Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinay Y N vs Sri Jayanth Kumar on 22 July, 2026
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.863 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.941 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.942 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.1038 OF 2023 (S-PRO)
WRIT APPEAL NO.1369 OF 2023 (S-PRO)
WRIT APPEAL NO.212 OF 2024 (S-PRO)
IN WA NO.200/2024
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
...APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
PAVITHRA SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
N
Location: AND:
High Court
of
Karnataka 1. SRI. RANGARAMU M. R.
S/O RAMEGOWDA M. R.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
MADIKERI-571 201
2
2. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O AMARESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHIGGAON
HAVERI DISTRICT-581 205
3. SRI S. V. PURUSHOTHAM
S/O K. VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-8
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
UDYAGIRI, MYSURU-570 019
4. SRI RAMANNA K.
S/O KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-4
TA RA SU CIRCLE
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYOSRE-570 019
5. SRI RAJATH KUMAR H. S.
S/O SHIVASHANKARIAH H. G.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-3
SHARADADEVINAGAR CIRCLE
SHARADADEVI NAGAR
MYSURU, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 022
6. SRI VEERESH
S/O MOUNESHAPPA KALAPOOR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
3
HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
DDTP SECTION
DHARWAD-580 001
7. SRI MITHUN
S/O SHUBHAKARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
LALBAUGH, M. G. ROAD
MANGALORE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 003
8. SRI KIRAN A. R.
S/O RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-1
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
THYAGARAJA ROAD
MYSURU-570 019
9. SRI VENKATESH PALAGATTI
S/O BHARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
VANI VILLAS WATER WORKS
WATER SUPPLY AND UGD DIVISION
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE-570 019
10. SRI SUDHEENDRA NAIK
S/O BALU NAIK
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL)
TUMAKURU CITY CORPORATION
TOWN HALL
4
TUMAKURU-572 102
R/AT SUDHA NILAYAM
3RD CROSS, S. S. PURAM
TUMAKURU-572 102
11. SRI VINAYAK BHARANI M. S.
S/O SAGANI GOWDA T.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TUMAKURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT MATRU NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR
NEAR LAKSHMI IVF HOSPITAL
80 FT ROAD, SIRA GATE
TUMAKURU-572 101
(R10 & R11 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 29.01.2026)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH K., ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 AND R4 TO R9;
SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL &
SRI. PRASHANTH L. KANAL, ADVS FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.1575/2023 AND DISMISS
THE WP FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
5
IN WA NO.863/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O AMARESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHIGGAON, HAVERI DISTRICT
2. SRI RAMANNA K.
S/O KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-4
TA RA SU CIRCLE
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU
3. SRI RAJATH KUMAR H. S.
S/O SHIVASHANKARAIAH H. G.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-3
SHARADADEVINAGAR CIRCLE
SHARADADEVI NAGAR
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT
4. SRI VEERESH
S/O MOUNESHAPPA KALAPOOR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION DDTP SECTION
DHARWAD
6
5. SRI MITHUN
S/O SHUBHAKARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
MANGALROE CITY CORPORATION
LALBAUGH, M. G. ROAD
MANGALORE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
6. SRI KIRANA A. R.
S/O RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-1
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
THYAGARAJA ROAD
MYSURU
7. SRI VENKATESH PALAGATTI
S/O BHARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
VANI VILAS WATER WORKS
WATER SUPPLY AND UGD DIVISION
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
7
2. SRI RANGARAMU M. R.
S/O RAMEGOWDA M. R.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
MADIKERI
3. SRI S. V. PURUSHOTHAM
S/O K. VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-8
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
UDYAGIRI, MYSORE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.S.BHAGWATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH K., ADV FOR R2;
SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASHANTH L. KANAL, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OF
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.1575/2023 AND DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
IN WA NO.941/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. V. PURUSHOTHAM
S/O K. VENKATE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
8
ZONAL OFFICE-08, MYSORE CITY
MUNCIPAL CORPORATION
MYSORE DIVISION
MYSURU-570 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASHANT L. KANAL, ADV)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI RANGARAMU M. R.
