K NARAYANAN R MAHADEV Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Validity of the Karnataka Public Works Engineering Department Service (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1985 has been challenged by the Assistant Engineers, recruited directly, both on the ground of constitutional invalidity as it treats unequals as equals and also for giving retrospective appointment to the diploma holders and seniority even prior to the date of their eligibility.

(2.) Engineering services in the Public Works Department (PWD) of the country can justly feel proud for having contributed largest number of decisions from this Court touching upon nearly every aspect of service law the most common being seniority. This has resulted to a large extent due to different set of rules framed in different States to accommodate and benefit one set of employees over other either to mitigate injustice arising out of peculiar circumstances as in the State of Andhra Pradesh due to merger of the State of Hyderabad, or because of sympathetic consideration of supposed injustice as in the State of Karnataka or due to pressure and pull depending on the strength of the Association of Employees of one or the other group coupled with if the Chief Engineer in the State was a promotee or direct. In either view in services such as engineering services where similar pattern prevails and same hierarchy is maintained between draftsman, designer, supervisor, junior engineer, assistant engineer, executive engineer throughout the country it is not only desirable but just and proper that the States by common consensus may adopt same set of rules which may pave the way for promoting national integrity eliminating disparity amongst employees reducing litigation and improving harmony. Necessity for it is demonstrated by these appeals and writ petitions as when facts are adverted it shall be clear how the State of Karnataka by erroneous understanding of a decision given by this Court on rules framed in the neighbouring States in Andhra Pradesh in completely different circumstances narrated in detail in Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76 attempted to adopt it resulting in grave injustice. What was held to be reasonable and not shocking by this Court for one State has become discriminatory and unreasonable for other.

(3.) Reverting to the issues in dispute what was assailed, vehemently, in these appeals directed against the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Bangalore was its failure to quash the gradation list issued by the Government in breach of its earlier order. It was also urged that the rules framed in 1985 having been made effective from 1976 were violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution but the Tribunal in its first order having read down the rules the appellants did not challenge its correctness. How far these challenges are well founded and what relief can be granted can be comprehended better only after the background in which these rules were framed is narrated. When Karnataka Public Works Engineering Departments Service (Recruitment) Rules were framed in 1960 the two principal sources of recruitment were Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineers. The minimum qualification for the two were degree and diploma, respectively, in civil and mechanical engineering. In the cadre of Junior Engineer it appears there was further sub-division. Some were appointed as Junior Engineers and others as supervisors and draftsman etc. The pay scales of the two were not the same. In 1969 the rules were amended and 50% of Junior Engineers could be degree holders. This amendment led to litigation between the two class of Junior Engineers the details of which and consequence thereof are narrated in the object and reasons of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification) Amendment Act 9 of 1975. It was mentioned that even though the High Court on construction of the rule equated the graduate and non-graduate junior engineers in one cadre, 'it was never the intention of the State Government either to treat them as equals or to give the same scales of pay to both the categories and in fact the non-graduate junior engineers have been separately encadred also.' The Act provided that notwithstanding any judgment or decree or order of any Court or any equation of the posts made at any time,