H R RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These special leave petitions arise from the order of the Karnataka Administrative tribunal, made on 31/10/1996 in Applications Nos. 1374 and 1375 of 1996.

(2.) The admitted position is that the petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Attenders in the Department of Horticulture under the Karnataka Horticulture (Department) Recruitment Rules, 1974. Under the hierarchy of the posts, there are Gardeners, Peons, Zamadars including Attenders, Head Gardeners and Field Assistants in the said Department and various scales of pay have been prescribed in the above Rules. The Rules prescribe 25% quota for recruitment by promotion to the posts of Field Assistants from the cadreof Head Gardeners, Gardeners, Masteries and Column 3 thereof prescribes the minimum qualification for promotion to the same category. The petitioners had filed the OA claiming promotion to the posts of Field Assistant treating that Laboratory Attenders are equivalent to Head Gardeners and, therefore, they are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Field Assistant. They placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal has not accepted the same and dismissed the petition. The Tribunal on an elaborate consideration has given the direction in the operative paragraph of the judgment as under:

(3.) It would appear that by giving retrospective promotions to various persons, huge public funds have been frittered away by an illegal action of the Director of Horticulture and, therefore, the aforestated direction came to be issued. While reiterating that action should be taken against erring officers and personal responsibility also fixed; apart from that, disciplinary action should be taken against the persons concerned. We do not think that there is any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. May be that the learned Single Judge of the High court had taken the view that the Laboratory Attenders could also be treated as Head Gardeners. Unless the Rules are integrated and the channel of promotion is given, by interpretation one category cannot be transposed from other channels and fitted into altogether a different category of service merely because channel of promotion in that service is not provided. Under these circumstances, unless the petitioners get into the channel of promotion under the statutory rules, they cannot by interpretation be fitted into the category to which they do not belong and cannot claim promotion on that basis. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the tribunal warranting interference.