AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.01.2012 - Annexure R passed by respondent No. 1 designating the petitioner as Accounts Superintendent. Respondent No. 1 appointed the petitioner on 27.02.2001 as Deputy Manager. This appointment of the petitioner was questioned before this Court in W.P. No. 12116/2001 and connected matters. This Court vide order dated 27.06.2006 disposed W.P. No. 12116/2001 and the operative portion reads as under:
i) The impugned appointment order, dt.27/2/2001 is quashed.
ii) The 1st respondent shall consider the 2nd respondent''s case for absorption in appropriate cadre in accordance with the applicable Rules.
iii) The cadre determination shall be in keeping with his qualifications and standing in KTL and also his prospective usefulness for KSIIDC.
iv) KSIIDC shall fix the salary in the appropriate pay scale by taking into account (a) the last drawn salary of the 2nd respondent when he was in the KTL, (b) the revision of pay scales which may have come into effect in KTL and KSIIDC, (c) the pay protection required to be given to him under law.
v) The 1st respondent-KSIIDC shall not promote the 2nd respondent to any vacancy which is sanctioned under its Cadre and Recruitment Rules. There shall not be any common seniority list of the serving employees of KSIIDC and the 2nd respondent. This direction is being given to ensure that the 2nd respondent does not cut into the promotional chances of the serving employees of the KSIIDC. If KSIIDC on being satisfied of the performance of 2nd respondent forms the view that he requires to be promoted, it has to create a separate vacancy for him. At this juncture, Sri Bhat express his reservation that this directed arrangement may not work well because of the clout that the 2nd respondent wields; he will easily manage to steal the march over other employees. To allay his misgivings, I direct the 1st respondent not to give any accelerated promotion to the 2nd respondent.
vi)The process of identifying and determining the right post for the 2nd respondent and placing him on appropriate pay-scale, in accordance with the directions herein, shall be completed within an outer limit of 3 months from today.
vii) Sri Srinivas Gowda, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent is likely to join the services of the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of his switching over from the KSIIDC to any other organisation at any point of time.
viii) The status-quo shall be maintained for a period of 3 months or until the 1st respondent passes the appropriate order in terms stipulated hereinabove, whichever is earlier.
The directions issued by this Court in W.P. No 12116/2001 and connected matters had become final. In implementation of the directions issued by this Court respondent No. 1 passed a resolution on 06.10.2006 as per Annexure H and the relevant portion relating to the petitioner is as under:
He is a qualified B.Com, ICWA. In KTL he was working as a Commercial Superintendent/Accounts Officer. Accordingly, an ex-cadre post of accounts Officer is proposed to be created.
This resolution of the respondent No. 1 came to be approved by the Government of Karnataka as per Annexure J dated 05.01.2007 and the same reads as under:
With reference to your letter dt.02.11.2006 on the above subject, I am directed to convey approval of the Government for creation of an Ex-cadre post of Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs.5200-9580 in pursuance of Court Order, subject to following conditions:
(1) The post should be abolished after the proposed incumbent retires i.e., till his incumbency.
(2) Expenditure on the same should be met from own resources of KSIIDC.
Despite the resolution of respondent No.1 and the approval by the Government as stated above the petitioner''s cadre was fixed as Accounts Superintendent as per Annexure M dated 03.02.2007. A reading of this Annexure M fixing the cadre of the petitioner specifies that in view of the apprehensions expressed by the employees of the association the cadre of the petitioner is designated as Accounts Superintendent instead of Accounts Officer. Aggrieved by this designation as Accounts Superintendent the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 1596/2007. This Court vide order dated 20.10.2011 allowed the writ petition and quashed the office order dated 11.01.2007 designating the cadre of the petitioner as Accounts Superintendent and directed the respondent to redo the matter strictly in terms of the order in W.P. No. 12116/2001 and connected matter. Again under the impugned order dated 07.01.2012 - Annexure R the respondents designated the petitioner as Accounts Superintendent. Hence, this writ petition.
Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
This Court in its order in W.P. No. 12116/2001 directed the respondents to determine the cadre of the petitioner keeping in view his qualification, standing and prospective usefulness. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be promoted to any vacancy sanctioned under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of respondent No. 1. Further a direction is being given specifying that there shall not be any common seniority list of serving employees and the petitioner. In the circumstances fixing the cadre of the petitioner will not affect the rights of any other serving employee in respondent No. 1. Therefore respondent No. 1 to fix the cadre of petitioner without being influenced by any of the objections taken by the serving employees or their association.
Learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Ramesh contends that the additional qualification acquired by the petitioner will not be of any use for respondent No.1. This Court while disposing W.P. No. 12116/2001 specifically directed to fix the cadre of the petitioner by taking into consideration his qualification, standing, experience and utilisation. It is not the case of respondent No. 1 that petitioner is not qualified nor do not possess experience to be designated as Accounts Officer. Therefore there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Secondly it is contended that the fixation of cadre of petitioner shall not be beyond what is stated by this Court in the earlier writ petitions. There is no controversy on this issue. The petitioner is not claiming anything beyond what is directed by this Court in the earlier two writ petitions. All that the petitioner is claiming is his designation as Accounts Officer based on the resolution passed by respondent No. 1 and the approval granted by the Government. Therefore there is no enlargement in the claim made by the petitioner.
In the instant case in implementation of the order in W.P. No. 12116/2001 the respondent No. 1 initially passed a resolution proposing to fix the cadre of the petitioner as Accounts Officer as per Annexure H dated 06.10.2006. The proposal so made by respondent No. 1 came to be approved by the Government of Karnataka as per Annexure J dated 05.01.2007. In the circumstances there is no legal impediment for respondent No. 1 to designate the petitioner as Accounts Officer. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner do not possess the requisite qualification or experience to be designated as Accounts Officer. When the petitioner is qualified and eligible to be designated as Accounts Officer then there is no justification for the respondents to fix his cadre as Accounts Superintendent. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
For the reasons stated above, the following;
ORDER
i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 07.01.2012 - Annexure R passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed.
iii. The respondent No.1 to redo the exercise and fix the cadre of the petitioner keeping in view the earlier Board resolution dated 06.10.2006 and the Government approval dated 05.01.2007 as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to extend the consequential benefits.
Ordered accordingly