Karnataka High Court

Gurushanthappa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.45646 OF 2015 (S-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NOS.3830 OF 2014, 13970 OF 2014,

13978 OF 2014, 30020 OF 2014 AND 31115 OF 2015

IN WP NO.45646 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

1. GURUSHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O SANNOBA REDDY,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
TOWN PLANNING,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, R R NAGAR ZONE,
R. R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560098.

2. R. SHIVA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
WORKING AS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
R. R. NAGAR ZONE,
R. R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560098.

3. S. SURESH,
S/O K. L. SIDDAMADIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.

4. M. C. KRISHNA,
S/O CHOWDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA,
PALIKE, UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560061.

5. SHABANA SULTHANA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O GOUHAR,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, MARATHHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
MARATHHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.

...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR , ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.

3. B. RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

4. SMT. B. LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

5. M. YESHVANTHARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

6. N. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
7. D.S. GIRISH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

8. N. ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

9. SATISH NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

10 . SMT. S. JYOTHILAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

11 . R. KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

12 . H.M. SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

13 . SMT. SHARANAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

14 . N. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

15 . K.S. ANAND,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

16 . H.L. GURUPRASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

17 . SMT. V. VASANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

18 . M. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

19 . S.V. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

20 . SMT. RADHA CHAM BADIGERA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

21 . P. NIRANJANA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
22 . B. VARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

23 . G.S. RAMPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

24 . K.N. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

25 . SMT. C. REKHA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

26 . N.G. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

27 . A.E. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

28 . M.R. ASHOK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

29 . SMT. MADHURI KOTAGI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

30 . M. MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

31 . K. NAVEEN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

32 . SMT. SHILPA S. BHARADWAD,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

33 . ADINATH CHOWGALA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

34 . SMT. L. REKHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

35 . D.K. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

36 . K. NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
37 . SIDDARAMA HALADAKI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

38 . M.V. KRUTHIKA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

39 . H. SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

40 . SANTHOSH KUMAR EJERI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

41 . SMT. JAYASHREE SO AMBIGERA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

42 . SMT. M.Y. KAVITHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

43 . SMT. J. NAGASHREE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

44 . CHANDRAPPA BIRAJJANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

45 . SMT. J.K. SHOBHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

46 . SMT. M.R. DEEPASHREE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

47 . N. SRINIVASAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

48 . SMT. K.S. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

49 . SMT. K. SAVITHA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

50 . SMT. NAGAVENI ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

51 . SMT. N.B. DEEPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
52 . RAJAKUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

53 . PRASAD KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

54 . H. M. MAHIBULLA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

55 . SMT. JAYA B. HARTHI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

56 . SMT. K. RASHMI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

57 . BASAVARAJ S. MAGI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

58 . MS. SAFINAZ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

59 . D.M. NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

60 . SMT. B.N. ANITHA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

61 . MAHESH K. SAVANTH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

62 . SMT. BHAGYASHREE HALLI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

63 . K.N. YUVARAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

64 . SMT. H. BHARATHI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

65 . H.B. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

66 . INDRAJIT LAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
67 . C. SUMA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

68 . SMT. A. CHITRALEKHA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

69 . SMT. C. ANITHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

70 . SMT. K.C. SUMATHI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

71 . SMT. NANDINI U. TAHSILDARA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

72 . SMT. ANJANA BANJANTHRI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

73 . B.E. VANI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

74 . JANARDHANA RAJURA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

75 . KADARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

76 . C. RENUKAPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

77 . SMT. SUNANDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

78 . G.V. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

79 . N. SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

80 . S.K. MOHANRAM,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

81 . K. VENKATESH,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
82 . MANJUNATH,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

83 . A. MOHAN,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

84 . K. VENKATESH,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

85 . SMT. P. MUNIYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

86 . SHETTY VIJAYAKUMAR RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

87 . C. RAVEESH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

88 . SMT. N. SUDHAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

89 . SMT. G.N. JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

90 . A. NALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

91 . H. DEVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

92 . R.V. SHANTHANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

93 . MANJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

94 . R. VIJENDRARAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

95 . B.M. VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

96 . B.K. SHAILESH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
97 . T. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

98 . N. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

99 . L. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

100 . V.T. MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

101 . A.N. PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

102 . N. ANJAJEYA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

103 . SMT. A. RATNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

104 . K.P. JOHN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

105 . SMT. SHAKUNTHALA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

106 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

107 . KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

108 . K. SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

109 . K. ANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

110 . SMT. M. PADMAVATHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

111 . N. HEMAMALINI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
112 . S. MANJUNATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

113 . SMT. SAROJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

114 . B.Y.SHIVAPRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

115 . B.V.MURALI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

116 . R. RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

117 . R. VIJENDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

118 . C. YATHISH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

119 . N. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

120 . CHANDRA PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

121 . S. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

122 . L. PANKAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

123 . L. CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

124 . Y. KUPPASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

125 . SMT. R. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

126 . K. LAKSHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
127 . HAJIRA KHANAM,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

128 . SMT. B. PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

129 . SMT. RUKMINI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

130 . SMT. VEENA,
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

131 . K. CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

132 . S. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

133 . V. RAGHAVENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

134 . SMT. A. GIRIJA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

135 . SMT. SHUBHAMANGALA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

136 . E. SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

137 . N. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

138 . SMT. B.S. SUMITRA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

139 . B.N. RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

140 . SMT. V. SRIDEVI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

141 . R. VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.
142 . K.G. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

143 . R. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

144 . SMT. D. VARALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

145 . SMT. RAJASHREE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

146 . S. MOHANKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

147 . N. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

148 . R. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

149 . SMT. YESHODA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

150 . M. HEMANTHKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

151 . D. SANDEEP,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

152 . N. SANTHOSH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS.

153 . VENKATACHALAPATHY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 153 ARE
WORKING AS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.

....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA AND SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR,
ADVOCATES FOR R2;
SRI. T.P.VEVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R16, R17, R20 TO
R23, R31, R33, R38, R39, R40, R42, R45, R46, R48, R52, R55,
R62, R66, R68, R73 AND R74;
R3, R4, R10, R13, R14, R18, R24, R26, R28, R29, R34, R36, R41,
R43, R44, R47, R49, R50, R51, R53, R54, R56 - R61, R65, R67,
R69 - R72, R75 - R84, R90 - R92, R94, R95, R98 - R102, R105,
R107, R108 - R114, R116 - R124, R129 - R133, R135 -R137,
R139 - R153 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226
OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH [i] AMENDED
OFFICE ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 (VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE
WRIT PETITION); [ii] OFFICE ORDER DATED 09.09.2015 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-Q TO THE WRIT PETITION), BOTH ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT 2 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI INSOFAR AS IT CONCERNS THE PETITIONERS AND
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT 2 TO
REDO THE SENIORITY LIST IN THE CADRE OF FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN TERMS OF
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.01.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-D,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT 2 DATED 19.03.2011 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION), AND DIRECTION /
CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT ON 27.03.2015 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION), AND GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THAT WOULD FLOW FROM REDOING
OF THE SAID SENIORITY LIST AND CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONERS FOR FURTHER PROMOTIONS ALSO.

IN WP NO. 3830 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. B. JAYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O A. HANUMANTHAPPA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU.
2. S.N. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O S.NARAYANAPPA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
YELAHANKA ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 092.

3. S. NANDANA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O B.H.RAJENDRA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, UTTARAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 061.

4. V.B. BHIMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O VEERANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
MARATHAHALLI,
MAHADEVAPUR ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 048.

5. MS. R. SUJATHA,
D/O K.T.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
DOMLUR,
EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 008.

...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.L. SUVARNA LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR
P1 AND P3 TO P5;
PETITION AGAINST P2 IS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER
DATED 19.04.2018.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KENGERI, RAJARAJESWARI DIVISION,
BANGALORE MYSORE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 098.

4. G. LINGANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION, OPP:
SUB-REGISTRAR'OFFICE, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 048.

5. R. NAGARAJ,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE WEST,
SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 048.

6. H.R. SHIVAMMA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
MAHALAKSHMI LAY-OUT DIVISION,
R.T.O. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU -560 010.

7. R.S. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WEST DIVISION,
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU -560 003.

8. SOHEL AHMED,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
VASANTHNAGAR DIVISION,
NEAR CONGRESS OFFICE,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU.

9. PANCHALINGEGOWDA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION,
MAJOR UNNIKRISHNA ROAD,
NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE,
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 075.

10 . KEMPARANGAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
MARATHAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
KRISHNA BHAVAN HOTEL BUILDING
II FLOOR, MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 053.

11 . ESWARA PRASANNAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
VARAMAVU SUB DIVISION,
JAYANTHINAGAR CIRCLE,
VARAMAVU,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
12 . H.B. RAJANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
UTTARAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
UTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 061.
13 . SMT. B.N. SUDHA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION,
MAYO HALL, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 001.

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5, R7 AND R9;
SRI. S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R10, R11 AND R12;
R13 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226
OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH FINAL SENIORITY
LIST PUBLISHED IN OFFICE ORDER DATED 28.12.2013 (UNDER
ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION & OFFICE ORDER DATED
18.01.2014 (UNDER ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION )
INSOFAR AS IT PLACES RESPONDENT-9 TO RESPONDENT-13 IN
THE PLACES HELD BY THE PETITIONERS PRIOR TO PASSING OF
THIS ORDER BOTH ISSUED & PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-
2/BBMP & GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING
RESTORATION OR RANKINGS OF THE PETITIONERS IN TERMS OF
LENGTH OF SERVICE AS WAS BEING DETERMINED IN EARLIER
SENIORITY LISTS NOTIFED I.E. ABOVE THE PRIVE RESPONDENTS
NO.3 TO 8.

IN WRIT PETITION NO.13970 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1 . SRI. G. LINGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O. LATE V. L. GANGAPPA GOWDA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
NO.135, NEAR BROTHERS BAKERY,
OUTER RING ROAD,WHITE FIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 . SRI. R. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O B.L. RAMACHANDRA SHASTRI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE (WEST),
BASHYAM PARK, SAMPIGE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 003.

3 . SRI. B. THIPPARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O P. BABU,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BTM LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

4 . SRI. R. PRADEEP RATHOD,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE R.T. RATHOD,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
K. G. HALLI SUB-DIVISION,
QUEEN'S ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

5 . SMT. VENKATALAXMI.
AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O. LATE HONNAIAH,
W/O. NANJUNDA REDDY,
WORKING AS ASST REVENUE OFFICER
KENGERI,
MYSORE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

6 . SMT. H.R. SHIVAMMA,
AGED 57 YEARS,
W/O PANCHAKHARAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
RTO COMPLEX, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.

7 . SRI. SUHAIL AHMED,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NAZEER AHMED,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
VASANTHANAGAR,
QUEEN'S ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.

8 . SRI. R.S. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMASANJEEVAIAH,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
GALI ANJANEYA TEMPLE WARD,
BBMP, RPC LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 040.

...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. SMT. B. JAYA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION,
YELAHANKA ZONE - 560 064.
BBMP, BENGALURU.

4. S.N. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,WELFARE SECTION,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU- 560 001.

5. SMT. S. NANDANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,WELFARE SECTION,
SOUTH ZONE, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK
BBMP
BENGALURU- 560 001.
6. P.V. NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,WELFARE SECTION,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ORGANIZATION OFFICER
BENGALURU- 560 001.

