Public interest means interest of State and Citizens- Karnataka HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.11455 OF 2020SRI SIDDARAJU S O KARIPUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS DIRECTOR KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN K R CIRCLE BENGALURU 560001 BENGALURU CITY BY PROF RAVIVARMA KUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT H R RENUKA ADVOCATE) 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 BENGALURU CITY 2 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD BENGALURU 560009 2 3 . BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE K R CIRCLE BENGALURU 560001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4 . B K UDAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR 5TH FLOOR KPDCL BUILDING KAVERI BHAVAN BENGALURU 560001 BY SRI R SUBRAMANYA AAG A W SMT M C NAGASHREE AGA FOR R1 SMT SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT LATHA S SHETTY ADVOCATE FOR C R4 SRI SREERANGA ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE R 1 VIDE ANNEXURE B AS ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BLATANT AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARATION OF LAW BY THIS COURT IN UDAY KUMAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA PASSED IN WP. NO.33296 2019 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.3843 2019 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.11.2020 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: The petitioner who is in the cadre of Chief Engineer was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited by order of appointment dated 06.12.2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the respondent State Government whereby respondent No.4 was appointed as Director of KPTCL and the petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of Power Company of Karnataka Limited by virtue of another order passed on the same day. It is submitted that the fourth respondent was the Managing Director of ‘PCKL’ till the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 was passed. 2. Prof. Ravivarma Kumar learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no doubt the appointment of the petitioner on 06.12.2019 as Director KPTCL was under the pleasure of the Government as the order dated 06.12.2019 clearly mentions that the appointment of the petitioner was “until further orders” nevertheless it is submitted that appointments made under the pleasure of Government does not mean licence to act arbitrarily. On the other hand invocation of doctrine of pleasure by the Government must be for good and compelling reasons and it cannot be at the sweet will whims and fancy of the State Government but it can only be for valid reasons and the power referable to the doctrine of pleasure can be used reasonably and only for public good. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that these were the words used by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of the fourth respondent when he challenged the order of a co ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33296 2019 before the Division Bench 3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in W.A.No.3843 2019 clause of Article 74 of the Articles of Association of BESCOM which conferred on the State Government power to nominate and appoint Directors to the office of the Board of Directors or Managing Director or fulltime Directors of the Company fell for consideration at the hands of the Hon’ble Division Bench. It is submitted that in the present case with respect to KPTCL similar provision of law in the form of Clauseof Article 30 of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of KPTCL has been invoked by the respondent State Government. 4. While referring to the said decision of Hon’ble Division Bench it was submitted that when the doctrine of pleasure was invoked by the State Government valid reasons either in the proposal or in the approval granted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister was necessary. It is submitted that the proposal in the form of notings put up before the Hon’ble Chief Minister did not contain any valid reasons for putting an end to the services of the petitioner as Director KPTCL and neither did the Hon’ble Chief Minister furnish reasons while approving the proposal. On facts it was submitted that the fourth respondent is due to attain the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021 while the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. It is submitted that is difficult to understand what prompted the respondent State Government to appoint the fourth respondent as Director KPTCL at the verge of his retirement. Moreover it was submitted that the fourth respondent did not possess any experience in the field of transmission. The petitioner had earlier worked as Chief Engineer Transmission Zone Bagalkot and as Directorsince November 2019. 5. During the course of the argument it was pointed out by the learned Counsels for the respondents that though the petitioner was appointed as Director of PCKL by order dated 07.10.2020 he did not report for duty. Subsequently the State Government issued one more notification dated 16.10.2020 appointing the petitioner as Managing Director Mysore Electrical Industries Limited 5 SCC 142 submitted that once the basis of a proceeding is gone by virtue of an order passed by this Court an intermediate action taken in the meantime would fall to the ground. While drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 27 of Badrinath’s case it was submitted that the principle of ‘consequential orders’ which is applicable to judicial and quasi judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. Similarly it was pointed out from paragraphs 32 and 33 of Ananta Saha’s case that in case a foundation is removed the superstructure falls. In the opinion of this Court the subsequent in the respondent State Government appointing the petitioner as Director of PCKL by order dated 07.10.2020 and thereafter one more notification dated 16.10.2020 issued by the State Government appointing the petitioner as Managing Director MEI Ltd. consequent to which the petitioner taking charge as Managing Director of MEI Ltd. on 16.10.2020 without demure assumes significance. Normally when transfer orders are challenged before a court of law or tribunal and during the pendency of such proceedings if another order of transfer is passed and the transferee assumes charge by virtue of the subsequent order of transfer without protest and without raising a challenge to the subsequent orders the pending proceedings are disposed of as having become infructuous. The obvious reason behind the disposal of the proceedings as having become infructuous is that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding to consider the validity of the previous order of transfer unless the subsequent order of transfer is also questioned by amending the memorandum of petition raising grounds of challenge and seeking a specific prayer to set aside the subsequent order of transfer is made a decision on the previous order of transfer would be rendered useless. It is not a matter of right that by quashing the previous order of transfer that all subsequent orders would axiomatically fall to the ground. In the case of Badrinath the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the action of the State Government initiating subsequent proceedings against a delinquent IAS Officer ignoring the earlier decision of the Governor who while exercising the powers of the State Government during President’s