S/O RAMEGOWDA M. R.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTNAT ENGNEER
CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL
MADIKERI-571 201
3. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SRI AMARESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL
SHIGGAON,
HAVERI DISTRICT
4. SRI RAMANNA K.
S/O KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WOKKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
9
ZONAL OFFICE-04
THA. RA. SU. CIRCLE
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU DIVISION
MYSURU-570 001
5. SRI RAJATH KUMAR H. S.
S/O SHIVASHANKARAIAH H. G.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-03
SHARADADEVI NAGAR CIRCLE
SHARDADEVI NAGAR
MYSORE
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001
6. SRI VEERESH
S/O MOUNESHAPPA KALAPOOR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
HUBBALLI DHARWAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
DDTP SECTION, DHARWAD
7. SRI MITHUN
S/O SHUBHAKARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
MANGALORE CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LALBAGH, M. G. ROAD
MANGALORE-575 001
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
8. SRI KIRANA A. R.
S/O RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
10
ZONAL OFFICE-01
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU
9. SRI VENKATESH PALAGATTI
S/O BHARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
VANI VILAS WATER
WORKS, WATER SUPPLY AND
UGD DIVISION
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.S.BHAGWATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH K., ADV. FOR R2;
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3 TO R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE COMMON ORDER DATED 10.07.2023 PASSED BY THE
SINGLE JUDGE INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO W.P. NO.1575/2023
(S-RES) IS CONCERNED.
IN WA NO. 942/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MOHAN KUMAR M V
S/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
11
MYSORE CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
MYSORE DIVISION
MYSURU-570 001
2. SRI ABHISHEK
S/O SHRIMANTRAO
ARALAGUNDAGI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
HUBLI-DHARWAD CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
HUBLI-580 020
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASHANTH L. KANAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-CUM-ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEKDAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
2. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
V.V. TOWERS, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
3. SMT. KAVYASHREE R.D.
W/O SRI. VIVEK H.S.
12
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ON POST BASED TRANSFER
IN THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, V.V. TOWERS
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN
AGE NOT KNOWN
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
SHIVAMOGGA CITY MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
5. SRI RAMANNA K.
S/O KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-04
THE. RA. SU. CIRCLE
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE DIVISION
MYSORE - 570 001
6. SR RAJATH KUMAR H. S.
S/O SHIVASHANKARAIAH H. G.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE - 03
SHARADADEVI NAGAR CIRCLE
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001
13
7. SRI MOHAMMAD MOSIN HASAN
NAME OF FATHER: NOT KNOWN
AGE: NOT KNOWN
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
KALABURGI CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
KALABURGI DIVISION
KALABURGI-585 001
8. SRI. VEERESH
S/O MOUNESHAPPA KALAPOOR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
DDTP SECTION
DHARWAD
9. SRI MITHUN
S/O SHUBHAKARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
MANGALORE CITY
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LALBAGH, M G ROAD
MANGALORE-575 001
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
10. SRI ADITHYA M. JOSHI
NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN
AGE NOT KNOWN
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
DAVANAGERE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
DAVANAGERE DIVISION
14
DAVANAGERE-577 001
11. RANJITHA
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
AGE NOT KNOWN
PRESENTLY WORKING
AS JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
MYSURU CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
MYSORE DIVISION
MYSURU-570 001
12. SRI SHIVNANDA BUDYAL
NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN
AGE NOT KNOWN
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
KALABURGI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
KALABURGI DIVISION
KALABURAGI-585 001
13. SRI KIRANA A.R.
S/O RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE-01
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU
14. SRI VENKATESH PALAGATTI
S/O BHARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER(CIVIL)
VANI VILAS WATER WORKS
WATER SUPPLY AND UGD DIVISION
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU
15
15. SRI S.V.PURUSHOTHAM
S/O K. VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL)
ZONAL OFFICE - 08
MYSORE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
MYSURU - 570 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GERENAL
ALONG WITH SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R11 AND
R13 TO R15;
SRI. VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GURURAJ, ADV.FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON
ORDER DATED 10.07.2023 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE
INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO WP NO.2236/2023(S RES) IS
CONCERNED.
IN WA NO. 1038/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VINAY Y. N.
SON OF NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER
(ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE-570 004
16
2. SRI GANESH L. R.
SON OF RANGNATH L. B.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
3. SRI RATOD NAIK
SON OF KRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TUMAKURU CITY CORPORATION
TUMAKUR-572 102
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M. V., ADVOCATE
AND:
1. SRI JAYANTH KUMAR
SON OF RAJANNA D.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE-570 004
2. SRI KAVAN A. B.
SON OF BIDDANI A. C.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSITANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE-570 004
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
17
CHIEF SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
5. SRI CHANDRAHAS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
HUBLI - DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
HUBLI-580 020
6. SRI RAMESH
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KALABURGI CITY CORPORATION
KALABURGI-585 101
7. SRI SUNIL
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KALABURGI CITY CORPORATION
KALABURGI-585 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH;
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R3 AND R4;
SRI. V. C. BHADRAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R2, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
18
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.10290/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE PETITION IN W.P. NO.10290/2023.
