Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 199 (KAR)

B. v. Narahari Rao VS State of Karnataka & Ors

2006-02-22

H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

body2006
ORDER 1. The petitioner has prayed in this petition to declare the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1997, as ineffective, unenforceable and illegal and for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17-3-1999 promoting the third and fourth respondents to Scientist Group D and for consequential reliefs. 2. The second respondent - the Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute (the Institute for short) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1981. Clause 20 of the Memorandum of Association of the second respondent-Institute specifies, that until Service Rules and Regulations are framed, the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the employees of the second respondent-Institute. Subsequently the second respondent-Institute framed recruitment rules governing the service conditions of the employees. Thereafter, in the year 1997, Cadre and Recruitment Regulations were framed and they are approved by the Government in the year 1998 as per Annexure E to the writ petition. Before the impugned Regulations came into force, the process of promotion of petitioner, third and fourth respondents and others were commenced. Before the completion of the process of promotion of petitioner and others, the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1997, came into effect. As per Regulations 1997, the promotion of petitioner, third and fourth respondents and others were concluded. In the said process, the petitioner was not promoted but, third and fourth respondents were promoted. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the Regulations of 1997 and the promotion of third and fourth respondents. 3. Sri M. R. Rajagopal, learned counsel for petitioner contends, that the petitioner is senior to third and fourth respondents and he had good academic record. The second respondent-Institute by-passing the claim of the petitioner promoted third and fourth respondents. He contends, that the second respondent-Institute for extraneous considerations promoted third and fourth respondents and denied promotion to the petitioner. 4. Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned counsel for third respondent and Sri. K. G. Shanth-appa, learned counsel for second respondent-Institute justify the promotion of third and fourth respondents. They contend, that the impugned Regulations of 1997 are framed by an expert committee taking into consideration the needs and requirements of the employees of the second respondent-Institute. 4. Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned counsel for third respondent and Sri. K. G. Shanth-appa, learned counsel for second respondent-Institute justify the promotion of third and fourth respondents. They contend, that the impugned Regulations of 1997 are framed by an expert committee taking into consideration the needs and requirements of the employees of the second respondent-Institute. After following the necessary procedure the second respondent-Institute submitted the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations for approval to the Government and the Government approved the same in accordance with law. 5. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. 6. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner was promoted as Scientist Group-D on 1-3-2000. This promotion of the petitioner is in terms of Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1997. The petitioner, having accepted the promotion under the impugned Regulations, now cannot question the validity and enforceability of the impugned Regulations. It is not pointed out by the petitioner as to how and in what manner the impugned Regulations of 1997 are illegal and that they are unenforceable. In the absence of any material on record to demonstrate that the impugned Regulations are contrary to law and that they are made without following the procedure, the contention of the petitioner that they are unenforceable is unacceptable. Therefore, the first prayer of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 7. The second prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 17-3-1999, Annexure S to the writ petition, wherein the third and fourth respondents are promoted. It is not in dispute that the promotion to Scientist Group D is based on seniority-cum-merit. As per Regulations 1997, the Performance Appraisal Committee assessed the performance of all eligible candidates for promotion and found that the petitioner has not contributed any scientific work or published any papers and therefore the case of the petitioner was not considered. Since the petitioner did not possess the required merit for promotion in the year 1999, he was not promoted. The Performance Appraisal Committee, after evaluating the merit of each candidate concludes that the third and fourh respondents did possess the required merit and therefore promoted them to the post of Scientist Group-D. Except bare averment in the writ petition that the promotion of third and fourth respondents is for extraneous consideration, there is no other material on record to substantiate this contention of the petitioner. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to plead specific details in the writ petition in relation to the extraneous considerations and place acceptable legal evidence in support of the same. In the instant case, except bare averment in the writ petition, petitioner has not furnished any details regarding the extraneous consideration nor placed any material to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the material on record discloses that the Performance Appraisal Committee had considered the merit of each candidate and for the reason that the petitioner has not contributed any scientific work or published any papers comes to the conclusion that the petitioner do not possess the necessary merit for promotion to the post of Scientist Group-D. Therefore, the second prayer of the petitioner to quash the promotion of third and fourth respondents is liable to be rejected. 8. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDER Writ petition is devoid of merit and therefore, the same is rejected with no order as to costs. 9. Petition dismissed.