Rule had dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officer. Merely because the matter had gone to the UPSC before the Governor dealt with the issue and thereafter a letter was received from the UPSC based on which a subsequent order of censure was passed by the State Government ignoring the decision of the Governor who had exercised the powers of the Government and had dropped the It was therefore held consequential communication made by the UPSC had no validity in the eye of law once the Governor had dropped the disciplinary proceedings. Such is not the case on hand. 10. Similarly in the case of Ananta Saha supra) the CMD ECL had passed an order initiating disciplinary proceedings consequent to the High Court in the earlier writ proceedings granting liberty to hold de nova enquiry quashing the earlier proceedings. It was held that it was not permissible for the appellants to proceed on the basis of the charge sheet issued earlier. Therefore while holding that the order of the CMD was not sufficient to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if initial action is not in consonance with law subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such fact situation the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus was said to be applicable meaning thereby in case a foundation is removed the superstructure falls. This decision too is not applicable to the factual matrix of this case. There is no challenge raised by the petitioner to his subsequent appointment as Managing Director MEI Ltd. Therefore even if this Court were to quash the impugned order it would not be sufficient to put the petition back in place as Director KPTCL. The two orders are independent orders issued by the State Government invoking the doctrine of pleasure. 11. Moreover the admitted facts in the instant case is that the respondent No.4 who has taken charge as Director of KPTCL by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 is due to attain the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021 while the petitioner attains the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of the KPTCL the State and the citizens it would not be proper in directing the State Government to reconsider the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Director KPTCL. 12. Before parting with this writ petition this Court deems it necessary to remind the State Government and the top Executives that appointments and transfers are required to be made in “public interest”. Public interest means the interest of the State and the citizens. If the same is followed in letter and spirit the powers that be would not have to face inconvenient questions and such actions would considerably reduce unwanted litigations. It is sad that though this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court have time and again reminded the powers that be of their constitutional obligation to act in accordance with law both in letter and spirit orders of appointment and transfers are made with utter disregard to the reminders and have become source of genuinely avoidable litigations. It would be apt to quote the 14 prophetic words of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar “However good a Constitution may be if those who are implementing it are not good it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constitution may be if those implementing it are good it will prove to be good.” 13. For the reasons stated above the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd 

Summary: Public interest plays an important role in every field. Profession, academics, and career are all complementary and supplementary to each other and constant competition of opportunity plays around to help an individual to secure and understand his/her worth. The same had been held in the case of Sri. Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka &amp; Ors.,( WRIT PETITION NO. 11455 OF 2020 (S-TR). The court was of the view that “Before parting with this writ petition, this  Court deems it necessary to remind the State Government and the top Executives that appointments and transfers are required to be made in “public interest”. The facts of the case initiates when the petitioner who is a cadre of Chief Engineer was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, by an appointment dated 06.12.2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent-State Government on 07.10.2020 by which respondent No.4 was named Director of KPTCL and the petitioner was appointed as Director of KPTCL. As Managing Director of Karnataka Limited’s Power Company (‘PCKL’ for short), by virtue of another order given on the same day. It is claimed that before the challenged order dated 07.10.2020 was passed, the fourth respondent was the Managing Director of ‘PCKL’. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner as Director of KPTCL on 06.12.2019 was certainly under the pleasure of the Government because the order of 06.12.2019 explicitly indicates that the appointment of the petitioner was ‘until further orders’; however, it is submitted that appointments made under the pleasure of the Government do not indicate an arbitrary license to function. On the other hand, the invocation by the Government of the doctrine of pleasure must be for fair and compelling reasons and cannot be at the hands of the State Government’s sweet will, whims and fancy, but it can be used only for legitimate reasons and the power referred to in the doctrine of pleasure can be used fairly and exclusively for the public good. In the case of the fourth respondent, the learned Senior Counsel argued that these were the terms used by the Hon’ble Division Bench when he challenged the order of this Court’s Coordinate Bench. When referring to Hon’ble’s decision in question it was submitted to the Division Bench that when the doctrine of enjoyment was invoked by the State Government, it was appropriate to state legitimate reasons either in the proposal or in the approval granted by the Honorable Chief Minister. It is argued that the proposal did not contain any legitimate reasons for putting an end to the services of the petitioner as Director, KPTCL, in the form of notes put forward before the Hon’ble Chief Minister, and neither did the Hon’ble Chief Minister provide reasons for approving the proposal. On the basis of the evidence, it was submitted that the fourth respondent was due to reach the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021, while on 30.04.2021 the applicant was due to reach the age of superannuation. It is argued that it is difficult to understand what led the respondent-State Government, on the verge of his retirement, to nominate the fourth respondent as Director, KPTCL. In addition, it was alleged that the fourth respondent had no experience in the field of transmission. Since November 2019, the petitioner had earlier served as Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, Bagalkot, and as Director (Transmission). The respondent counsel on the other hand had submitted that if this writ were to succeed the petitionerPetition, and if the Court were to set aside the challenged petition, it will be of no benefit to the order dated 07.10.2020, since the petitioner took over as Managing Director, the petitioner has MEI Limited’s Director on 16.10.2020. Thus the Court had held that “Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of the KPTCL, the State and the citizens, it would not be proper in directing the State Government to reconsider the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Director, KPTCL.”