7. V.B. BHEEMA SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,WELFARE SECTION,
YELAHANAKA ZONE
BENGALURU- 560 004.

8. SMT. R. SUJATHA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION,
DASARAHALLI ZONE - 560057.
BBMP, BENGALURU.

....RESPONDENTS

(By SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. PUTTEGOWDA AND SRI, JAYANTH DEV KUMAR
ADVOCATES FOR R3 TO R8)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226
OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE
ORDER DATED 18.06.2012 AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT-2 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO EQUATING THE
POST OF THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER WITH THAT OF THE
POST OF MANAGER.

IN WP NO. 13978 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1. A.N. PRASAD,
AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SUBBA RAO,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (LAKES),
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.

2. CHANDRAPRAKASH M.,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE JDTP (SOUTH),
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.

3. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
W/O LATE R. MURTHY,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE JDTP (NORTH),
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.

4. V.T. MAHADEV,
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. THIMMEGOWDA,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PADMANABHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

5. V. MANJUNATHA,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERANNA,
WORKING AS AMNAGER,
COUNCIL SECTION,
BBMP,N.R SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. T. P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU -560 001.

2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. SMT. B. JAYA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT
KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATION OFFIER,
WELFARE SECTION,
YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
4. SRI S.N. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION OFFICER,
WELFARE SETION, MAHADEVAPURA
ZONE - 560 001 BBMP,
BENGALURU.

5. SMT. S. NANDANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HUSBAND"S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION, SOUTH ZONE,
JAYANAGAR II BLOCK,
BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 011.

6. SRI. P.V. NARARYANA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER, WELFARE SECTION,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE,
BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

7. V.B. BHEEMA SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION,YELAHANKA ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 064.
8. SMT. R.SUJATHA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS,
WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OFFICER,
WELFARE SECTION,
DASARAHALLI ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 057.
...RESPONDENTS

(By SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. S.H. PRASHANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. PUTTEGOWDA AND SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR
ADVOCATES FOR R3 TO R8 )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226
OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE
ORDER DATED 18.6.2012 AT ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT 2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO EQUATING THE POST
OF THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER WITH THAT OF THE POST
OF MANAGER.

IN WP NO.30020 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1. GURUSHANTHAPPA,
S/O SANNOBAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF TOWN PLANNING,
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 098.

2. SHIV KUMAR R.,
S/O LATE H. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FDA, TDR SECTION, (OOD)
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF TOWN PLANNING,
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU -560 098.

3. KRISHNA M.C.,
S/O SRI. CHOWDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
UTTARAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD,
P.O UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 061.

4. P. VENKATARAYAPPA,
S/O SRI. PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FDA, (WELFARE SECTION),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P., DASARAHALLI ZONE,
MEI LAYOUT, BAGALAKUNTE,
BENGALURU -560 073.

5. R.J. SOMASEKHARA,
S/O SRI. JAVARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BETARAYANAPURA BBMP DIVISION,
YELAHANKA ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 092.

6. RAVI RAJ R.M.,
S/O SRI. RAMAPPA MALIGEMANI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FDA (WELFARE SECTION)
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 048.

7. K.S. GOPALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE SUBBARAYA K.N.,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FDA (WELFARE SECTION),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P., MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 048.

8. SURESH KUMAR K.P.,
S/O SRI. PARASHIVA MURTHY K.P.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P., MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 048.

9. SMT. SHABANA SULTANA G.,
D/O SRI. GOUHAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
FDA (WELFARE SECTION),
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER, B.B.M.P.,
BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 068.

10 . S.SURESHA,
S/O LATE SRI. K.L. SIDDAMADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FDA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
REVENUE OFFICER, B.B.M.P.,
UTTARAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD,
P.O.UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 061.
..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.V. VEDA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
IVTH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU -560 001.

2 . THE COMMISSIONER,
B.B.M.P,
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B. L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226
AND
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE B.B.M.P/
R-2 DATED 26.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE -A; DIRECT THE
B.B.M.P/RESPONDENT-2 TO RESTORE THEIR SENIORITY IN THE
SENIORITY LIST PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE GOVERNMENT
ORDER DATED 10.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT AND AS PER RULE 6 OF THE KCS (SENIORITY)
RULES 1957 AND PUBLISHED ON DATED 10.01.2011 AND TO
GIVE PROMOTIONS ON THE BASIS OF SAID SENIORITY LIST
DATED 28.01.2013 PREPARED BY FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.

IN WP NO.31115 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

1 . SMT. B. JAYA,
W/O A. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
AEROHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
R.R.NAGAR ZONE,
BENGALURU -560 062.

2 . S.N. NAGARAJA,
S/O S. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, DOMLUR
SUB-DIVISION, EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU.

3 . SMT. S. NANDANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O B.H. RAJENDRA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU.

4 . V.B. BHIMASHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O VEERANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KODIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 092.

...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. PUTTEGOWDA AND SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR,
ADVOCATES)
AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER,
BRUHAT BANGALOE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, CHANDRA LAY-OUT SUB
DIVISION,
NEAR DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR STADIUM,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH ZONE,
BENGALURU- 560 002.

4. G. LINGANNA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALOE
MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION, OPP:
SUB-REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,
WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU -560 048.
5. R. NAGARAJ,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALOE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE WEST
ZONE, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
OPP: MANTRI MALL,
BENGALURU -560 003.

6. SMT. H.R. SHIVAMMA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALOE
MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
VIJAYANAGARA SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE SOUTH.
BENGALURU- 560 040.

7. SMT. DAKSHAYINI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALOE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE
9TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU -560 011.
.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N. KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA ADVOCATE FOR R3, R6 AND R7;
R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226
OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL
SENIORITY LIST IN THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICERS PUBLISHED IN OFFICE ORDER DATED 14.07.2015
(UNDER ANNEXURE-Z TO THE WRIT PETITION) BY THE
RESPONDENT-2 INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO RESPONDENTS
NO.3 TO 7 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 BY ISSUE OF A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO REDO THE SENIORITY
LIST OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND IN TERMS OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 27.03.2015 (ANNEXURE-W) AND
CONSIDER THE CASES OF THE PETITIONERS FOR GRANT OF
PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF DEPUTY REVENUE OFFICER IN
TERMS OF THE RESTORED SENIORITY AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL BENEFITS.

IN THESE WRIT PETITIONS, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1. In this batch of writ petitions, broadly, the challenge has

been made by the petitioners with regard to equation of posts and

their seniority of the employees appointed under Swarna Jayanthi

Shahari Rojgar Yojana by the Department of Municipal

Administration with that of the employees of respondent-Bruhat

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, hereinafter referred to as

BBMP) issued by the respondent-BBMP.

2. For the sake of convenience, the employees of the erstwhile

SJSRY scheme are referred to as petitioners and employees of the

BBMP are referred as respondents.
3. Facts in nutshell in these writ petitions are that, the State

Government introduced a scheme called "Swarna Jayathi Shahari

Rojgar Yogana (SJSRY) (hereinafter after referred as 'Scheme')

pursuant to the direction issued by Government of India, Ministry

of Urban Affairs and Employment, New Delhi in the Urban Local

Bodies. In order to effectuate the SJSRY Scheme, applications

have been called for appointment to various posts. Petitioners in

W.P.No.45646 of 2015, W.P.No.3830 of 2014, W.P.No.30020 of

2014 and W.P.No.31115 of 2015 were appointed as Community

Organizers, Community Affairs Officers etc., after following the

regular recruitment process. Thereafter, these petitioners entered

service of the Department of Municipal Administration under the

aforesaid Scheme. The State Government by notification dated

28.10.2005, absorbed these petitioners into service as per

Karnataka Municipalities (Absorption of Employees appointed

under the Scheme of Swarna Jayathi Shahari Rojgar Yojana

(SJSRY) in Urban Local Bodies) Rules, 2005. These petitioners

were working in the Municipalities surrounding the City of

Bangalore. In the meanwhile, the State Government has issued

notification dated 16.01.2007, forming BBMP and included 07 City
Municipal Councils, 01 Town Municipal Council and 111 Urbanized

Villages. These petitioners who were functioning as Community

Affair Officers etc., in the merged 07 City Municipal Councils,

which came under the Department of Municipal Administration,

merged with the services of BBMP, coming under the Department

of Urban Development. In the meanwhile, State Government, by

proceedings dated 13.07.2007, accepted the recommendation of

5th Pay Commission and same was made applicable to the

petitioners. It is also averred in these writ petitions that, the issue

relating to merger and conditions of service of erstwhile

employees of SJSRY Scheme along with the employees of BBMP

was considered by the State Government and Government Order

dated 10.01.2011 was issued, taking into consideration the

nomenclature and designation of the employees. In the

meanwhile, the Circular dated 12.01.2007 was issued by the State

Government providing merger of employees of City Municipal

Council into BBMP and same was challenged before this Court in

W.P.No.8523 of 2007 and connected matters. This Court, by order

dated 17.08.2010 allowed the writ petitions in part and the State

Government was directed to commence the process of absorption
and integration of employees of City Municipal Council and other

local bodies into BBMP in the light of the judgment rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra

and another vs. Chandrakanth Ananth Kulkarni reported in

(1981) 4 SCC 130. Pursuant to the same, State Government

issued Government Order dated 10.01.2011, wherein, these

petitioners were placed above the contesting respondents

(employees of BBMP) by taking into consideration their entry into

service, during 2005 and as the contesting respondents entered

the service during 2007 onwards. Thereafter, the respondent-

BBMP, by its letter proceedings dated 19.03.2011, discussed the

matter pertaining to seniority of its employees as well as the

employees who have been absorbed pursuant to the notification

dated 16.01.2007 pursuant to the enlarging jurisdiction of

Bangalore Corporation as BBMP. In the said proceedings, decision

was taken to follow the Karnataka Civil Service (Seniority) Rules,

1957 and accommodate these petitioners in their equivalent posts

in the BBMP. Pursuant to the same, the respondent-BBMP has

issued provisional Seniority list dated 12.05.2011 placing these

petitioners above the contesting respondents herein. It is the
case of the petitioners that, the private respondents were persons

lower in rank than that of the petitioners, as the petitioners

entered service on 28.10.2005 and these private respondents

entered service with effect from 17.12.2005, almost two months

later to that of these petitioners. The objections to the provisional

list was called for and as the petitioners were placed above the

contesting respondents, the petitioners have not filed objections.

Thereafter, the respondent-BBMP has issued Final Seniority list

dated 30.09.2011 placing the petitioners above the contesting

respondents. When the things stood thus, the respondent-BBMP

has issued provisional Seniority List dated 16.08.2013, whereby

the petitioners were placed above the contesting respondents.

Subsequently, the objections were called from the aggrieved

parties. The petitioners have not filed objections as the Provisional

Seniority list dated 16.08.2013 has been prepared as per law. It is

the case of these petitioners that, to the surprise, the respondent-

BBMP has issued Final Seniority List dated 28.12.2013, based on

the legal opinion from the concerned section of BBMP, which

distorted the entire Seniority list and the petitioners were pushed

back and placed below the contesting respondents. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented these writ

petitions.

4. In W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and W.P.No.13978 of 2014, the

petitioners claim to be working at respondent-BBMP. It is the

grievance of these petitioners that, pursuant to the absorption of

the employees of Swarna Jayathi Shahari Rojgar Yojana in urban

local bodies, subsequent to the Notification dated 16.01.2007 into

the service of the respondent-BBMP, the equation of posts which

has to be made on the basis of four criteria referred to in the

judgment of G.Gopalaiah's case, has not been considered, in the

right perspective. It is the case of the petitioners that, while

doing the equation of posts, the basis of salary would have given

effect to as the salaries of petitioners is higher and no way

equivalent to salary of the employees of SJSRY and accordingly,

sought for interference of this Court, challenging the order dated

18.06.2012 issued by the respondent-BBMP. It is the categorical

contention of the petitioners that, the equating of the post of

Community Affairs Officers with that of the post of Manager in the

respondent-BBMP is contrary to law and therefore, the petitioners
sought for setting-aside the order passed by the respondent-BBMP

with regard to equation of the posts.

5. I have heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar for the petitioners in

W.P.45646-50 of 2015; Sri P.S. Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Smt M.L.Suvarna Lakshmi,

Sri.K.Puttegowda and Sri Jayanth Dev Kumar for the petitioners in

W.P No.3830 of 2014. Further, heard W.P.No.31115 of 2015; Sri

Vedamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

W.P.No.30020 of 2014 and Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and

W.P.No.13978 of 2014 and Sri N. Kumar, learned Additional

Government Advocate for respondent-State. Sri M.A.Subramani,

Sri K.N.Puttegowda and Sri S.H.Prashantha, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-BBMP.

6. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioners in W.P.No.45646 of 2015 argued that, the

petitioners have been absorbed as per notification dated

28.10.2005 and thereafter, pursuant to the notification dated
16.01.2007, the petitioners were inducted into respondent-BBMP.

He further contended that, the petitioners were senior most

employees in respondent-BBMP and the ranking has been

disturbed by issuing the impugned Final Seniority list and

accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. He further

contended that, the petitioners were placed in the pay scale of

Rs.7275-13350 on acceptance of 5th Pay Commission and the

petitioners were absorbed into service much earlier, to that of the

contesting respondents herein (employees of BBMP) and

therefore, as per Rule 6 of the of the Seniority Rules, the

determinative factor would be the length of service in the case of

absorption in public interest and said aspect has not been

considered by the respondent-BBMP while altering the ranking

assigned to the petitioners. He further contended that, the

objections filed by the petitioners has not been considered by the

respondent-BBMP in the right perspective, before issuing the order

of Final Seniority List. Accordingly, he sought for interference of

this court.
7. Sri P.S Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners in W.P.No.3830 of 2014 and W.P.No.31115 of 2015

argued that, the impugned Final Seniority List has been passed by

the respondent-BBMP which unsettled the entire seniority list as

well as the respondent-BBMP has not obeyed order passed in

W.P.No.8523 of 2007 dated 17.08.2010 whereby, the four

guidelines laid down by this Court relating to determine the

seniority between the employees of the respondent-BBMP and the

employees of erstwhile SJSRY Scheme - petitioners herein and

have not been given effect to the said order. It is the categorical

submission of Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel that, the

impugned Seniority List issued by the respondent-BBMP is

contrary to Government order dated 10.01.2011. Referring to the

four reasons said to have been made in the aforesaid Government

order, he argued that, the petitioners herein have been absorbed

into service on 16.01.2007, and much before appointment of the

contesting respondents. The petitioners have been absorbed as

per Government Order dated 28.10.2005 and therefore, he

contended that, the Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services

(Seniority) Rules, 1957 has not been considered while issuing the
impugned Seniority List and therefore, he sought for interference

of this Court.

8. Nextly, referring to the report of the legal section, Sri

P.S.Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel emphasized on reference

No.9 in the impugned Final Seniority List and contended that, the

decision taken by the respondent-BBMP distorts the entire settled

principle in law and accordingly, he sought for interference of this

Court.
In this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of
RAMASWAMY G.T. VS. STATE

OF KARNATAKA
reported in (1986) 1 KLJ 1. Referring to

paragraphs 22, 23 and 40, Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior

Counsel argued that, the impugned Final Seniority List would lead

to disastrous results as observed by this Court in identical

matters. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER VS.

RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL SONI AND OTHERS reported in

(1983) 2 SCC 33 and argued that, placing the contesting

respondents, who are the employees of respondent-BBMP above

the petitioners is contrary to the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also refers to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
UNION OF INDIA AND

OTHERS VS. ATHUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS
reported in (2014)

10 SCC 432 and argued that, birth mark of public servants are

obliterated on entry into common pool and therefore, the

determinative factor in the common pool will be their entry into

service and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. He

further contended that pursuant to, publication of provisional list,

receiving objections from the contesting respondents and based

on their objections the impugned Final Seniority List is announced.

In this regard, he submitted that, the respondent-BBMP, before

altering the ranking of the petitioners by keeping the petitioners

below the contesting respondent herein, ought to have heard the

petitioners herein, and therefore, the impugned Final Seniority

List is liable to be quashed in all respects as the same is suffers

from legal infirmity. Sri. P.S. Rajgopal, learned Senoir Counsel

submitted that, the impugned gradation list is contrary to the

order dated 10.01.2011, which has reached finality and the

principle of equation of posts determined by this court in G.
GOPALIAH'S case has not been appreciated by the respondent-

BBMP and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

9. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel invited the

attention to the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the

respondent-BBMP produced at Annexure-Q in W.P.No.45646-50 of

2015 and contended that, while regularizing the provisional list of

Seniority, the respondent-BBMP, has not considered the letter

dated 27.03.2015, (Annexure-M) and argued that, the State

Government has categorically stated that while determining the

seniority, the observations made in the Government order dated

10.01.2011 alone is the basis for formal absorption and placement

of the petitioners in the respective cadre to be taken into

consideration. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUB- INSPECTOR

ROOPLAL AND ANOTHER VS. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH

CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI AND OTHERS, reported in (2000)

1 SCC 644 and contended that, the equivalent cadre has to be

considered in tune with the length of service in the parent

Department. He also refers to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER VS.

RAGHAVA RAJGOPALACHARI, reported in (1972) SLR 915

and RAMESH RANGASHAMAIAH VS. THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2013 (4) AKR 787.

Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, he argued that, while

considering the equivalency of two posts, the pay is least criterion

to be considered and the nature of duties, responsibilities and

minimum qualification etc., are the vital factors to be accepted.

Hence, Sri P.S. Rajgopal, learned Senior Counsel sought for

setting-aside the impugned Final Seniority List.

10. Sri M.V. Veda Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner in W.P.No.30020 of 2014 contended that, the Seniority

List dated 26.12.2013 issued by the respondent-BBMP is contrary

to law as the persons already in service are transferred from one

Department to another Department to a equivalent post and the

said exercise has been made in the public interest. Accordingly, he

sought for direction to the respondent-BBMP to re-determine the

Seniority List in accordance with the provisions contained under

the Karnataka Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957.
11. Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.13970 of 2014 and 13978 of 2014,

(Employees of BBMP) argued that, equation of posts of

Community Affairs Officers with that of the Manager post in the

respondent-BBMP is contrary to law as the respondent-BBMP has

not considered the nature and responsibility of posts, powers to

be exercised by such officers vis-a-vis the minimum qualification

required for those posts are different and as such, he submitted

that, the equation of posts categorized by the respondent-BBMP is

incorrect. He also referred to the pay scale of the employees of

the respondent-BBMP and the employees of erstwhile SJSRY

Scheme and argued that, the salary of Community Affairs Officers

could not have been equated even to the post of First Division

Assistant of respondent-BBMP and therefore, sought for

interference of this Court.

12. Sri M.A. Subramani and Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned

counsels appearing for the respondent-BBMP sought to justify the

impugned orders passed by the respondent-BBMP with regard to

equation of posts as well as the impugned Final Seniority List. It is
their categorical submission that, the respondent-BBMP, after

considering the factual aspects on record, has arrived at a

conclusion which cannot be disturbed in these petitions.

13. Sri M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the respondent-Government argued in similar lines

with learned counsel appearing for respondent-BBMP and

submitted that, the absorption of the employees from SJSRY

Scheme is much earlier to the employees of respondent-BBMP and

accordingly, he submitted that, the Seniority List has to be

prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 6 of Karnataka Civil

Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957.

14. In reply to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners (Employees of

erstwhile SJSRY scheme) contended that, the writ petition filed by

the employees of the BBMP is not maintainable as the petitioners

in W.P.No.45646 of 2015 were appointed on 16.01.2007 and the

petitioners in W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and in W.P.No.13978 of 2014

were appointed on 25.06.2007 and the said aspect of the matter
relating to appointment of the petitioners in W.P.No.45646 of

2015 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.20055-64 of

2010 and this Court by order dated 26.08.2011, dismissed the

writ petition. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel also

submitted that, the argument advanced by Sri T.P. Vivekananda,

justifying the impugned Seniority List cannot be accepted on the

simple ground that, the respondent-BBMP has considered the

length of service of respective employees as well as equivalence of

post based on pay scale of the employees of SJSRY scheme and

the employees of respondent-BBMP. In this regard, Sri Jayakumar

S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel contended that, the criterion for

promotion is the date of appointment by the employees of the

SGSRY scheme and not as contended by Sri T.P. Vivekananada as

the Government order dated 03.06.2010 wherein 5th Pay

Commission was recommended to the employees of erstwhile

SJSRY Scheme.

15. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the facts are not disputed. The

petitioners in W.P.No.45646 of 2015, W.P.No.3830 of 2014,
W.P.No.30020 of 2014 and W.P.No.31115 of 2015 were appointed

initially as per the scheme evolved by State Government called as

"Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rojgar Yogana (SJSRY), pursuant to the

direction issued by Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs

and Employment, New Delhi in the Urban Local Bodies. In order to

effectuate the said scheme, applications have been called for

appointing various post under the scheme. The petitioners were

appointed and later absorbed as Community Organizers,

Community Affairs Officers etc., after following the regular

recruitment process, as per notification dated 28.10.2005. In

W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and W.P.No.13978 of 2014, the petitioners

are the employees of respondent-BBMP.

16. It is the grievance of the petitioners, who were employed

under the scheme that, they have been merged with the service

conditions of the employees of respondent-BBMP as per

Government order dated 10.01.2011, however, such employees of

the scheme, though placed above the employees of the

respondent-BBMP till the passing of provisional list dated

16.08.2013 however, they have been placed below the employees
of the respondent-BBMP pursuant to the impugned Seniority List

issued on 28.12.2013.

17. The core question to be answered in these writ petitions is,

whether the Final Seniority List dated 28.01.2013 is sustainable

under law or not?. Petitioners are appointed by the State

Government for the purpose of effectuating the SJSRY scheme in

urban local bodies on contract basis, fixing the consolidated pay

and these petitioners entered service in the Department of

Municipal Administration as Community Organizers/ Community

Affairs Officers, etc. These petitioners have been appointed by the

Government through regular process of selection in the said

Department. These petitioners were absorbed into service of the

State Government as per Notification dated 28.10.2005 as per the

Swarna Jayanthi Sahari Rojgar Yojana (SJSRY) in Urban Local

Bodies Rules, 2005. In the meanwhile, the Government has

issued Notification dated 16.01.2007, declaring the local area

around the Bengaluru, restructuring of merger of 110 villages, 7

City Municipal Councils and one Town Municipal Council into

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The petitioners herein were
functioning in the 7 merged City Municipal Councils, and their

services were taken into the newly formed Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike as per Notification dated 10.01.2011. The said

Notification was issued pursuant to the judgment of this Court in

Writ Petition No.8523 of 2007 decided on 17.08.2010. Paragraphs

9 to 15 reads as under:

9. The grievance of the petitioners is that in to give effect
to the merger, a decision was taken to reckon the
payscales as criteria and work out the formula for fitment
of officers and officials. In the meeting held on 2.9.2008, it
was decided to fix the seniority of the employees absorbed
as per Rule 6 of the K.C.S (Seniorities) Rules, 1957. In the
meeting held on 30.01.2009 the Committee constituted for
integrating the employees, post merger, from the CMC's
and other Local Bodies notices difference between the posts
and pay scales in the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment
of officers and employees) Rules 2004 and the City of
Bangalore Municipality Corporation Services (General Cadre
and Recruitment Regulation), 1971 by reasons of which
difficulty having arises in absorption, decided to effect
absorption on the basis of the original pay scale of the
post. Hence, the petition for the relief fo the a writ of
prohibition prohibiting the second respondent BBMP from
publishing the list of officers of the servants CMCs, TMCs
and Grama Panchayat to be absorbed it the service of
BBMP in the absence of provisions made in that behalf
under the Act and for a writ of certiorari to quash the
proceeding dated 08.09.2008 Annexure C and 30.01.2009
Annexure D.

10. Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1352-53/10, claim to
be appointees under the second respondent BBMP. This
petition is preferred, aggrieved by the decision taken in the
proceedings dated 31.01.2009 in the matter of merger of
employees of City Municipality Council into BBMP, in so far
as it relates to the publication of the gradation list within 30
days and to withdraw all the promotions made on and after
16.01.2007 by the second respondent and not to effect any
promotion until merger process is competed; the decision
taken by the first respondent and directions issued as per
Annexure F and for a mandamus to respondent 2 and 3, to
consider the case of promotion to Revenue Inspector Grade
II. The BBMP is said to have issued and order dated

10.05.2010 effecting promotions to petitioners and others
subject to the result of the writ petition.

11. Having heard Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel
for the first batch of petitioners, Sri P.S. Manjunath,
learned Counsel for the second batch of petitioners and Sri
S.B. Mukannappa, learned Counsel for the third batch of
petitioners, indisputedly on the merger of the various Local
Bodies referred to supra into the larger Urban Local Body to
constitute the BBMP under the 'Act', involves integration of
the said Local Bodies into the BBMP.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct in their
submission that consequence of merger and the effect of
absorption requires to be regulated in terms of Section 501
and 501(1) of the Act. The statue admittedly does not
provide for the principles governing absorption of the
employees on integration and merger. It is needless to
state that the BBMP is required to adhere to the well
established principles laid down by the Apex Court in the
State of Maharashtra VS Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni
reported in 1981 (4) SCC 130 and as extracted in
S.P.
Shivaprasad Pipal Vs. Union of India & others
at para 5,
which is reads thus:

"However, when different cadres are merged
certain principles have to be borne in mind. These
principles were enunciated in the case of
State of
Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni (SCR
at
P. 678) while considering the question of integration
of government servants allotted to the services of
the new States when the different States of India
were reorganized. This court oted with approval the
principles which had been formulated for effecting
integration of services of different States. These
principles are; In the matter equation of posts, (1)
where there were regularly constituted similar cadres
in the different integrating units the cadres will
ordinarily be integrated on the basis but (2) where
there no such similar cadres, the following factors
will be taken into consideration in determining the
equation of posts:
(a) Nature and duties of a post;

(b) Powers exercised by the officers holding a
post, the extent of territorial or other
charge held or responsibilities discharged;

(c) The minimum qualification, if any prescribed
for recruitment to the post and;

(d) The salary of the post.

This Court further observed that it is not open to
the court to consider whether the equation of posts
made by the Central Government is right or wrong.
This was a matter exclusively within the province of
the Central Government. perhaps the only question
the court can enquire into is whether the four
principles cited above had been properly taken into
account. This is the narrow and limited field within
which the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court can
operate."

13. Learned Counsel are further correct in their submission
that the committee constituted to carry out the absorption
considered only one principle i.e., the salary of the post
and did not consider three other principles referred to
supra, as is animated in the proceedings of the meeting
dated 08.09.2008; and 30.01.2009, and 31.01.2009. Thus
the said decisions cannot but be said to be inconsistent
with the principles
laid down by
the Apex Court. Sri B. V.
Muralidhar, and Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned Counsel for
the respondent- BBMP would not seriously contest the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. That
the decision making authority did not take into
consideration all the four principles
laid down in
the case of
State of Maharashtra, in the matter of integration and
absorption of employees, cannot be disputed.

14. Thus, the promotions effected in respect of employees
requires reconsideration after completion of the process of
absorption and integration, and during the interregnum the
order dated 10.05.2010 promoting petitioners in W.P.Nos.
1352-53 of 2010 and others are directed not to be
disturbed.

15. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part. The
proceedings of the meeting dated 08.09.2008 and
30.01.2009 Annexures C and D in Writ petition Nos. 12244-
46 of 2010 and the proceeding dated 31.10.2009 Annexure
F in writ petition Nos.1352-53/2010 are quashed. The first
respondent- State is directed to commence the process of
absorption and integration of the employees of the CMC,
and other local bodies referred to in the notification supra,
into BBMP by following all the four principles enunciated by
the Apex Court in
State of Maharashtra
case extracted
supra. In the light of the fact that the absorption is of the
year 2007 and three years have gone by there is no reason
to prolong the matter any further and hence the State is
directed to should conclude the proceedings within six
months."
18. Perusal of the aforementioned order would indicate that, this

Court has directed the State Government to complete the process

of absorption and integration of the employees of erstwhile City

Municipal Council, now inducted into Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASTRA vs.

CHANDRAKANT ANANT KULKARNI reported in (1981) 4 SCC

130 and complete the entire process within six months.

Reference No.20 in the Notification dated 10.01.2011 refers to the

aforementioned judgment. At this juncture, it is relevant to

extract, Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority)

Rules, 1957 provides as follows:

6. The transfer of a person in public interest from one class
or grade of a service to another class or grade carrying the
same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first
appointment to the later for purposes of seniority; and the
seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined
with reference to his first appointment to the class or grade
from which he was transferred;

Provided that, where the transfer is made at the request of
the officer, he shall be placed in the seniority list of the
class or grade of service to which he is transferred below all
the officers borne on that class or grade of service on or
before the date of the transfer.

[Provided further, that the seniority of a person transferred
in public interest vis a vis the persons actually holding the
post in the Class or Grade to which he is transferred shall
be determined on the date of such transfer with reference
to his first appointment to the class or grade from which
he was transferred.]

Explanation.- For the purpose of the above proviso, the
persons actually holding the post do not include the
persons who have before the date of such transfer been
promoted, whether in an officiating or substantive capacity
to a higher class or grade.

19. Applying the Rule 6 of aforementioned Rules, 1957 to the

case on hand would make pave for absorption in the public

interest and the date of seniority of such employees would be

count from the date of absorption as per Notification dated

28.10.2005. The respondent-BBMP in its proceedings dated

19.03.2011, reiterates the conditions of service of the petitioners

herein as follows:

"¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ 7 £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ ««zsÀ ªÀÈAzÀUÀ¼À
SÁAiÀÄA ¥ËgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è «°Ã£ÀUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä
¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ LaÑPÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ªÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj SÁAiÀÄA ¥ËgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ £ËPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À
¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ »vÀzÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ WÀ£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
DzÉÃ±ÀzÀAvÉ, §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄºÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16-
01-2007 jAzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ, «°Ã£ÀUÉÆ½¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è
¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀzÁ¥ÀðuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀPÉÌ
¸ÀÆPÀÛ/ CºÀð ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ¸ÉÃªÁ »jvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ, ¸ÀzÀj SÁAiÀÄA ¥ËgÀ¸ÉÃªÁ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀzÁ¥ÀðuÉ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ/ CºÀð ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃªÁ
»jvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, ¸ÉÃªÁ eÉÃµÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è
wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."

(Emphasis supplied)

20. The aforementioned proceedings dated 19.03.2011 was

concluded with the decision, taken by the elite personnel of the

respondent-BBMP, namely, Special Commissioner, Deputy

Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Head of the Legal Cell,

Chief Accounts Officer and Assistant Commissioner (Admin-1). It

is also not disputed that the respondent-BBMP, by office order

dated 26.04.2012, notified a Provisional Seniority List in the cadre

of First Division Assistant/Second Division Assistant, integrating

the cadre of petitioners as well as the private respondents herein.

In the said office order dated 26.04.2012, the date of entry into

service of the petitioners was shown as 28.10.2005 and that of

the private respondents as 13.01.2006 and subsequent dates. The
said Notification is issued at the hands of the Commissioner,

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Thereafter, the respondent-

BBMP has issued one more office order dated 18.06.2012,

wherein, in unequivocal terms, it is stated that the seniority of the

employees under SJSRY scheme, absorbed as per Notification

dated 28.10.2005 shall be merged into respective equivalent

cadre of BBMP and their seniority shall be countered from the date

of their entry as per absorption made, by Notification dated

28.10.2005. Thereafter, the respondent-BBMP has issued Final

Seniority List in the cadre of First Division Assistant, after

considering the objections filed to the Provisional Seniority List,

which was notified on 24.06.2012 and in the said Seniority List,

the rank of the private respondents was placed below the

petitioners herein. The said aspect has been approved and

decision was taken by the respondent-BBMP as per office order

dated 18.06.2012. It is also not disputed by the parties that, the

Seniority List dated, 28.12.2013 issued by the respondent-BBMP,

settling the Seniority of the integrated list of petitioners and

private respondents. However, having done so, the respondent-

BBMP sought for clarification with the Director of Municipal
Administration as per letter dated 08.08.2014 with regard to

consideration of merger of the posts on pay scale and protection

of seniority of the petitioners in terms of statutory rules. In this

regard, the respondent-Government in this categorical way

conveyed to the respondent-BBMP that, the pay scale is not a

criterion to fix the seniority and therefore, directed the

respondent-BBMP to conform to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil

Services (Seniority Rules) 1957. It is suffice to say that, the

Government in its letter dated 27.03.2015, addressed to the

Commissioner, BBMP, to follow the Government order dated

10.01.2011, insofar as equivalent of posts and preparation of the

Seniority List. the relevant portion of the letter dated 27.03.2015,

reads as under:

"(5) ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw
¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ E£ÀÆß ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝ, PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw
¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CAwªÀÄUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀiÁªÀPÁ±À ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ, PÀgÀqÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹gÀÄªÀ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À JzÀÄj£À°è FUÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀl£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀlPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À E®èzÉÃ
EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.01.2011 gÀ ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è «¢ü¹gÀÄªÀ
µÀgÀwÛ£ÀAvÉAiÉÄÃ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝÃ£É."
21. Despite these directions have been issued by the State

Government, the respondent-BBMP has issued the Provisional List,

dated 16.07.2015, without considering the said direction and

opinion of the Government vide letter dated 27.03.2015. Be that

as it may be, the respondent-BBMP without following the direction

issued by the State Government, behaved like a extraordinary

entity, in not conforming to the Rule 6 of Karnataka State Civil

Service (Seniority) Rules, 1957, issued office order dated

09.09.2015, which is contrary to Government order dated

10.01.2011, and further, such act is in contravention of their own

proceedings dated 19.03.2011, 18.06.2012 and 26.12.2013 as

well as the noting of the respondent-Government dated

20.02.2015, and letter dated 27.03.2015, wherein, as mentioned

above, the Government has directed the respondent-BBMP to

conform to the conditions stipulated in the Government order

dated 10.01.2011. This act of the respondent-BBMP, is a clear

violation of, not only its own orders but also the Government

orders mentioned above. It is also made clear that, the said order

dated 09.09.2015, fixing the seniority, placing the private
respondents herein above the petitioners herein, is contrary to the

judgment of this Court in
G.Gopalaiah
's case supra.

22. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the

Division Bench in the case of Ramesh Rangashamaiah (supra)

and paragraphs 49 and 51 of the said judgment reads as under:

"49. What emerges from the aforesaid judgments is, it is
well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay
scales is the primary function of the executive and not the
judiciary. Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the
sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of
two posts many factors other than pay will have to be
taken into consideration, like the nature of duties,
responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. Treating certain
posts as equated posts or equal status posts, it is not
necessary that the holders of these posts must perform
completely the same functions or that the sources of
recruitment to the posts must be the same nor is it
essential that qualifications for appointments to the posts
must be identical. All that is reasonably required is that
there must not be such difference in the pay-scales or
qualifications of the incumbents of the posts concerned or
in their duties or responsibilities or regarding any other
relevant factor that it would be unjust to treat the posts
alike. In other words, that posts having substantially higher
pay-scales or status in service or carrying substantially
higher responsibilities and duties or otherwise distinctly
superior are not equated with posts carrying much lower
pay-scales or substantially lower responsibilities and duties
or enjoying much lower status in service. Broadly stated,
four factors have to be taken into consideration while
determining the equation of two posts. They are:

(i) the nature and duties of a post,

(ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer
holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge
held or responsibilities discharged;

(iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for
recruitment to the post; and

(iv) the salary of the post.

51. Once the declaration of equivalence is made on a
proper application of mind to the nature and responsibilities
of the functions and duties attached to the post, then scope
of interference in such a declaration is very much limited.
The Court would be slow to interfere with the declaration of
equivalence made by the Government. The Government
would ordinarily be the best judge to evaluate and compare
the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties
attached to different posts with a view to determining
whether or not they are equivalent in status and
responsibility. Therefore, ordinarily Courts do not enter
upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to
expert bodies as several factors have to be kept in view
while evolving a pay structure. Being a complex matter, the
Court will interfere only if there is cogent material on
record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has
crept in such an exercise and Court's interference is
absolutely necessary to undo the injustice being caused. It
is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a Court of
appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in
administration, and the Court must respect this, and should
not interfere readily with administrative decisions. When
the Government has declared equivalence after proper
application of mind to the relevant factors, then Court
would be most reluctant to venture into the uncharted and
unfamiliar field of administration and examine the
correctness of the declaration of equivalence made by the
Government where it appears to the Court that the
declaration of equivalence is made without application of
mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and
duties attached to the non-cadre post or extraneous or
irrelevant factors are taken into account in determining the
equivalence or the nature and responsibilities of the
functions and duties of the two posts are so dissimilar that
no reasonable man can possibly say that they are
equivalent in status and responsibility or the declaration of
equivalence is mala fide or is colourable exercise of power,
the Court can and certainly would set at naught the
declaration of equivalence and afford protection to the civil
servant."
23. I am also fortified by the declaration of law made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO

AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
reported in

(2015) 6 SCC 727. Paragraphs 31 to 40 of
the said judgment

reads as under:

"31. We shall now venture to deal with another aspect of
the matter, emerging out of the impugned order passed by
the High Court. The conclusions drawn by the High Court,
as have been recorded in para 46 of the impugned
judgment and order dated 13-4-2007 emerged out of a
consideration which was noticed in paras 38 to 45. Paras
38 and 43 to 46 of the impugned judgment and order, have
already been extracted hereinabove. A perusal of the above
consideration reveals, that the High Court was swayed by
the co-incidental prejudice suffered by the erstwhile
members of the Ministerial Cadre, resulting in lost chances
of promotion. The aforesaid consideration could have been
justified only if chances of promotion are treated as
conditions of service. Insofar as the instant aspect of the
matter is concerned, this Court has repeatedly examined
the issue whether chances of promotion constitute
conditions of service. In this behalf, reference may be
made to a few judgments rendered by this Court.

32. First of all, we may advert to the decision rendered by
this Court in
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant
Kulkarni
, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as
under : (SCC pp. 141-42, para 16)

"16.Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of
service and the fact that there was reduction in the
chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in
the conditions of service. A right to be considered for
promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of
promotion are not. Under the Departmental Examination
Rules for STOs, 1954, framed by the former State
Government of Madhya Pradesh, as amended on 20-1-
1960, mere passing of the departmental examination
conferred no right on the STIs of Bombay, to promotion.
By passing the examination, they merely became
eligible for promotion. They had to be brought on to a
select list not merely on the length of service, but on
the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle. It was,
therefore, nothing but a mere chance of promotion. In
consequence of the impugned orders of reversion, all
that happened is that some of the STIs, who had
wrongly been promoted as STOs Grade III had to be
reverted and thereby lost a few places. In contrast, the
conditions of service of ASTOs from Madhya Pradesh
and Hyderabad, at least so far as one stage of
promotion above the one held by them before the
reorganisation of States, could not be altered without
the previous sanction of the Central Government as
laid
down in
the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115 of
the Act."
33. Reference may also be made to the decision of this
Court in
Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India
wherein a
three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under : (
SCC pp.
552 & 554, paras 12 & 15)

"12.In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar [Ramchandra
Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra
, the
petitioners and other allocated Tahsildars from ex-
Hyderabad State had under the notification of the Raj
Pramukh dated 15-9-1955 all the vacancies in the posts
of Deputy Collector in the ex-Hyderabad State available
to them for promotion but under subsequent rules of
30-7-1959, 50 per cent of the vacancies were to be
filled by direct recruitment and only the remaining 50
per cent were available for promotion and that too on
divisional basis. The effect of this change obviously was
that now only 50 per cent vacancies in the post of
Deputy Collector being available in place of all the
vacancies it was to take almost double the time for
many other allocated Tehsildars to get promoted as
Deputy Collectors. In other words it resulted in delayed
chance of promotion. It was, inter alia, urged on behalf
of the petitioners that the situation brought about by
the rules of 30-7-1959 constituted variation to their
prejudice in the conditions of service applicable to them
immediately prior to the reorganisation of the State and
the rules were consequently invalid. While repelling this
submission the Constitution Bench held : (SCC p. 329,
para 15)
'15. ... All that happened as a result of making
promotions to the posts of Deputy Collectors
divisionwise and limiting such promotions to 50 per cent
of the total number of vacancies in the posts of Deputy
Collector was to reduce the chances of promotion
available to the petitioners.

It is now well settled by the
decision of this Court in
State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit

that though a right to be considered for promotion is a
condition of service, mere chances of promotion are not.
A rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot
be regarded as varying a condition of service.

In
Purohit

case, the districtwise seniority of sanitary inspectors
was changed to Statewise seniority, and as a result of
this change the respondents went down in seniority and
became very junior. This, it was urged, affected their
chances of promotion which were protected under the
proviso to Section 115, sub-section (7). This contention
was negatived and Wanchoo, J., (as he then was),
speaking on behalf of this Court observed:"It is said on
behalf of the respondents that as their chances of
promotion have been affected their conditions of service
have been changed to their disadvantage. We see no
force in this argument because chances of promotion
are not conditions of service." It is, therefore, clear that
neither the Rules of 30-7-1959, nor the procedure for
making promotions to the posts of Deputy Collector
divisionwise varies the conditions of service of the
petitioners to their disadvantage.'
***

15. It cannot be disputed that the Director General of
Ordnance Factories who had issued the Circular dated 6-
11-1962 had the power to issue the subsequent Circular
dated 20-1-1966 also. In view of the legal position
pointed out above the aforesaid circular could not be
treated to be one affecting adversely any condition of
service of the Supervisors 'A'. Its only effect was that
the chance of promotion which had been accelerated by
the Circular dated 6-11-1962 was deferred and made
dependent on selection according to the Rules.
Apparently, after the coming into force of the order
dated 28-12-1965 and the Circular dated 20-1-1966
promotions could not be made just on completion of two
years' satisfactory service under the earlier Circular
dated 6-11-1962 the same having been superseded by
the later circular. It is further obvious that in this view
of the matter Supervisors 'A' who had been promoted
before the coming into force of the order dated 28-12-
1965 and the Circular dated 20-1-1966 stood in a class
separate from those whose promotions were to be made
thereafter. The fact that some Supervisors 'A' had been
promoted before the coming into force of the order
dated 28-12-1965 and the Circular dated 20-1-1966
could not, therefore, constitute the basis for an
argument that those Supervisors 'A' whose cases came
up for consideration for promotion thereafter and who
were promoted in due course in accordance with the
rules were discriminated against. They apparently did
not fall in the same category."

34. This Court had also declared the position of law, on the
above aspect of the matter, in
Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of
India
, wherein a three-Judge Bench observed as under :

(SCC pp. 601-03, paras 30-31)

30. "The next question is whether the seniority is a
condition of service or a part of rules of recruitment?
In

State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh
, this Court held that the
term 'conditions of service' means all those conditions
which regulate the holding of a post by a person right
from the time of his appointment to his retirement and
even beyond, in matters like pensions, etc.

In
I.N.
Subba Reddy v. Andhra University
, the same view was
reiterated.

In
Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India
a
Constitution Bench held that the rule which confers a
right to actual promotion or a right to be considered for
promotion is a rule prescribing a condition of the
service.
In Mohd. Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy another
Constitution Bench held that any rule which affects the
promotion of a person relates to his condition of service.

In
State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit
, this Court held that a
rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot
be regarded as varying a condition of service. Chances
of promotion are not conditions of service.
The same
view was reiterated in another Constitution Bench
judgment in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of
Maharashtra [Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of
Maharashtra. No doubt conditions of service may be
classified as salary, confirmation, promotion, seniority,
tenure or termination of service, etc.
as held in
State of
Punjab v. Kailash Nath
by a Bench of two Judges but the
context in which the law therein was laid must be noted.
The question therein was whether non-prosecution for a
grave offence after expiry of four years is a condition of
service? While negativing the contention that non-
prosecution after expiry of 4 years is not a condition of
service, this Court elaborated the subject and the above
view was taken. The ratio therein does not have any
bearing on the point in issue. Perhaps the question may
bear relevance, if an employee was initially recruited
into the service according to the rules and promotion
was regulated in the same rules to higher echelons of
service. In that arena promotion may be considered to
be a condition of service.

