M.S. PRABHAKAR vs KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED

Mr. M.S. Prabhakar, the petitioner, has approached

this Court with twin prayers that the respondent, the

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for

short, ''the K.P.T.C.L.'') should be directed to consider his

representation, dated 2-11-2017, and to promote him to

the cadre of Chief Engineer forthwith in terms of the final

seniority list, dated 27-10-2017, with effect from

1-4-2014, and to grant all consequential benefits flowing

therefrom.

The brief facts of the case are that on

27-8-1980, the petitioner joined the services of erstwhile

Karnataka Electricity Board as an Assistant Engineer.

Subsequently, he has been promoted repeatedly.

Presently, he is working in the cadre of Superintending

Engineer (Electrical).

During the course of the petitioner''s tenure, the

State Government enacted the Karnataka Determination

of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the

Basis of Reservation (to the posts in the Civil Services of

the State), Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

In compliance of the Act, the persons junior to the

petitioner were promoted to various cadres reaching to the

cadre of Chief Engineer. The juniors were promoted on

the ground that they belonged to Scheduled Castes or

Scheduled Tribes communities.

However, the validity of the Act was challenged

before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.

PAVITRA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND

OTHERS [(2017) 4 SCC 620]. By judgment dated

9-2-2017, the Hon''ble Supreme Court not only struck

down the validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act on the

ground of unconstitutionality, but also directed the State

Government to revise the seniority list of different cadres.

Since contempt petitions were filed before the Hon''ble

Supreme Court, by subsequent orders, the Hon''ble

Supreme Court has also directed that the seniority list

should not only be revised positively by 30-11-2017, but

even the consequential benefits of the seniority list should

be given positively by 15-1-2018. Moreover, the Hon''ble

Supreme Court has given liberty to the concerned

authorities to implement the revised seniority list, and to

give consequential benefits to the concerned persons prior

to the last date, namely 15-1-2018.

In the light of the decision and direction of the

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavitra (supra),

the K.P.T.C.L. has revised the list and published it on

27-10-2017. According to the petitioner with the

publication of the revised seniority list, there are seven

vacancies for the post of Chief Engineer with the

K.P.T.C.L. Moreover, the petitioner claims that he falls

within the zone of consideration for being promoted for the

said post. However, as he is in the verge of retirement, i.e.

on 31-12-2017, the petitioner filed a representation before

the K.P.T.CL., on 2-11-2017. In the representation, he

prayed that his case should be considered for promotion,

as according to the seniority list, he is eligible for the post

of Chief Engineer from 1-4-2014. He has also prayed that

all consequential benefits should be granted to him before

his date of superannuation. However, the said

representation has not elicited any reaction from the

K.P.T.C.L., so far. Hence, the present petition before this

Court.

Mr. M. Nagaprasanna, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this

Court:-

Firstly, according to the revised seniority list dated

27-10-2017, seven vacancies exist for the post of Chief

Engineer.

Secondly, due to the directions given by the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavitra (supra), the

K.P.T.C.L. is legally bound to consider the petitioner''s case

for promotion in accordance with the seniority list.

Thirdly, since the petitioner has a right of

consideration for the promotional post, the said right

cannot be ignored because of the laxity on the part of the

K.P.T.C.L. by not convening a Departmental Promotional

Committee (''DPC'', for short) meeting.

Fourthly, the K.P.T.C.L. is yet to discharge its duty

of convening of D.P.C. But considering the fact that the

petitioner is about to retire by end of December, 2017, it is

imperative that the K.P.T.C.L. be directed to convene the

D.P.C., to consider the case of the petitioner for

promotion.

Mr. S. Sriranga, the learned counsel for the

respondent - K.P.T.C.L., frankly concedes, and in the

opinion of this Court rightly so, that the K.P.T.C.L. is

legally bound to carryout the direction issued by the

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavithra

(supra). According to him, considering the judgment of

B.K. Pavitra (supra), the K.P.T.C.L. has already revised the

seniority list. According to him, presently, there are about

seven vacancies which do exist for the post of Chief

Engineer. According to him, the petitioner does fall within

the zone of consideration.

Considering the fact that the petitioner falls

within the zone of consideration, considering the fact that

the petitioner has a right of consideration, it cannot be

brushed aside lightly. Therefore, this Court directs the

K.P.T.C.L. to convene a D.P.C. meeting on or before 25-12-

2017, and to consider the petitioner''s case along with case

of others, who are eligible and suitable for the remaining

vacancies, and to pass its order on the basis of

recommendations of the D.P.C. on or before 29-12-2017.

With these directions, the petition stands disposed

of.