Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 179 (KAR)

H. R. RAGHAVENDRA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2019-01-14

H.G.RAMESH, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. In these review petitions, petitioners have sought for review of order dated 08.01.2018 dismissing the writ petitions in W.Ps.No.52120-52134/2017. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petitions. 3. Heard Shri V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Vasanth V.Fernandize learned HCGP for the State, Shri M.Nagaprasanna and Shri Javid Hussain, learned Advocates for the private respondents. 4. Petitioners were selected for the post of 'Gardeners' in the Horticulture Department, in the year 1987. However, appointment orders were not issued to them. They approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ('KAT' for short) in Application Nos. 1646, 1647 to 1656 & 1658/1990. By order dated 26.06.1990, KAT disposed of the said applications directing the Director of Horticulture and State Government to take appropriate decision in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Subsequently, appointment orders were issued to petitioners in the year 1998. The Horticulture Department prepared the seniority list for the first time on 08.05.2003, wherein, daily wage employees, who were regularized against supernumerary posts were placed above petitioners at Sl.Nos.2193 to 4349. Petitioners filed their objections to the said seniority list. The final seniority list was prepared on 8/23.9.2005. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners approached the KAT for redressal of their grievances. By order dated 17.10.2017, the KAT dismissed their application Nos.7328-7330/2006 and application Nos.214-230/2011. Petitioners challenged the same before this Court in W.Ps.No.52120-52134/2017 which have been dismissed by order dated 08.01.2018 whose review is sought in these petitions. 5. In substance, grievance of the petitioners is that initially, the State Government erred in not issuing the appointment orders though they were selected in the year 1987, compelling them to approach the KAT. In the Seniority list, they have been placed below the daily wage employees who were absorbed by the Horticulture Department. 6. This Court has dismissed the writ petitions by placing reliance on the authority in Nani Sha Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 406 . 7. Shri Lakshminarayana for review petitioners argued that these review petitions merit consideration in the light of the decision of Supreme Court of India in Balwant Singh Narwal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2008) 7 SCC 728 . 8. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 406 . 7. Shri Lakshminarayana for review petitioners argued that these review petitions merit consideration in the light of the decision of Supreme Court of India in Balwant Singh Narwal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2008) 7 SCC 728 . 8. Opposing these review petitions, Shri Nagaprasanna for private respondents contended that Balwant Singh is decided on the facts of that case inasmuch as the parties therein were governed by the earlier decision of Supreme Court of India and therefore not applicable in the facts of these cases. He argued that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order impugned in these petitions. 9. We have carefully considered rival contentions of learned advocates for the parties and perused the records. 10. In the very decision in Balwant Singh, Supreme Court of India has held (in paragraph No.8 page 731 SCC) that there is no dispute with regard to the general preposition that selection by Public Service Commission is merely recommendatory and does not imply automatic appointment and that the appointing authorities should not give notional seniority without valid reason, from a retrospective date, which would affect the seniority of those who have already entered service. 11. So far as the ratio in Balwant Singh is concerned, Shri Nagaprasanna is right in contending that the parties were bound by an earlier 'inter-party decision' of the Supreme Court of India. It may be useful to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment which reads as follows: “10. This Court while allowing the appeals by Respondents 4 to 16 by order dated 6-12-1999 made it clear that all the 30 persons recommended by the Commission as per merit list dated 1-10-1993, including Respondents 4 to 16 are entitled to be appointed. The State Government submitted that but for the order dated 4-4-1994 of the High Court, Respondents 4 to 16 would have been appointed on 2-6-1994 itself. The order dated 4-4-1994 was ultimately set aside by this Court and Respondents 4 to 16 who were consequently appointed should not be denied the benefit of seniority. Therefore, the State Government was justified in giving them only notional seniority and placing them immediately below the other 16 candidates selected in the common merit list (published on 1-10-1993) and appointed on 2-6-1994. Therefore, the State Government was justified in giving them only notional seniority and placing them immediately below the other 16 candidates selected in the common merit list (published on 1-10-1993) and appointed on 2-6-1994. Respondents 4 to 16 have been given retrospective seniority not from the date of their selection as wrongly assumed by the appellants, but from 2-6-1994 when other selected candidates in their merit list were appointed.” 12. Thus, parties in Balwant Singh were bound by inter-party decision dated 06.12.1999 given by the Supreme Court of India in appeals filed by respondents No.4 to 16 therein and therefore, not applicable in the facts of these cases. 13. In the circumstances, we find no error apparent on the face of the record in our order dated 08.01.2018 passed in the writ petitions. Resultantly, these review petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.