In
A.K. Bhatnagar v. Union of
India
, this Court held that seniority is an incidence of
service and where the service rules prescribe the
method of its computation it is squarely governed by
such rules. In their absence ordinarily the length of
service is taken into account. In that case the direct
recruits were made senior to the recruits by
regularisation although the appellants were appointed
earlier in point of time and uninterruptedly remained in
service as temporary appointees along with the
appellants but later on when recruited by direct
recruitment, they were held senior to the promotees.
31. No employee has a right to promotion but he has
only the right to be considered for promotion according
to the rules. Chances of promotion are not conditions of
service and are defeasible. Take an illustration that the
Promotion Regulations envisage maintaining integrity
and good record by Dy. S.P. of State Police Service as
eligibility condition for inclusion in the select list for
recruitment by promotion to Indian Police Service.
Inclusion and approval of the name in the select list by
the UPSC, after considering the objections if any by the
Central Government is also a condition precedent.
Suppose if 'B' is far junior to 'A' in State Services and 'B'
was found more meritorious and suitable and was put in
a select list of 1980 and accordingly 'B' was appointed
to the Indian Police Service after following the
procedure. 'A' was thereby superseded by 'B'. Two years
later 'A' was found fit and suitable in 1984 and was
accordingly appointed according to the Rules. Can 'A'
thereafter say that 'B' being far junior to him in State
service, 'A' should become senior to 'B' in the Indian
Police Service. The answer is obviously no because 'B'
had stolen a march over 'A' and became senior to 'A'.
Here maintaining integrity and good record are
conditions of recruitment and seniority is an incidence of
service. Take another illustration that the State service
provides--rule of reservation to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes. 'A' is a general candidate holding
No. 1 rank according to the roster as he was most
meritorious in the State service among general
candidates. 'B' Scheduled Caste candidate holds No. 3
point in the roster and 'C', Scheduled Tribe holds No. 5
in the roster. Suppose the Indian Police Service
Recruitment Rules also provide reservation to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as well. By
operation of the equality of opportunity by
Articles 14
,
16(1)
, 16(4)
and
, 'B' and 'C' were recruited by
promotion from State Services to Central Services and
were appointed earlier to 'A' in 1980. 'A' thereafter in
the next year was found suitable as a general candidate
and was appointed to the Indian Police Service. Can 'A'
thereafter contend that since 'B' and 'C' were appointed
by virtue of reservation, though were less meritorious
and junior to him in the State service and gradation list
would not become senior to him in the cadre as IPS
officer. Undoubtedly 'B' and 'C', by rule of reservation,
had stolen a march over 'A' from the State Service. By
operation of rule of reservation 'B' and 'C' became
senior and 'A' became junior in the Central Services.
Reservation and roster were conditions of recruitment
and seniority was only an incidence of service. The
eligibility for recruitment to the Indian Police Service,
thus, is a condition of recruitment and not a condition of
service. Accordingly we hold that seniority, though,
normally an incidence of service, Seniority Rules,
Recruitment Rules and Promotion Regulations form part
of the conditions of recruitment to the Indian Police
Service by promotion, which should be strictly complied
with before becoming eligible for consideration for
promotion and are not relaxable."

35. More recent in time, is the judgment rendered by
another three-Judge Division Bench in
S.S. Bola v. B.D.
Sardana
. The majority opinion in the above judgment was
rendered by K. Ramaswamy, J. In the process of
consideration, he observed as under : (SCC p. 622, para

145)

"145.It is true that the Rules made under the proviso to

Article 309
of the Constitution can be issued by
amending or altering the Rules with retrospectivity as
consistently held by this Court in a catena of decisions,
viz.
B.S. Vadera v. Union of India
,
Raj Kumar v. Union
of India
,
K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P.
,
T.R. Kapur v. State
of Haryana
and a host of other decisions. But the
question is whether the Rules can be amended taking
away the vested right.

As regards the right to seniority,
this Court elaborately considered the incidence of the
right to seniority and amendment of the Act in the latest
decision in
Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.
relieving
the need to reiterate all of them once over. Suffice it to
state that it is settled law that a distinction between
right and interest has always been maintained. Seniority
is a facet of interest. The Rules prescribe the method of
selection/recruitment. Seniority is governed by the
existing rules and is required to be worked out
accordingly. No one has a vested right to promotion or
seniority but an officer has an interest to seniority
acquired by working out the Rules. It would be taken
away only by operation of valid law. Right to be
considered for promotion is a rule prescribed by
conditions of service. A rule which affects the promotion
of a person relates to conditions of service. The rule
merely affecting the chances of promotion cannot be
regarded as varying the conditions of service. Chances
of promotion are not conditions of service. A rule which
merely affects the chances of promotion does not
amount to change in the conditions of service."

36. Consequent upon the above detailed consideration, K.
Ramaswamy, J. recorded his conclusion in para 153. On the
issue in hand, sub-para AB of para 153 is relevant and is
being extracted hereunder : (
S.S. Bola
case, SCC p. 634)

"AB. A distinction between right to be considered for
promotion and an interest to be considered for
promotion has always been maintained. Seniority is a
facet of interest. The rules prescribe the method of
recruitment/selection. Seniority is governed by the rules
existing as on the date of consideration for promotion.
Seniority is required to be worked out according to the
existing rules. No one has a vested right to promotion or
seniority. But an officer has an interest to seniority
acquired by working out the rules. The seniority should
be taken away only by operation of valid law. Right to
be considered for promotion is a rule prescribed by
conditions of service. A rule which affects chances of
promotion of a person relates to conditions of service.
The rule/provision in an Act merely affecting the
chances of promotion would not be regarded as varying
the conditions of service. The chances of promotion are
not conditions of service. A rule which merely affects
the chances of promotion does not amount to change in
the conditions of service. However, once a declaration of
law, on the basis of existing rules, is made by a
constitutional court and a mandamus is issued or
direction given for its enforcement by preparing the
seniority list, operation of the declaration of law and the
mandamus and directions issued by the Court is the
result of the declaration of law but not the operation of
the rules per se."

37. S. Saghir Ahmad, J. concurred with the view expressed
by K. Ramaswamy, J. A dissenting view was recorded by
G.B. Pattanaik, J. On the subject in hand, however, there
was no dissent. The conclusions recorded by G.B.
Pattanaik, J. were to the following effect : (
S.S. Bola
case,
SCC pp. 665-66 & 675-77, paras 199-202 & 212)

"199.To the said effect the judgment of this Court in

State of Punjab v. Kishan Das
wherein this Court
observed an order forfeiting the past service which has
earned a government servant increments in the post or
rank he holds, howsoever adverse it is to him, affecting
his seniority within the rank to which he belongs or his
future chances of promotion, does not attract
Article
311(2)
of the Constitution since it is not covered by the
expression reduction in rank.

200. Thus to have a particular position in the
seniority list within a cadre can neither be said to be
accrued or vested right of a government servant and
losing some places in the seniority list within the cadre
does not amount to reduction in rank even though the
future chances of promotion get delayed thereby. It was
urged by Mr Sachar and Mr Mahabir Singh appearing for
the direct recruits that the effect of redetermination of
the seniority in accordance with the provisions of the
Act is not only that the direct recruits lose a few places
of seniority in the rank of Executive Engineer but their
future chances of promotion are greatly jeopardised and
that right having been taken away the Act must be held
to be invalid. It is difficult to accept this contention since
chances of promotion of a government servant are not a
condition of service.
In
State of Maharashtra v.
Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni
, this Court held : (SCC p.
141, para 16)

'16. Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of
service and the fact that there was reduction in the
chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in
the conditions of service. A right to be considered for
promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of
promotion are not.'
201. To the said effect is a judgment of this Court in

K. Jagadeesan v. Union of India
wherein this Court held
: (SCC pp. 230-31, para 7)

'7. ... The only effect is that his chances of promotion
or his right to be considered for promotion to the higher
post is adversely affected. This cannot be regarded as
retrospective effect being given to the amendment of
the rules carried out by the impugned notification and
the challenge to the said notification on that ground
must fail.'

202. Again in
Union of India v. S.L. Dutta
this Court
held : (SCC p. 512, para 17)

'17. ... In our opinion, what was affected by the
change of policy were merely the chances of promotion
of the Air Vice-Marshals in the Navigation Stream. As far
as the posts of Air Marshals open to the Air Vice-
Marshals in the said stream were concerned, their right
or eligibility to be considered for promotion still
remained and hence, there was no change in their
conditions of service.'

***

212. So far as the rules dealing with Irrigation
Branch are concerned, the said rules, namely, the
Punjab Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Class I
Service Rules, 1964 have not been considered earlier by
this Court at any point of time. One Shri M.L. Gupta was
appointed to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer as
a direct recruit on 27-8-1971, pursuant to the result of
a competitive examination held by the Haryana Public
Service Commission in December 1970. The said Shri
Gupta was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer
on 17-9-1976. He made a representation to the State
Government to fix up his seniority in accordance with
the service rules but as the said representation was not
disposed of for more than three years he approached
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing CWP No.
4335 of 1984. That petition was disposed of by the High
Court on the undertaking given by the State that the
seniority will be fixed up soon. The said undertaking not
having been complied with, the said Shri Gupta
approached the High Court in January 1986 by filing a
contempt petition. In September 1986 the State
Government fixed the inter se seniority of the said Shri
Gupta and other members of the Service and Gupta was
shown at Serial No. 72. Two promotees had been shown
at Serial Nos. 74 and 75. Those two promotees filed a
writ petition challenging the fixation of inter se seniority
between the direct recruits and promotees and the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana by its judgment passed in
May 1987 quashed the order dated 29-9-1986
whereunder the seniority of the direct recruits and
promotees has been fixed and called upon the State
Government to pass a speaking order assigning position
in the gradation list. The State Government issued a
fresh Notification on 24-7-1987 giving detailed reasons
reaffirming the earlier seniority which had been notified
on 29-9-1986. Prior to the aforesaid notification of the
State Government Shri Gupta had filed a writ petition in
the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had been
registered as CWP No. 6012 of 1986 claiming his
seniority at No. 22 instead of 72 which had been given
to him under the Notification dated 29-9-1986. The
promotees also filed a writ petition challenging the
Government Order dated 24-7-1987 which was
registered as CWP No. 5780 of 1987. Both the writ
petitions, one filed by the direct recruit, Shri Gupta
(CWP No. 6012 of 1986), and the other filed by the
promotees (CWP No. 5780 of 1987) were disposed of by
the learned Single Judge by judgments dated 24-1-1992
and 4-3-1992, respectively, whereunder the learned
Single Judge accepted the stand of the promotees and
Shri Gupta was placed below one Shri O.P. Gagneja.
The said Shri Gupta filed two appeals to the Division
Bench against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge, which was registered as Letters Patent Appeals
Nos. 367 and 411 of 1992. The aforesaid letters patent
appeals were allowed by judgment dated 27-8-1992.

This judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court was challenged by the State of
Haryana in the Supreme Court which has been
registered as CAs Nos. 1448-49 of 1993. This Court
granted leave and stayed the operation of the judgment
in the matter of fixation of seniority. The promotees also
challenged
the said judgment
of the Division Bench in
this Court which has been registered as CAs Nos. 1452-
53 of 1993. During the pendency of these appeals in
this Court, an Ordinance was promulgated on 13-5-
1985 as Ordinance 6 of 1995 and the said Ordinance
was replaced by the impugned Act 20 of 1995 by the
Haryana Legislature. The validity of the Act was
challenged by the said Shri Gupta and pursuant to the
order of this Court the said writ petition having been
transferred to this Court has been registered as TC No.
40 of 1996. So far as the validity of the Act is
concerned, the question of any usurpation of judicial
power by the legislature does not arise in relation to the
Irrigation Branch inasmuch as the Recruitment Rules of
1964 framed by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of
power under proviso to
Article 309
of the Constitution
which has been adapted by the State of Haryana on and
from the date Haryana was made a separate State had
not been considered by this Court nor has any direction
been issued by this Court. The legislative competence of
the State Legislature to enact the Act had also not been
assailed and in our view rightly since the State
Legislature has the powers under Schedule VII List II
Entry 41 to frame law governing the conditions of
service of the employees of the State Government. That
apart
Article 309
itself stipulates that the appropriate
legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions
of service of persons appointed to public services and
posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of
any State subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
Proviso to
Article 309
confers power on the President in
connection with the affairs of the Union and on the
Governor in connection with the affairs of the State to
make rules regulating the recruitment and the
conditions of service until provision in that behalf is
made by or under an Act of the appropriate legislature
under
Article 309
main part. In this view of the matter,
the legislative competence of the State Legislature to
enact the legislation in question is beyond doubt. The
only question which, therefore, arises for consideration
and which is contended in assailing the validity of the
Act is that under the Act the direct recruits would lose
several positions in the gradation list and thereby their
accrued and vested rights would get jeopardised and
their future chances of promotion also would be
seriously hampered and such violation tantamounts to
violation of rights under Part III of the Constitution. For
the reasons already given while dealing with the
aforesaid contention in connection with the Public Health
Branch and the Buildings and Roads Branch the
contention raised in the transfer case cannot be
sustained and, therefore, the transfer case would stand
dismissed. The Act in question dealing with the service
conditions of the engineers belonging to the Irrigation
Branch must be held to be a valid piece of legislation
passed by the competent legislature and by giving it
retrospective effect no constitutional provision has been
violated nor has any right of the employee under Part
III of the Constitution been infringed requiring
interference by this Court."

38. Finally, reference may be made to a decision rendered
by this Court in
Union of India v. Col
. G.S. Grewal wherein
this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 315, para 28)

"28.As pointed out above, the Tribunal has partly
allowed the OA of the respondent primarily on the
ground that the decision contained in the Government
Order dated 23-4-2010 amends the promotion policy
retrospectively thereby taking away the rights already
accrued to the respondent in terms of the earlier policy.

It is also mentioned that the revised policy
fundamentally changes the applicant's prospects of
promotion. What is ignored is that the promotions
already granted to the respondent have not been taken
away. Insofar as future chances of promotions are
concerned, no vested right accrues as chance of
promotion is not a condition of service. Therefore, in the
first instance, the Tribunal will have to spell out as to
what was the vested right which had already accrued to
the respondent and that is taken away by the Policy
decision dated 23-4-2010. In this process, other thing
which becomes relevant is to consider that once the
respondent is permanently seconded in DGQA and he is
allowed to remain there, can there be a change in his
service conditions vis-à-vis others who are his
counterparts in DGQA, but whose permanent
secondment is not in cloud? To put it otherwise, the sole
reason for issuing Government Policy dated 23-4-2010
was to take care of those cases where permanent
secondment to DGQA was wrongly given. As per the
appellants, since the respondent had suffered final
supersession, he was not entitled to be seconded
permanently to DGQA. This is disputed by the
respondent. That aspect will have to be decided first.
That apart, even if it be so, as contended by the
appellants, the appellants have not recalled the
permanent secondment order. They have allowed the
respondent to stay in DGQA maintaining his promotion
as Colonel as well, which was given pursuant to this
secondment. The question, in such circumstances, that
would arise is whether the respondent can be treated
differently even if he is allowed to remain in DGQA viz.
whether not allowing him to take further promotions,
which benefit is still available to others whose
permanent secondment is not in dispute, would amount
to discrimination or arbitrariness thereby offending

Articles 14
and
of the Constitution of India. In our
opinion, these, and other related issues, will have to be
argued and thrashed out for coming to a proper
conclusion."

39. It is apparent from a collective perusal of the
conclusions recorded in the judgments extracted in the
foregoing paragraphs, that chances of promotion do not
constitute a condition of service. In that view of the matter,
it is inevitable to hold that the High Court erred in
recording its eventual determination on the basis of the
fact that the promulgation of the 2003 TA Rules and the
2003 STA Rules was discriminatory and arbitrary with
regard to the fixation of the inter se seniority, since the
same seriously prejudiced the chances of promotion of the
erstwhile members of the Ministerial Cadre, namely, those
members of the original Ministerial Cadre, who had not
opted for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data
Entry Operators, with reference to and in comparison with,
those members of the original Ministerial Cadre who had
opted for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data
Entry Operators.

40. As a proposition of law it is imperative for us to record
that chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of
service, and as such, mere alteration of chances of
promotion, would not per se call for judicial interference.
The above general proposition would not be applicable in
case the chances of promotion are altered arbitrarily, or on
the basis of considerations which are shown to be perverse
or mala fide."

24. Nextly, in the case of P.U. JOSHI AND OTHERS VS.

ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AHAMADABAD AND OTHERS

reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at

paragraph 10 held as under:
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made
on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the
constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres,
categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of
qualifications and other conditions of service including
avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such
promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the
exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of
course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the
Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory
tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a
particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or
avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its
views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and
within the competency of the State to change the rules
relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by
addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria
and other conditions of service including avenues of
promotion, from time to time, as the administrative
exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by
appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or
bifurcate departments into more and constitute different
categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further
classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as
reconstitute and restructure the pattern and
cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time
to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating
new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the
State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service
should be forever the same as the one when he entered
service for all purposes and except for ensuring or
safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or
accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant
has no right to challenge the authority of the State to
amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even
an existing service."

25.
In the case of
RAMUAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL

PRADESH AND OTHERS
, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 285

paragraph 17 reads as under:

"17. Mr Shankar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondents 4 and 5 (Respondent 5 has since
died), submits that after the final seniority list was
approved by the Central Government, it had become final
and it cannot be challenged in 1982 after 11 years. Further,
it is submitted by him that the final seniority list has never
been challenged by the appellant and, accordingly, he
cannot be allowed to challenge the same by filing a writ
petition. It is true that the final seniority list was sent to
the Central Government and presumably it was approved,
but because a seniority list has been approved by the
Central Government, it cannot be laid down as a rule of law
that even though it has been illegally prepared in violation
of the directions of the Central Government itself to the
prejudice of the officer or officers concerned, it cannot be
challenged. Normally, when a seniority list has been made
final, it should not be allowed to be challenged. But when a
seniority list is prepared ignoring all just principles and also
the rules framed or directions given by appropriate
authority, seriously affecting any officer, it is always liable
to be examined and set aside by the court. We are,
therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned
counsel for Respondent 4 that the seniority list having been
made final after the approval of the Central Government
cannot be challenged by the appellant."

(Emphasis supplied)

26. It is well established principle in law that, while making

modification in the Seniority List, the authorities are required to

consider the Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority)

Rules, 1957. Had the respondent-BBMP followed the above Rule,

there would be no anomaly in the impugned list and such action

on the part of the respondent-BBMP is deprecated. Further, if the

persons, who were placed above, in the Seniority List and their

seniority is affected on account of objections filed by aggrieved

third parties to the Seniority List. It is the duty of the authority to

inform/issue notice or made known to such persons whose rank

will be affected by placing the persons who have filed objection to

the provisional list above the affected parties.
In this regard,
Punjab and Haryna High Court in the case of
SRI NIRANJAN

DASS SEHGAL VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

reported in 1968 SLR 183 held that, issuing of notice to officials

affected by Seniority and such parties were reverted in the final

Seniority List and as such, it is held that, issuing the show-cause

notice is mandatory before chaining the Seniority List.

This aspect

of the matter was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of
S.K.GHOSH AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 1968 SC 1385. Applying

aforementioned principle to the case on hand, the petitioners

herein were placed above the private respondents herein in the

earlier Seniority List and that Seniority List should not have been

altered or modified on the basis of any representation/objection

filed by the private respondents herein unless the petitioners

herein have been aware of the same, and had been afforded an

opportunity to show the cause against it. Determination of

petitioners' seniority at the instance of the private respondents,

without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein,

amounts to arbitrary act and violative of principles of natural

justice.
27. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by Sri

T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the employees of

respondent-BBMP relating to equivalence of posts. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of CHANDRAKANTH ANANATH

KULKARNI, (supra), held that, it is for the Government to take

decision insofar as equivalence of posts and it is not open to the

Court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the

Government is right or wrong and same is the within exclusive

domain of the Government. In the said case, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court at paragraphs 10 and 11 held as follows:

"10. The following principles had been formulated for
being observed as far as may be, in the integration of
government servants allotted to the services of the new
States:

"In the matter of equation of posts:

(i) Where there were regularly constituted similar
cadres in the different integrating units the cadres
will ordinarily be integrated on that basis; but

(ii) Where, however, there were no such
similar cadres the following factors will be
taken into consideration in determining the
equation of posts--

(a) nature and duties of a post;

(b) powers exercised by the officers holding a post,
the extent of territorial or other charge held or
responsibilities discharged;

(c) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed
for recruitment to the post, and

(d) the salary of the post."

It is well settled that these principles have a
statutory force.

11. There is a long line of decisions of this Court
starting from the
Union of India v. P.K. Roy
laying down
that the Central Government has been constituted to be
the final authority in the matter of integration of services
under sub-section (5) of Section 115 of the Act. The matter
of equation of posts is purely an administrative function. It
has been left entirely to the Central Government as to how
it has to deal with these questions. The Central
Government had established an Advisory Committee for the
purpose of assisting in the proper consideration of the
representations made to it. There is nothing in Sections
115 to 117 of the Act prohibiting the Central Government in
any way from taking the aid and assistance of the State
Government in the matter of effecting the integration of
services.

As observed by this Court in
Roy
case the usual
procedure followed by the Central Government in the
matter of integration of services generally, is in order. It is
not open to the court to consider whether the equation of
posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong.
This was a matter exclusively within the province of the
Central Government. Perhaps, the only question the court
can enquire into is whether the four principles agreed upon
at the Chief Secretaries Conference had been properly
taken into account. This is the narrow and limited field
within which the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court can
operate. But where, as here, in the matter of equation of
posts, the Central Government had properly taken into
account all the four principles decided upon at the Chief
Secretaries Conference, the decision cannot be assailed at
all. In the present case, notonly the Central Government
had laid down the principles for integration, but also
considered the representations and passed the final orders
and the provisional gradation lists were prepared and
published by the State Government under the direction and
with the sanction of the Central Government."

28. The said principle
laid down in
the case of

CHANDRAKANTH ANANT KULKARNI, (supra), was reiterated

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
S.P.SHIVAPRASAD

PIPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
reported in (1998)

4 SCC 598 and paragraph 19 of the same, reads as under:
"19. However, it is possible that by reason of such a
merger, the chance of promotion of some of the employees
may be adversely affected, or some others may benefit in
consequence. But this cannot be a ground for setting aside
the merger which is essentially a policy decision. This Court
in
Union of India v. S.L. Dutta
examined this contention.

In

S.L. Dutta
case a change in the promotional policy was
challenged on the ground that as a result, service
conditions of the respondent were adversely affected since
his chances of promotion were reduced.

