AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna S Dixit, J
A civil servant disappointed by the State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 20.11.2023 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court against denial of promotion to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention to para 8 of the Tribunal’s order argues that there is legal infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as the extant 2013 Rules specifically provide for consideration of a candidate for promotion to the next higher cadre if he has put in not less than one year of service in the feeder cadre, when candidates who have put in three year service are not available. He has also produced along with Memo with leave of court, a copy of O.M. dated 17.06.2023 relating to one Mr.Srinivasappa.B. who has been directed to be considered for promotion to the higher post though he has put in less than three year service in the feeder cadre.
Learned AGA appearing for the respondent opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been structured. She also points out that the petitioner’s case was put in a Sealed Cover since he was facing a disciplinary enquiry which eventually resulted into levy of penalty of censure and therefore, his case cannot be considered for promotion. So contending, she seeks dismissal of petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the simple reason that the provisions of the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch Recruitment) Rules, 2013 vide Item No.12 in the schedule thereto provides for consideration of a candidate who has put in one year service if three year service candidates are not available. The same reads as under:
Sl. No.
Designation
No of posts
Xx
x
Minimum Qualification
12
Assistant Secretary /Head quarter assistant to Regional Transport Officer/Tr easury and Tax Officer (Rs.2160 0-40050)
P
T
Total
12 03 15
Must have put in a service of not less than three years in the cadre of Superintendent.
If an officer with three years of service is not available, an officer who has put in a service of not less than one year in the cadre of Superintendent may be considered for promotion.
When we asked learned AGA as to why the above Rule was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, she replies that the Tribunal having heard the matter had reserved it for orders and the said orders came to be pronounced later and in that process, the above provision appears to have been lost sight of. Whatever be the lapse on whomsoever, there is error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be rectified inasmuch as every civil servant is entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the existing Service Rules, more particularly, when it is not the case of official respondents that candidates who have put in three year service are available.
The next contention of learned AGA that censure is also a punishment under Rule 8(ii) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 and once such a punishment is accorded, the candidate cannot be considered for promotion, is bit difficult to countenance. Censure is a mildest form of punishment is true. However, such a punishment comes to an end on the same day of its limb. Therefore, in the fitness of things, it cannot constitute an absolute embargo for consideration of petitioner’s case for promotion, more particularly when a similarly placed official having been considered for promotion, has been granted one, as is evidenced by the government notification No.TD65TDS2023 dated 20.02.2024. A Welfare State like ours has to conduct itself as a model employer vide BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM 2013 (2) SCC 516.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal; petitioner’s Application No.2179/2023 having been favoured, a direction issues to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to open the Sealed Cover and give effect to the recommendations of DPC dated 02.12.2020 at Annexure-A10 in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks. Delay if brooked in compliance, would be viewed seriously.
Costs made easy.