N. M. SUBHAS VS. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is presently posted as Divisional Security Officer with the respondent-Corporation in this petition has prayed to: (i) strike down the provisions of Cadre, Recruitment, Probation and Promotion Rules of karnataka Power Corporation Limited, 1992 published by Standing Regulation No. SR 044, dated 31-3-1992 (Annexure-F) insofar as it pertains to the method of appointment and conditions of appointment to the post CVO; (ii) direct the respondent-Corporation to suitably amend the CRPP Rules of KPC Limited, 1992 making provision for filling the post of CVO by promotion from the post of DSO failing which by deputation of an officer from the State Police Service; and. . . ( 2 ) TO support his case the petitioner has submitted that in case appropriate directions are not issued there would be stagnation as he would not be further promoted under the prevalent rules of the respondent-Corporation. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the Indian Army as a commissioned Officer in March 1968, wherefrom he was released in May 1978. When he was holding the rank of Captain in the Engineering Branch of Indian Army, he acquired a Degree in law from Bangalore University, a Postgraduate Diploma in Business Management and another postgraduate Diploma in Personnel Management. Vide order of the respondent-Corporation dated 6-5-1978 the petitioner was appointed as Security Officer. He reported for duty on 19-7-1978 after executing an agreement. He worked as Security Officer at Kalinadi Hydro project, Ambikanagar, U. K. District continuously for a period of 11 years from 19-7-1978 to 27-11-1989 and from 28-11-1989 to 5-3-1991 he worked as Security Officer in Corporation's headquarters at Bangalore. He was promoted as Divisional Security Officer in March, 1991. The post of Chief Vigilance Officer was created in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1982. Police Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police were being deputed to the said post. The aforesaid post is required to be filled-up by deputation under the prevalent rules. Despite his long service with the Corporation and possessing of various degrees, the petitioner has no chance of being considered to the post of Chief Vigilance Officer according to the existing rules. He has thus prayed that the appropriate directions be issued to the respondents as noted herein above. Despite his long service with the Corporation and possessing of various degrees, the petitioner has no chance of being considered to the post of Chief Vigilance Officer according to the existing rules. He has thus prayed that the appropriate directions be issued to the respondents as noted herein above. ( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent it is submitted that the post of chief Vigilance Officer is at the top and is required to be filled-up only by deputation under the prevalent rules. The acquisition of better qualifications or the length of service does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim promotion under the prevalent rules. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in raghunath Prasad Singh v Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others, to submit that a direction be issued to the respondents for amendment of rules and consequent promotion of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in that case has held: "before we part with the appeal, we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned Counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications which are a part of the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organisation. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide atleast two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation within six months from today by appropriate amendments of rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the police wireless organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organisation". In case the State of Bihar fails to comply with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the police wireless organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organisation". ( 5 ) THE petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain v Union of India. In that case the Court held that promotion was a normal incidence of service and there was no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, a non-medical 'a' Group scientists in the establishment of director General of Health Services be deprived of such an advantage. It was observed that in a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service which cast an obligation upon the concerned Ministry to attend to the representations of the Council and its members to provide promotional avenues for this category of officers. It was further observed, "it is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed". ( 6 ) SIMILARLY, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to some observations made by the Apex Court in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Another v K. G. S. Bhat and another. ( 7 ) IT may be noticed that in none of the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Court had considered the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the issuance of directions for the amendment of the rules which has been acknowledged to be an act of subordinate legislation. The power to frame the rules admittedly is legislative in nature and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the respondent to make the rules. The Supreme Court in state of Jammu and Kashmir v A. R. Zakki and Others , considered this aspect of the matter and held: "a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Section 110 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, which is on the same lines as Article 234 of the Constitution of India, vests in the Governor, the power to make rules for appointments of persons other than the District Judges to the Judicial Service of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and for framing of such rules, the Governor is required to consult the Commission and the High Court. This power to frame rules is legislative in nature. A writ of mandamus cannot, therefore, be issued directing the State Government to make the rules in accordance with the proposal made by the High Court. In State of Andhra Pradesh v T. Gopala Krishna Murthi, this Court was construing the provisions of clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India which empowers the Chief Justice of the high Court or some other Judge or Officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose of prescribing conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court and further prescribes that the said rules shall so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leaves or pensions require the approval of the Governor of the State. The question was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the Governor to give his approval to the rules made by the Chief justice. This Court answered the said question in the negative. After holding that although on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the background of the conditions which are prevalent in the other States, the Government could have been well advised to accord approval to the suggestion of the Chief Justice as the suggestion was nothing more than to equate the pay scales of the High Court staff with those of the equivalent posts in the Secretariat, this Court observed that merely because the Government is not right in accepting the Chief Justice's view, and in refusing to accord approval is not ground for holding that by a writ of mandamus the government may be directed to accord the approval". The same view was reiterated in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v Union of india, wherein it has been laid down: "there can be no doubt that no Court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which he has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority", (p. 219 of SCO : (at p. 353 of AIR) ( 8 ) IN view of this position of law no direction can be issued to the respondents for amending the rules as prayed for by the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner was right in conceding that no case was made out for the grant of relief 1 (i) praying for striking down the provisions of Cadre Recruitment, Probation or Promotion Rules by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, insofar as they pertain to the method of appointment and conditions of appointment to the posts of Chief Vigilance Officer. ( 10 ) THERE is no merit in this petition which is dismissed but with observations: that the respondent-Corporation may consider the desirability of amending the rules to provide incentive for generating efficiency in service by providing promotional avenues to the persons like the petitioner by keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court in the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner which were referred to hereinabove. Costs made easy.