Relying upon the
decision in the
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant
Kulkarni
this Court held that a mere chance of promotion
was not a condition of service and the fact that there was a
reduction in the chance of promotion would not amount to
a change in the conditions of service."

29. It is also well established principle in law that, classification

on the basis of birth mark, of an employee is impermissible under

law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
UNION OF INDIA

AND OTHERS VS. ATHUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS
reported in

(2014) 10 SCC 432 held that, the classification of group captains

(Select) and group captains (Time Scale) in two groups for the

purposes of prescribing different retirement ages in the facts of

the said case, held to be contrary to
Article 14
and
of

Constitution of India.
In the case of RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL
SONI (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the

length of service determines the seniority. Paragraph 51 of the

said judgment reads as under:

"51. Now, in 1978 before the
Amending Act
was passed,
thanks to the provisions of the principal Act of 1961, the
ex-municipal employees who had been allocated to the
panchayat service as Secretaries, Officers and servants of
Gram and Nagar Panchayats, had achieved the status of
government servants. Their status as government servants
could not be extinguished, so long as the posts were not
abolished and their services were not terminated in
accordance with the provisions of
Article 311
of the
Constitution. Nor was it permissible to single them out for
differential treatment. That would offend
Article 14
of the
Constitution. An attempt was made to justify the purported
differentiation on the basis of history and ancestry, as it
were. It was said that Talatis and Kotwals who became
Secretaries, Officers and servants of Gram and Nagar
Panchayats were government servants, even to start with,
while municipal employees who became such Secretaries,
Officers and servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats were
not. Each carried the mark or the "brand" of his origin and
a classification on the basis of the source from which they
came into the service, it was claimed, was permissible. We
are clear that it is not. Once they had joined the common
stream of service to perform the same duties, it is clearly
not permissible to make any classification on the basis of
their origin. Such a classification would be unreasonable
and entirely irrelevant to the object sought to be achieved.
It is to navigate around these two obstacles of
Article 311

and
Article 14
that the
Amending Act
is sought to be made
retrospective, to bring about an artificial situation as if the
erstwhile municipal employees never became members of a
service under the State. Can a law be made to destroy
today's accrued constitutional rights by artificially reverting
to a situation which existed 17 years ago? No."

30.
In the case of
RAMASWAMY G.T
(supra), this Court at

paragraphs 22 to 26 and 40 held as follows:

"22. Sri Narasimhamurthy has urged that on the very
terms of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Government Seniority
Rules, 1957 (Seniority Rules) in the preparation of a fresh
seniority list for every year, presupposes that all seniority
lists prepared earlier stand superseded and Government
was bound to prepare the same only in conformity with the
law declared by Courts as on that day only.

23. Rule 10 of the Seniority Rules on which strong reliance
has been placed by Sri Narasimhamurthy to sustain his
wide proposition reads thus:

"10(1) There shall be prepared every year for each
cadre of service or class of posts a seniority list
consisting of the names of all officers borne on the said
cadre or class of posts arranged in order of seniority in
accordance with the provisions of these rules.

(2) The seniority list under sub-rule (1) shall be
prepared by:--

(a) The Government for Gazetted cadres of service
or classes of posts;

(b) The Head of the department concerned for non-

gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts;

"Provided that the Government may also prepare the
seniority list for non-Gazetted cadres of any service or class
of posts".

This rule directs the preparation of seniority lists in
every cadre of every department of Government by the
designated authority every year. In case of gazetted
cadre/cadres, Government is the authority to prepare
seniority lists and in other cadres it is the head of
Departments. The object and intendment of this Rule is
only to have updated seniority lists in every cadre and
nothing more than that. The rule no where authorises and
empowers a review of all earlier promotions and re-
determination of all earlier rankings made in the earlier
seniority lists. In the process of updating seniority lists, it is
even inconceivable to hold that earlier seniority lists which
have become final should also be reviewed and a fresh
determination made. The rule on its terms does not support
the very wide construction and proposition suggested on it.
We are of the view that the acceptance of any such view
would only lead to disastrous results. We find no merit in
this contention of Sri Narasimhamurthy and reject the
same.

23(a). As we have rejected the two preliminary objections
urged by the promotees, it is now necessary to examine
the merits which we now proceed to do.

24. Sriyuths Datar and Narayana Rao have urged that the
very last sentence or direction of Clause 4 of the Official
Memorandum dated 10-2-1984 providing for a review of
promotions in all cadres from the promulgation of the C & R
Rules or ignoring all earlier determinations and seniority
lists prepared from time to time was opposed to all well
settled principles of law which is also the very principle
enunciated in Kadali's case itself.

25. Sriyuths Chandrasekharaiah, learned Government
Advocate, appearing for State Government, Krishnamurthy
and Narasimhamurthy have urged that the sentence or the
direction in the Official Memorandum to which exception
was taken had been issued by Government as expounded
by this Court in Kadali's case.

26. The very last sentence or direction of Clause-4 of the
Official Memorandum to which exception is taken reads
thus:

"Except in the case of Karnataka Administrative service,
limiting the carry forward to three years should be enforced
with effect from the date on which the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules came into force".

40. What emerges from our above discussion is that the
1976 seniority list, whatever be its legality had become
final and can only be modified in terms of an order that
may be made by the Supreme Court or this Court in any
other case whether pending or filed hereafter. When once
we reach the conclusion that the 1976 list had reached
finality for whatever reason that may be, it necessarily
follows from the same that the rankings assigned in that
list cannot be tinkered with and all further preparations
must be on the basis of that list only. We are also of the
view that this conclusion flows from the ruling of the
Supreme Court in
S.K. Ghosh v. Union of India
(AIR 1968
Supreme Court 1385) and also from Kadali's case.

31. In RAGHAVA RAJAGOPALCHARI (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court at paragraph 17 held as follows:

"17. The learned counsel for the State sought to argue
before us that the date "16th March, 1954" occurring in the
order dated January 28, 1954, was mentioned due to a
mistake, and the proper date which should have been
mentioned was the date of superannuation, namely, June
30, 1953. He says that the order dated July 23, 1953,
continuing the services of the petitioner after the date of
superannuation was bad in view of the ruling of this Court
in
State of Assam v. Padma Ram Borah
. But we are unable
to appreciate how he is entitled to raise this point. The writ
was brought to challenge this order. No such petition, even
if it be competent, was filed by the State itself. The
respondent to a writ petition cannot be allowed to attack its
own order as a respondent."

32. In the case of SUB-INSPECTOR ROOPLAL (supra),

paragraphs 15, 16 and 23 held as follows:

"15. We will now take up the question whether the
appellants are entitled to count their service rendered by
them as Sub-Inspectors in BSF for the purpose of their
seniority after absorption as Sub-Inspectors (Executive) in
the Delhi Police or not. We have already noticed the fact
that it is pursuant to the needs of the Delhi Police that
these officials were deputed to the Delhi Police from BSF
following the procedure laid down in Rule 5(h) of the rules
and subsequently absorbed as contemplated under the said
rules. It is also not in dispute that at some point of time in
BSF, the appellants' services were regularised in the post of
Sub-Inspector and they were transferred as regularly
appointed Sub-Inspectors to the Delhi Police Force.
Therefore, on being absorbed in an equivalent cadre in the
transferred post, we find no reason why these transferred
officials should not be permitted to count their service in
the parent department. At any rate, this question is not res
integra and is squarely covered by the ratio of judgments
of this Court in more than one case. Since the earlier Bench
of the Tribunal relied upon Madhavan case to give relief to
the deputationists, we will first consider the law laid down
by this Court in Madhavan case. This Court in that case
while considering a similar question, came to the following
conclusion: (SCC p. 580, para 21)

"21. We may examine the question from a different
point of view. There is not much difference between
deputation and transfer. Indeed, when a deputationist is
permanently absorbed in the CBI, he is under the rules
appointed on transfer. In other words, deputation may
be regarded as a transfer from one government
department to another. It will be against all rules of
service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a
particular post is transferred to the same or an
equivalent post in another government department, the
period of his service in the post before his transfer is not
taken into consideration in computing his seniority in
the transferred post. The transfer cannot wipe out his
length of service in the post from which he has been
transferred. It has been observed by this Court that it is
a just and wholesome principle commonly applied where
persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a
new service that their pre-existing total length of
service in the parent department should be respected
and presented by taking the same into account in
determining their ranking in the new service cadre.
See

R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon
;
Wing Commander J. Kumar
v. Union of India
."

(emphasis supplied)
16. Similar is the view taken by this Court in the cases of
R.S. Makashi and Wing Commander J. Kumar which
judgments have been followed by this Court in Madhavan
case. Hence, we do not think it is necessary for us to deal
in detail with the view taken by this Court in those
judgments. Applying the principles laid down in the above-
referred cases, we hold the appellants are entitled to count
the substantive service rendered by them in the post of
Sub-Inspector in BSF while counting their service in the
post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police Force.

23. It is clear from the ratio laid down in the above case
that any rule, regulation or executive instruction which has
the effect of taking away the service rendered by a
deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent
department while counting his seniority in the deputed post
would be violative of
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution.
Hence, liable to be struck down. Since the impugned
memorandum in its entirety does not take away the above
right of the deputationists and by striking down the
offending part of the memorandum, as has been prayed in
the writ petition, the rights of the appellants could be
preserved, we agree with the prayer of the appellant-
petitioners and the offending words in the memorandum
"whichever is later" are held to be violative of
Articles 14

and
of the Constitution, hence, those words are quashed
from the text of the impugned memorandum.

Consequently, the right of the appellant-petitioners to
count their service from the date of their regular
appointment in the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF, while
computing their seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector
(Executive) in the Delhi Police, is restored."

33. Having taken note of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and the discussion made above, it is for the Government to

determine the equation of posts. The power vested with the

Government for merging of posts and said aspect has been

accepted by the respondent-BBMP in its order dated 10.01.2011

and Seniority List dated 28.01.2013 has been issued by the

respondent-BBMP placing the petitioners herein above the private

respondents and thereafter, issuing the Final Seniority List dated

09.09.2015, re-determining the entire list, without giving effect to

or discussing about the spirit underlining Rule 6 of the Karnataka

Civil Services (Seniority) Rules, 1957 by the respondent-BBMP, is

clear case of abdication of power by the respondent-BBMP without

obeying the orders of Government as well as the judgment of this

court in G.GOPALAIAH'S case and the principles laid down by the

this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned

judgments and therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioners

(Employees of SJSRY Scheme) have made out a case for
interference in these writ petitions. In the result, I pass the

following:

ORDER

i) W.P.No.45646 of 2015, W.P.No. 3830 of 2014,
W.P.No.30020 of 2014 and W.P.No.31115 of 2015
are allowed and impugned Seniority List dated
09.09.2015 and amended office order dated
26.12.2013 issued by the respondent-BBMP is
quashed; and the respondent-BBMP is directed to re-

consider the issue afresh after taking into
consideration the various Government orders

referred to above and the provisions under Rule 6 of
Karnataka Civil Service (Seniority) Rules, 1957, by
extending opportunity to the petitioners
herein/aggrieved parties and take decision in the
matter in accordance with law in the light of the
observations made above, within three (3) months
from the date of receipt of this order.

ii) W.P.No.13970 of 2014 and W.P.No.13798 of 2014
are dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE