regulations 2019. He contends that the petitioner by being promoted to the post of Executive Engineer under the Regulations 2019 has waived his right to challenge the

¶195

36 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶196

HC-KAR

¶197

Regulations 2019. In support of this, he relied upon the judgment in Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 309.

¶198

(iii). He contends that the effect of quashing the Regulations 2019 would be enormous inasmuch as several appointments/promotions were made from 2019 and if the Regulations are quashed, it would affect the appointees/promotes. Therefore, he contends that the writ petition without impleading all the appointees/promotes is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶199

(iv). He contends that if the Regulations 2019 is quashed or is restricted to the promotion granted to respondent No.3, it would result in a vacuum as the repealed Regulations 1984 cannot be restored back.

¶200

(v). He contends that even as per the Regulations 1998, for the petitioner to be eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, he had to put in three years of experience as Executive Engineer. He contends

¶201

37 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶202

HC-KAR

¶203

that the petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer only on 22.02.2023 and therefore he has no locus standi to question the promotion granted to respondent No.3.

¶204

(vi). As regards the challenge to the Regulations 2019, he contends that the State Government is entitled to suggest corrections to the draft regulations that were sent for approval. He contends that the word ‘approval’ does not mean merely affixing a seal to what is placed before it but, the State Government is entitled to look into the regulations to check whether the same is done in accordance with law. He contends that the State Government has got over arching powers under Section 17 of the Act and hence, the corrections suggested by the State Government were in exercise of power under Section 17 of the Act, 1966.

¶205

(i). The learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the contentions of learned Senor Counsel for respondent No.2. In addition, he submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.17442/2021 where he

¶206

38 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶207

HC-KAR

¶208

had challenged the appointment of Mr.Adarsh K., as Assistant Executive Engineer in the respondent No.2 by permanent transfer under the provisions of Rule 16(a)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment Rules) 1977 as violative of the Regulations 2019. He therefore contends that the petitioner cannot on the one hand contend that the Regulations 2019 is just and proper and on the other challenge the validity of the Regulations 2019 itself. In support of this contention, he relied upon the following judgments :

¶209

a) H C Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors vs Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors AIR 2015 SC 2342; and

¶210

b) Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 309.

¶211

(ii). He contends that the eligibility of petitioner for promotion to the Superintending Engineer would arise in the year 2026 and therefore petitioner cannot challenge the promotion of respondent No.3. He contends that the petitioner cannot espouse public interest to challenge the

¶212

39 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶213

HC-KAR

¶214

promotion granted to respondent No.3. He further contends that the petitioner has a long tenure of service and would attain the age of superannuation in the year 2048 by which time he can occupy the highest post of Chief Engineer in the respondent No.2. Thus, he contends that that the petitioner should refrain from challenging the appointment of the respondent No.3 who would be retiring in the year 2028 after more than 30 years of service.

¶215

(iii). He contends that when the respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 17.08.2019, the petitioner was still an Assistant Executive Engineer and was promoted as Executive Engineer on 22.02.2023. Therefore, he contends that respondent No.3 for all practical purposes is Senior than the petitioner and therefore entitled to promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer.

¶216

(i). In reply, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no estoppel against law or

¶217

40 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶218

HC-KAR

¶219

statute and hence the petitioner is entitled to question the promotion granted to respondent No.3.

¶220

(ii). The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo on 10.03.2025 stating that he would not press the reliefs in so far as the challenge to the appointment of the respondent No.3 as a Junior engineer. Therefore, the writ petition is now restricted to the validity of the Regulations 2019 and the recommendations of the DPC to promote the respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer.

¶221

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 supported the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2.

¶222

I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and the learned AGA.

¶223

41 -

¶224

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶225

HC-KAR

¶226

For the sake of easy reference, the dates of

¶227

appointments/promotion of the petitioner and respondent No.3 is mentioned in the table below :

¶228

	Petitioner	Respondent No.3
Junior Engineer	--	25.11.1994
Assistant Engineer	31.10.2012	12.12.2001
Assistant Executive Engineer	17.08.2018	30.04.2012
Executive Engineer	22.02.2023	17.08.2019

¶229

The respondent No.2 had framed the C & R Regulations, 1984 for its employees which provided for various posts, prescribed methods of recruitment, eligibility experience etc.,. For the sake of easy understanding and for the purpose of this case, it is relevant to note that the Regulations, 1984 provided for the posts of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Deputy Development Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer, Development Officer/Executive Engineer and Chief Development Officer/Chief Engineer. As per the

¶230

42 -

¶231

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶232

HC-KAR

¶233

Regulations, 1984 the following were the methods of

¶234

recruitment and the eligibility/experience insofar as the aforesaid posts are concerned :

¶235

Chief Development Officer	Promotion from Executive Engineer/Development Officer with BE with five years experience as Executive Engineer.
	Promotion from Executive Engineer/Development Officer with Diploma in Civil Engineer with ten years experience as Executive Engineer.
Development officer	25% promotion from Deputy Development Officer possessing BE with four years experience 25% promotion from Deputy Development Officer possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering with eight years experience as DDO.
Deputy Development Officer	50% promotion from cadres of Assistant Engineer with BE and five years experience as Assistant Engineer. 25% promotion from cadres of Assistant Engineer with diploma and eight years experience as Assistant Engineer.
Assistant Engineer	Direct recruitment Promotion from cadres of Junior Engineer with diploma in Civil Engineering and four years experience as Junior Engineer.

¶236

43 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶237

HC-KAR

¶238

The Regulations, 1984 therefore indicate that the cadre of Deputy Development Officer and Assistant Executive Engineer were equivalent, cadre of Development Officer and Executive Engineer were equivalent and Chief Development Officer and Chief Engineer were equivalent. It also shows that an Executive Engineer with a Diploma qualification was eligible to be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer on he/she gaining ten years of experience as a Development Officer/Executive Engineer. Therefore, the feeder channel for promotion to the post of Deputy Development Officer/AEE, Development Officer/Executive Engineer and Chief Development Officer/CE included candidates not only possessing a BE degree in Civil Engineering but also diploma in civil engineering. However, the difference was only in the experience that they possessed in their cadre for promotion.

¶239

The respondent No.3 had applied to the post of Junior Engineer based on his Diploma in Civil Engineering as per the recruitment notification dated 31-07-1989. He

¶240

44 -

¶241

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶242

HC-KAR

¶243

pursued higher education and acquired a Bachelor’s Degree in civil engineering in the year 1993. However, the order appointing respondent No.3 as Junior Engineer was issued on 25.11.1994. The respondent No.3 has placed on record representations dated 28.10.1997, 26.05.1998,

¶244

22.07.1998, 26.10.1998, 11.02.1999, 15.02.1999, 17.02.2001, 17.06.2000 submitted by him to the respondent No.2 by which he informed respondent No.2 that he acquired a Bachelors Degree in Engineering. The petitioner was later promoted as Assistant Engineer after seven years though the minimum service prescribed under the Regulations, 1984 was four years. He was thereafter promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer after more than ten years, though the minimum service prescribed was eight years. It is no doubt true that in the seniority list of Executive Engineers, the respondent No.3 is shown to be holding a Diploma in Civil Engineering and was continued in the same feeder channel.

¶245

45 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶246

HC-KAR

¶247

Therefore, if the respondent No.2 had finalized the appointment of respondent No.2 as Junior Engineer at the earliest, he stood a chance to be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer if the Regulations, 1984 continued to apply.

¶248

However, the Regulations 1984 were amended by the first amendment on 02.11.1998 in terms of which, a post of additional Chief Development Officer was created

¶249

and the method of recruitment was shown as follows :-

¶250

Additional	Promotion from the cadre of Executive
CDO	Engineer/Development Officer (Graduate)
	with three years experience.

¶251

Consequent to the above, promotion to the post of CDO as prescribed in the Regulations, 1984 was changed as

¶252

follows:-

¶253

CDO	From the ca	dre of	Additional Chief
	Development	Officer	with minimum
	service of two	years.

¶254

46 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶255

HC-KAR

¶256

Therefore, by the first Amendment 1998, a candidate possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering was ineligible from seeking promotion to the post of Additional CDO/ Superintending Engineer which was restricted only to graduate Engineers.

¶257

Following the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No . 15777/2007, the respondent No.2 submitted draft C & R Regulations, proposing the following amendment to the Regulations, 1984 as amended by First amendment, 1998, insofar as the post of Superintending Engineer was

¶258

concerned :

¶259

Superintending	By promotion	from	Must have put in
Engineer	the cadre	of	a service of not
	Development and Ex	Officer ecutive	less than 3 years in the cadre of
	Engineer (Gra	duate)	Executive
	with three	years	Engineer (Civil
	experience.		Graduate)

¶260

By this proposed amendment, an Executive Engineer with Diploma in Civil Engineering was deprived of promotion to

¶261

47 -

¶262

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶263

HC-KAR

¶264

the post of Superintending Engineer and consequently to

¶265

the post of Chief Engineer.

¶266

The State government invited objections to the above proposal. The respondent No.3 who was by then an Executive Engineer filed objections contending that if the proposed amendment was accepted then the Diploma Holders would be ineligible to be promoted to higher posts.

¶267

The State government while considering the objections received to the Regulations, 2019 held as follows:

¶268

“ 216) ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀA¸À¢ÃAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ°è ¹«¯ï r¥ÉÇèÃªÀiÁ PÉÆÃmÁ CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊ©qÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀgÉ, ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÈAzÀPÉÌ G¥À C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÈAzÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄA§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðZÀlÄªÀnPÉ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ¢AzÀ®Æ eÁjAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F G¥À C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÈAzÀzÀ°è ¹«¯ï ¥ÀzÀ«ÃzsÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹«¯ï r¥ÉÇèÃªÀiÁ PÉÆÃmÁ CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄA§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. F ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ zÀÈ¶×¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt, F ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀÄxÁªÀvÁÛV

¶269

48 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶270

HC-KAR

¶271

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À®Ä PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀjμÀÌgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶272

Consequent thereto, the Regulations 2019 was approved allowing promotions to Superintending Engineer from the cadre of Executive Engineer subject to two conditions namely (i) that he or she must have put in not less than three years in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil) (ii) Must be holder of a Bachelor degree in Engineering (Civil) or passes equivalent qualification.

¶273

The petitioner is aggrieved by the words “or passes equivalent qualification” and contends that this is done specifically to help the respondent No.3 as he had no chance of being promoted to the post of SE. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Regulations, 2019 on the ground that under Section 41 of the KIAD Act, 1966, the power to make Regulations is in the exclusive domain of the Board and the role of the State Government

¶274

is to merely “approve” the Regulations and not to tinker with them. It is the case of the petitioner that the State

¶275

49 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶276

HC-KAR

¶277

government by suggesting amendments to the draft regulations did not merely “approve” it but the Regulations were made by the State Government and thrust on the Board.

¶278

The above argument of the petitioner has to fail on two counts namely (i) The petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer on 22.02.2023 which is after the Regulations 2019 were published. Therefore, the petitioner having once taken the benefit of the Regulations, 2019 cannot turn around to contend that Regulations, 2019 are not valid. If this contention is accepted then the promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer has to be over turned. (ii) Rule 17(1) of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules 1997, prescribes the procedure to be followed for conducting business of the State government and the same is extracted below:

¶279

17.(1) No Department shall, without previous consultation with the Finance Department or as the case may be, the internal financial Adviser

¶280

50 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶281

HC-KAR

¶282

and Ex-officio Deputy Secretary to Government concerned in accordance with the Government of Karnataka (Consultation with Financial Adviser) Rules. 1982 authorize any orders (other than orders pursuant to any general delegation made by the Finance Department) which,

¶283

(a) either immediately or by their repercussions, will affect the finances of the State, or which, in particular (i) involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant, lease or license of mineral or forest rights or right to water, power or any easement or privilege in respect of such concession: or (ii) in any way involve any relinquishment of revenue; or

¶284

(b) relate to the number of grading or cadre of posts or the emoluments or other conditions of service.

¶285

(2) No proposal which requires previous consultation with the Finance Department under this rule but in which the Finance Department has not concurred may be proceeded with unless a decision to that effect has been taken by the Cabinet.

¶286

Provided that where the Finance Department has not given its concurrence but the Cabinet has overruled the opinion of the Finance Department and concurred with the proposal with or without modification. any order issued in pursuance of such concurrence shall indicate the following,- “This order falls within the purview of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 17 of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of

¶287

51 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶288

HC-KAR

¶289

Business) Rules. 1977 and is issued accordingly”

¶290

“Provided further that no such decision would be taken if it does not satisfy the requirement of sub-section (4) of section 6 of the Karnataka Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2002”

¶291

(3) No re-appropriation shall be made by any Department other than the Finance Department except in accordance with such general delegation as the Finance Department may have made.

¶292

(4) Except to the extent that the power may have been delegated to the Department under the rules approved by the Finance Department, every order of an Administrative Department, conveying a sanction to be enforced subject to audit shall after obtaining the concurrence of the Finance Department or as the case may be, the Internal Financial Advisor and Exofficio Deputy Secretary to Government be communicated to the audit authorities by the Administrative Department and the fact of such concurrence shall be indicated in the order.

¶293

(5) Nothing in this Rule shall he construed as authorizing any Department including the Finance Department, to make re-appropriation from one grant specified in the Appropriation Act to another such grant.

