M N NAGARAJA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29th February, 2000 in Writ Petition Nos. 39545 of 1995, 9991 to 9993, 11906 to 11910 and 10148 to 10151 of 1998, 20367 of 1997 and 11876 of 1999. The appellant is the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 39545 of 1995, 3rd respondent in Writ Petition Nos. 9991 to 9993, 10148 to 10151 of 1998, 20367 of 1997 and 11876 of 1999 and 4th respondent in Writ Petition Nos. 11906 to 11910 of 1998. The appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 39545 of 1995 praying for certain reliefs including for a writ of mandamus that he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from the date on which he was placed in charge of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer together with all benefits, pecuniary and otherwise. All other writ petitions were filed by the officers in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer calling in question the validity of the final seniority list of the Assistant Executive Engineers, dated 18 -3 -1998 whereunder the appellant was placed at Sl. No. 6, that is to say, above the writ petitioners in other writ petitions. The learned Single Judge by the common order under appeal has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, whereas, he has allowed the writ petitions filed by the contesting respondents, and directed the respondent -Board to undertake the exercise to redo the final seniority list and the promotions made on the basis of such list.

(2.) ALTHOUGH voluminous pleadings and documents are placed before the Court, a short and simple question that arises in these writ appeals is whether an Assistant Executive Engineer can be denied promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer solely on the ground that he was a Diploma holder at the time of joining the service of the Bangalore Water Supply, Sanitary and Sewerage Board (for short, 'the Board') and acquired the degree in Engineering while in service of the Board. This question need not detain the Court for long in view of the undisputed facts we presently state here below.

(3.) ASSISTANT Executive Engineer/ Technical Assistant/Person al Assistant to Executive Engineer/ Superintendent, CRS Water Works (Rs. 750 -1525)75% by promotion of graduate Assistant Engineers on the basis of seniority -cum -merit 25% by the promotion of Assistant Engineers (Diploma holders), Junior Engineers on the basis of seniority -cum -meritFor graduate Assistant Engineers a minimum of 4 years experience as Assistant Engineers For Diploma holders or equivalent qualifications should have put in an aggregate service of 12 years as Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer or 15 years service as Junior Engineer1 year 1 yearChairman Chairman' 4. The contention of the contesting respondents is that, since the appellant did not possess the graduate degree in Engineering at the time of entry into the service of the Board on 23 -8 -1965, he is ineligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer because, the recruitment rules in an unmistakable terms state that the post of Executive Engineer has to be filled by way of promotion from the cadre of graduate Assistant Executive Engineer and that the appellant could not be regarded as an officer belonging to the cadre of graduate Assistant Executive Engineer within the meaning of that term. That is the precise argument of the learned Counsels who appear for the contesting respondents. On the other hand, it is the contention of Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the appellant that from the phrase 'from the cadre of graduate Assistant Executive Engineers', the only requirement that a candidate should possess in order to be eligible for being considered for the post of Executive Engineer is that he should be in the feeder cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and that he should be a graduate in Engineering and that is the only reasonable way of construing the phrase, 'graduate Assistant Executive Engineer', and if it is so construed, it could be seen that the appellant did possess both the qualifications, official status -wise and qualification -wise, when he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer by the office order dated 24 -7 -1982 along with the contesting respondents.