P SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality of the order dated 27th June, 1992 (Annexure-B) passed by the first respondent in terms of which the third respondent is posted as Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) in the second respondent-Corporation in the place of the petitioner who was holding the said post as on the date when the said order was made. He also seeks a direction to the second respondent to continue him in the post of Deputy Commissioner (Revenue). The circumstances of the case under which the aforesaid order was made by the Government is as follows.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Commissioner in the second respondent-Corporation on 1-7-1990 and regularised with effect from 1-1-1991. A copy of the appointment order dated 8-1-1991 is produced as Annexure-A. It could be seen therefrom that the petitioner who was Revenue Officer (South) was promoted, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, on officiating basis in the vacancy caused consequent upon the retirement of Sri A. Shankerappa. In the said order of appointment it is indicated that in anticipation of approval the appointment is made effective from 1-1-1991. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the impugned order dated 27-6-1992 (Annexure-B) was served on the petitioner on 29-6-1992.

(3.) In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State Government, it is stated that the Government is the appointing authority to appoint Deputy Commissioners in the establishment of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore in terms of Section 82 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is also stated that in terms of Rule 26 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Rules, 1977, the post of the Deputy Commissioner in the Corporation has to be filled up by the Government and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner made by the Commissioner of the second respondent-Corporation by order dated 8-1-1991 effective from 1-1-1991 was required to be approved by the State Government. It is further stated that the first respondent in its letter dated 27-6-1992 informed the Commissioner of the second respondent-Corporation that the Government being the appointing authority for the post of Deputy Commissioner, the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Deputy Commissioner ought to have been recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the Government and not the Departmental Promotion Committee of the Corporation as has been done. Therefore, it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) could not be approved by the Government and it is in that context the Government by notification issued the impugned order dated 27-6-1992, appointing the third respondent who was the Municipal Commissioner of Belgaum City Corporation in place of the petitioner. It is stated that the third respondent assumed charge of the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) on 29-6-1992.