¶294

The procedure for a department to dispose of business is prescribed in Rule 30 which is extracted below:

¶295

52 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶296

HC-KAR

¶297

The Secretary of a Department shall, save as provided in sub-rule (2), submit a case for orders to the Minister-incharge or to the Minister of State or the Deputy Minister, if any, as the case may be,

¶298

(2) Subject to the general or special directions of the Minister-in-charge, routine cases and cases of minor importance, namely, cases covered by rule, decided policy or precedent which do not involve the over-ruling of a Head of a Department and which raise no points of delicacy, may be disposed of by the Secretary of the Department on his own responsibility. The Secretary of the Department may also dispose of in the absence of the Minister-in-charge or the Minister of State or the Deputy Minister cases requiring immediate action, on his own responsibility.

¶299

(3) The Minister-in-charge may direct that cases of minor importance may be disposed of by a Deputy Secretary or an Under Secretary of the Department,

¶300

(4) A copy of every direction given under sub-rule (3) shall be submitted to the Governor.

¶301

(5) Before the second day of every week a compilation of abstract of orders issued during the preceding week, relating to policy decisions and matters of importance shall be prepared and submitted immediately to the Chief

¶302

53 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶303

HC-KAR

¶304

Secretary for transmission to the Chief Minister and the Governor.

¶305

“Note 1:- Where the case relates to a matter in which a Minister is personally interested, it shall be sent to the Chief Minister who may dispose of it himself or pass it on to any other Minister for disposal.

¶306

2:- Where sanction or approval of Government is required for any proposal from any company, society, local body or other institution it shall be examined by the Department concerned in the same manner as a case belonging to such department”.

¶307

(underlining by Court)

¶308

In view of Note 2 to Rule 30, whenever, approval of the government is required for any proposal from respondent No.2, the Secretary of Industries and Commerce is entitled

¶309

to examine the proposal in the same manner as a case belonging to such department. The respondent no.2 which is part of the Department of Industries and Commerce is controlled by the Ministry of Large and Medium Industries and therefore the word “approval” found in Section 21 has

¶310

54 -

¶311

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶312

HC-KAR

¶313

be understood in the light of Note 2 to Rule 30 quoted above.

¶314

The respondent No.2, no doubt, had forwarded a draft of the Regulations 2019 for approval by the State Government. As per this draft, the post of Superintending Engineer had to be filled-up by promotion from Executive Engineers with Bachelor degree in civil Engineering qualification, thereby meaning that the Executive Engineers who possessed Diploma in Civil Engineering were deprived of any further promotion prospect. The respondent No.3 therefore escalated his grievance before respondent No.1 in terms of his letter dated 15.07.2019. The Regulations 2019 was placed by respondent No.2 for consideration before the department of Industries and Commerce which sought for certain clarifications from respondent No.2 and accordingly after clarifications were obtained, it was sent for concurrence of Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation which perused the promotional avenue to the post of Superintending

¶315

55 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶316

HC-KAR

¶317

Engineer and suggested that promotion to the post of Executive Engineers should be restricted to graduate engineers. It was also suggested that Assistant Executive Engineers of Grade-II may be transferred as Assistant Engineers Grade-I. It was also suggested that for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer Grade-I from Junior Engineer, a candidate should possess a Bachelor’s Degree. Subject to the above, the Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation, recommended that approval can be granted to the modified Regulations 2019. Based on the above, discussions were held with the Director (Technical Cell) and it was held that, provision was made earlier for promotion of Deputy Development Officers to the post of Development Officer and therefore, it was appropriate to continue the said process in the interest of respondent No.2. The Regulations 2019 was thereafter approved and published in the Gazette, in terms of which, promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was to be from amongst Executive Engineers

¶318

56 - NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶319

HC-KAR

¶320

who possessed a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering or who passed equivalent qualification. The petitioner did possess a Bachelor’s decree in Engineering and therefore, the proceedings dated 07-12-2024 of the Departmental Promotion Committee recommending to promote the respondent No.3 as Superintending Engineer cannot be assailed by the petitioner.

¶321

This apart, the petitioner who was promoted as Executive Engineer under the Regulations 2019 had no chance of being promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer unless he completed three years of service as Executive Engineer. The petitioner would qualify for the same only on 21.02.2026 and therefore, he cannot have any grievance for the present in challenging the promotion of the respondent No.3. Therefore, the contentions urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted and hence, the writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶322

NC: 2025:KHC:20244 WP No. 36198 of 2024

¶323