Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 170 (KAR)

K. Basavaraje v. State of Karnataka

2016-02-18

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2016
ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the notification, dated 30-9-2015 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent 1 appointing the respondent 3 as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board. Sri M.S. Bhagwat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government Order, dated 9-5-2014 (Annexure-E) prescribes the eligibility for the appointment of the Director of Mysuru Palace Board; he has to be from K.A.S., Group A, Senior Scale or K.A.S., Group A, Selection Grade. He submits that the respondent 3 is admittedly not a K.A.S. Officer at all. Prior to her appointment as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board, she was working as Joint Controller of State Accounts Department. 2. He submits that on the ground that the respondent 3 draws the salary higher than that of K.A.S. Officer, she cannot be treated as K.A.S. Officer. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Division Bench's order, dated 11-1-2016 (Annexure-L) passed in W.P. No. 53867 of 2015. 3. He submits that as the respondent 3 is not entitled to hold the Public Office of Director of Mysuru Palace Board, she is to be ousted therefrom by issuing the writ of quo warranto. He has relied on the following authorities: "(i) University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC 491 : (1964) 4 SCR 575 ; (ii) Renu and Others v District and Sessions Judge, TIS Hazari Courts, Delhi and Another, AIR 2014 SC 2175 : (2014) 14 SCC 50 ; (iii) Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v Dhobei Sahoo and Others, AIR 2014 SC 246 : (2014) 1 SCC (L and S) 1 : (2014) 1 SCC 161 ; (iv) Rajesh Awasthi v Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others, AIR 2013 SC 78 : (2013) 1 SCC (L and S) 192 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 521: (2013)1 SCC 501 ." 4. Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that Sections 15 and 26 of the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998 provide for the State Government to appoint an Executive Officer and such number of other officers as it considers necessary to assist him. He submits that as there is shortage of K.A.S. Officers, the officer from the State Accounts Department is posted as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board. 5. He submits that as there is shortage of K.A.S. Officers, the officer from the State Accounts Department is posted as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board. 5. Sri T.N. Raghupathy, the learned Counsel for the respondent 3 submits that neither the statute nor any service regulations framed thereunder stipulate that the officer has to be from the Karnataka Administrative Service. He submits that the plain reading of the impugned order reveals that the third respondent's appointment is only until further orders. He submits that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain this writ petition, as he cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. If the petitioner proposes to challenge the impugned order, his remedy would be to file the PIL, so submits that learned Counsel. 6. In support of his submissions, he brings to my notice the Apex Court's judgment in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy v Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and Others, 2006 (6) Kar. L.J. 457 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 3106 : (2007) 1 SCC (L and S) 548 (2) : 2006 AIR SCW 4515 : (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2). Paragraph 43 of the said judgment read out by him is extracted hereinbelow: "43. Whether a writ of quo warranto lies to challenge an appointment made "until further orders" on the ground that it is not a regular appointment? Whether the High Court failed to follow the settled law that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued unless there is a clear violation of law? The order appointing the appellant clearly stated that the appointment is until further orders. The terms and conditions of appointment made it clear that the appointment is temporary and is until further orders. In such a situation, the High Court, in our view, erred in law in issuing a writ of quo warranto the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus." 7. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The impugned order unequivocally states that the arrangement of appointing the respondent 3 is only until further orders. It appears to be some kind of stopgap arrangement. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The impugned order unequivocally states that the arrangement of appointing the respondent 3 is only until further orders. It appears to be some kind of stopgap arrangement. The Apex Court in the case of Srinivasa Reddy has not approved of the High Court issuing the writ of quo warranto, as the appointment order therein was until further orders. In the instant case also, the appointment of the respondent 3 is neither regular nor for any fixed term. 8. For the aforesaid reason, I am not inclined to quash the impugned order. However, this does not mean that the third respondent's services can be continued indefinitely in the garb of the appointment being until further orders and in the wake of the Government Order, dated 9-5-2014 (Annexure-E) prescribing the eligibility that the one to be appointed as the Director of the Board has to be from K.A.S., Group A, Senior Scale or K.A.S., Group A, Selection Grade. On the ground that the third respondent's pay scale is higher than the pay scale of the K.A.S. Officer, ad hoc arrangement cannot be continued indefinitely. It is for the Government either to appoint somebody from the K.A.S., Group A, Senior Scale or K.A.S., Group A, Selection Grade as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board as early as possible or issue modification/corrigendum/addendum providing for the appointment of somebody from the Karnataka State Accounts also as the Director of Mysuru Palace Board. The Government shall take a call on this issue as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.