M R VASUKI Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) all these appellants were writ petitioners in writ petition nos. 1877 to 1881 of 1988. The writ petitions were filed praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) the appellants contended that they were appointed as direct recruits to the post of assistant accounts officer in the Karnataka electricity board (for short 'the board') as per order dared 21-1-1977 along with five others; they satisfactorily completed the probation period of two years; the employees of the board are governed by the Karnataka electricity board recruitments and promotions of the board service regulations, 1960 (for short 'the regulations'); the said regulations came into force with effect from 5-2-1960; the mode of recruitment to the post of assistant accounts officer, is from two sources - one by promotion and another by direct recruitment in the quota prescribed for each category; there has been variation from time to time in the percentage of quota fixed for each of the category and with effect from 10-3-1976 the quota for direct recruitment and by promotion was fixed at 20% and 80% respectively. Respondents 3 to 14 were promoted to the cadre of assistant accounts officers between the period 1967 and 1969 from the cadre of first division clerks. Their promotion to the cadre of assistant accounts officers was in excess of the quota Rule prevailing during the relevant period. When this was the position, the board prepared the gradation list of the assistant accounts officers as on 1-1-1980 showing the names of the appellants at si. Nos. 160,164 and 167 to 169 respectively. Objections were called for to the said gradation list. The appellants and similarly placed persons filed their objections on 17-11-1980 contending that the quota Rule was not followed; the gradation list did not reflect the proper rankings of their seniority and that the principles laid down in the case of V.B.Badami v State of Mysore and others, AIR 1980 SC 1561 were not followed. Thereafter another oradation list was prepared as on 1-11-1983 showing the names of the appellants at st. Nos. 77,81 and 84 to 86 respectively. Even to this gradation list the appellants did file objections. No final gradation list was prepared and published thereafter. Yet again, on 1-7-1987 the board prepared and published the gradation list on 14-9-1987 showing the names of the appellants at si. Nos. 36, 39 and 42 to 44 respectively. Respondents 3 to 14 in view of their promotion to the cadre of assistant accounts officer between 1967 and 1969, in violation of the quota Rule, were further promoted to the next higher cadre of accounts officer and some of them deputy controller of accounts. Thus, in short, the appellants contended that the promotions of respondents 3 to 14 made in violation of the quota Rule governing them and placing them above the petitioners in seniority list, were in violation of the regulations and as such they filed the writ petitions on 1-2-1988 praying for the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) on behalf of the board statement of objections was filed. The stand of the board is clear from what is stated in para 5 of the statement of objections, which reads thus: