SC Upholds KAT’s Decision That Struck Down Karnataka Employment Training Service Rules Providing Promotion By Way Of Transfer Of Employees

The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held, “After hearing and on perusal of the provisions which are under challenge and the reasonings as given by the Tribunal and High Court in detail, particularly in Paras 18, 19 and 19(sic), we are in complete agreement with the same. Therefore, the appeals are devoid of any merit and hence, dismissed… As far as employees, who were wrongly promoted and were given financial benefits in pursuance to the 1998 Rules which were struck down, are concerned, it shall be open for the State Government to take a decision with respect to such benefits and pass appropriate orders in this regard.”

Senior Advocate S.N. Bhatt appeared for the Appellants whereas AAG Aman Panwar appeared for the Respondents.

Various appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka High Court in a batch of writ petitions whereby an order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) was challenged. The Tribunal vide the said order had struck down certain provisions contained in 1998 Rules so far as it provided for the promotion ‘by way of transfer’ of employees having degree in Engineering along with three years of working experience in cadre of ‘Training Officers’ and cadres below, to the post of ‘Principals Grade­II/Vice Principals/Assistant Directors/Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor’ (‘promotional posts’) to the extent of 33­1/3rd per cent of the total vacancies to be filled by transfer.

Earlier, the said promotions were governed by “Karnataka Employment & Training Service (Craftsman & Apprenticeship Training) (Recruitment) Rules, 1985” (‘1985 Rules’) and were superseded by the 1998 Rules.

The whole controversy revolved around the 1998 Rules, whereby the State Government redesignated certain posts, including ‘Group Instructors’ to ‘Training Officers’ etc. and further provided for the promotion of those employees already working in the redesignated cadre of ‘Training Officers’ and cadres below having a degree in Engineering to promotional posts as mentioned above.

Aggrieved, the Respondents who were working as ‘Training Officers’ as per 1998 Rules, assailed the vires of 1998 Rules to the aforesaid extent on the ground that it would adversely affect their seniority. They further contended that as per the 1998 Rules, the persons who are working as juniors to original applicants in the cadres below and have a degree of Engineering along with three years of experience, would become eligible for direct promotion to the promotional posts by way of transfer and hence, they would overtake the original applicants who have been serving for long as ‘Training Officers’.

The Tribunal had partly allowed the original applications and struck down the 1998 Rules to the extent it provided for promotion to the promotional posts to 1/3rd extent by way of transfer. The High Court vide impugned judgment refused to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings.

The Court had directed that only the persons who are degree holders in the feeder cadre, i.e. Training Officers, shall not be reverted.

“It is further undisputed that even after the order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court striking down the 1998 Rules to the extent of 33–1/3rd per cent the Government issued the seniority list keeping the persons who derived the benefit of the 1998 Rules as senior to the Respondents or the intervenors…Therefore, some of them had filed the Original Application and thereafter approached the High Court wherein some interim orders were passed contrary to the spirit of the order of this Court dated 28.09.2012. This fact makes it clear that despite striking down of the 1998 Rules which extended the benefit of the transfer to the promotional posts to Training Officers and cadres below to the extent of 33–1/3rd per cent, certain employees were promoted under the garb of 1998 Rules and they are continuing on the promotional posts.”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals.

Cause Title: MS Ramesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Appearances:

Appellants: Senior Advocate S.N. Bhatt, AOR Shirish K. Deshpande, Advocates Sharanagouda Patil, Supneeta Sharanagouda, Jothisya Pande.

Respondents: AAG Aman Panwar, AORs Vaijayanthi Girish, Ankolekar Gurudatta, Rajesh Mahale, V. N. Raghupathy, Shailesh Madiyal, M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, Advocates Korada Pramod Kumar, Rajendra Koushik A C, Amith J, Dr. M Mani Gopi, Manendra Pal Gupta, Shivam Singh Baghel, Vaibhav Sabharwal, Divija Mahajan, Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, S.K. Pandey, Awanish Kumar, Anshul Rai and Abhinav Garg.

Click here to read/download the Order