IN WA NO. 1369/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRAHAS
S/O CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
MAJOR
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
HUBLI-DHARWAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
HUBLI-580 020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGAPRAVEENA D. A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. JAYANTH KUMAR
S/O RAJANNA D.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE-570 004
2. SRI. KAVAN A. B.
S/O BIDDANI A. C.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU-570 004
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
19
CHIEF SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
4. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
BENGALURU VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS
DR. AMEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
5. SRI. VINAY Y. N.
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE-570 004
KARNATAKA
6. SRI. GANESH L. R.
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
7. SRI. RATHOD NAIK
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TUMAKUR CITY CORPORATION
TUMAKUR-572 102
8. SRI. RAMESH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KALABURGI CITY CORPORATION
KALABURAGI-585 101
20
9. SRI. SUNIL
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KALABURAGI CITY CORPORATION
KALABURAGI-585 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL BY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2023,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.10290 OF 2023
AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT
IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN WA NO.212/2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION
V. V. TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH
21
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI. JAYANTH KUMAR
S/O RAJANNA D.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE-570 004
2. SRI. KAVAN A. B.
S/O BIDDANI A. C.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE-570 004
3. SRI. VINAY Y. N.
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE - 570 004
4. SRI. CHANDRAHAS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
HUBLI - DHARWAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
HUBLI - 580 020
5. SRI. GANESH L. R.
S/O RANGNATH L. B.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
6. SRI. RATOD NAIK
S/O KRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TUMAKUR CITY CORPORATION
TUMAKUR - 572 102
22
7. SRI. RAMESH
FATHER NAME UNKNOWN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KALABURGI CITY CORPORATION
KALABURGI - 585 101
8. SRI. SUNIL
FATHERS NAME UNKNOWN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
KALABURGI CITY CORPORATION
KALABURGI - 585101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M. V., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5 AND R6;
R1, R2, R4, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OF
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.07.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.10290/2023 AND DISMISS THE
PETITION IN W.P. NO.10290/2023.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.06.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
23
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The Writ Appeals No.200/2024, 941/2023, 942/2023,
863/2023 are filed challenging a common judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.1575/2023 (S-RES) and Writ Appeals
No.1038/2023, 1369/2023 and 212/2024 are filed
challenging a common Order of the learned Single Judge
dated 17.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.10290/2023.
2. We have heard Shri P.S Rajagopal, learned Senior
Counsel as instructed by Shri Prashanth L. Kanal; Shri
Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by
Shri Sundara Raman M. V., learned advocate; Shri
Vignesheshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior Counsel; Shri M.S.
Bhagwath, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri
Satish K., learned advocate; Shri Vijay Kumar, learned
counsel, Shri Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel, Shri V. C.
Bhadragouda, learned counsel and Shri Nagapraveena D. A.,
learned counsel appearing for the private parties in all the
writ appeals and Shri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional
24
Advocate General along with Shri Vikas Rojipura, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
3. It is submitted that the State Government by
Notification dated 11.04.2011 published the Karnataka
Municipal Corporations (Common Recruitment of Officers
and Employees) Rules, 2011 (‘2011 Rules’ for short),
applicable to recruitment to all posts connected with the
Municipal Corporations in the State of Karnataka, except the
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short).
According to the 2011 Rules, among others, there are three
engineering cadres in the hierarchy, namely Junior Engineer,
Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer. The
minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as an
Assistant Engineer is a Degree in Engineering, whereas the
minimum qualification prescribed for a Junior Engineer is a
Diploma in Engineering. Under the 2011 Rules, the cadre of
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) is filled up by direct
recruitment as well as by promotion from the cadre of
Assistant Engineer, and 25% of the said cadre is filled up by
promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineer (Civil). Further,
25
a Junior Engineer requires five years of service, whereas an
Assistant Engineer requires three years of service to be
eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive
Engineer.
4. The writ petitioner challenged the 2011 Rules in
W.P.No.1575/2023 as arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch
as they classify the Degree-holding Assistant Engineers and
the Diploma-holding Junior Engineers alike, and treat both
as eligible for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive
Engineer. During the pendency of the writ petition, on
27.01.2023 the Departmental Promotion Committee
recommended the names of the private-appellants for
promotion against the 25% of quota available for the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil).
5. The learned Single Judge by Order dated
02.02.2023 in W.P.No.1575/2023 granted an Interim Order
directing the State not to give effect to the Department
Promotion Committee proceedings till the next date of
hearing. The private-appellants being aggrieved by this
Interim Order filed an Interlocutory Application seeking
26
impleadment, which came to be allowed on 06.02.2023.
Further, W.P.No.2236/2023 was filed by an Assistant
Engineer (Civil) seeking promotion to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer (Civil).
6. The learned Single Judge by Order dated
10.07.2023 allowed the writ petitions and held that
according to Rule 2(t) of the 2011 Rules, which defines
“promotion” as appointment to a higher post or higher
grade, reflects a legislative intent that promotion must flow
from an immediate feeder cadre, not through accelerated
promotion bypassing an intermediate cadre. It was further
held that eligibility is different from experience and
experience alone cannot substitute for the educational
qualification and pay-scale hierarchy that distinguish the
cadres. It was further held that comparable service rules of
other Departments provide for promotion to Assistant
Executive Engineer to the feeder cadre of Assistant
Engineer, with Junior Engineers eligible for promotion to
Assistant Engineer.
27
7. The learned Single Judge held the 2011 Rules
insofar as it provides for filling up 25% of the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) from the cadre of Junior
Engineer (Civil) to be unconstitutional. The State
Government was directed to grant promotion to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer only from the feeder cadre of
Assistant Engineer, and to fill up the Assistant Executive
Engineer vacancies in terms of the observations made,
within eight weeks from receipt of the Order.
8. Writ Petition No.10290/2023 (S-PRO) was filed
challenging the 2011 Rules insofar as it provided for filling
up of 40% of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer
(Electrical) from the cadre of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and
direct the promotion of the writ petitioners from the cadre of
Assistant Engineer (Electrical) to Assistant Executive
Engineer (Electrical). The writ petition was allowed by Order
dated 17.07.2023, pursuant to the Order of the learned
Single Judge dated 10.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.1575/2023.
28
9. The present writ appeals are filed challenging the
Order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1575/2023 and
W.P.No.10290/2023. This Court modified the Interim Order
directing status quo by Order dated 06.08.2025 and
permitted to make appointments to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer in accordance with the 2011 Rules
subject to further directions in the Writ Appeals. Against the
said Order, the writ petitioners preferred Special Leave
Petitions No.2383-2386/2025, whereby the Apex Court
stayed the Order of this Court by Order dated 29.08.2025.
Further, on 19.01.2026 the Special Leave Petitions were
disposed of by the Apex Court setting aside the Interim
Order dated 06.08.2025 and left open for this Court to
proceed to decide the matter in the present appeals.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellant- State contended that the
learned Single Judge misinterpreted the definition of
“promotion” in Rule 2(t) of the 2011 Rules. Promotion
means appointment to a higher post or grade, and that the
Junior Engineer is a lower post, while the Assistant Executive
29
Engineer is a higher post to which the Junior Engineer is
subordinate. Relying on Schedule-III(b) of the 2011 Rules
under which both the Assistant Engineer and the Junior
Engineer are shown as subordinate to the Assistant
Executive Engineer, it is contended that appointing a Junior
Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is also
a promotion to a higher grade within Rule 2(t) of the 2011
Rules.
11. It is further contended that prescribing feeder
cadres and creating promotional avenues falls within the
exclusive domain of the rule-making authority, and that the
learned Single Judge has exceeded the scope of judicial
review. It is further contended that Assistant Engineer and
Junior Engineer discharge identical duties and are
subordinate to the Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore,
the classification carving out a 25% quota for Junior
Engineers bears a reasonable nexus to the object sought to
be achieved. It is further contended that the administration
may give the lesser-qualified employees an avenue of
promotion on different terms, in the instant case, five years
30
of experience for a Junior Engineer as against three years
for an Assistant Engineer and that an accelerated promotion
to a small percentage of posts is a legitimate incentive.
12. Further, it is contended that the case of B.S.
Mahabaleshwara v. State of Karnataka by Order dated
19.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.14366/2008 and
connected matters, relied upon by the learned Single
Judge is distinguishable on facts, as the case concerns the
amalgamation of distinct cadres carrying three different pay-
scales into one, producing double promotions through cadres
that already had their own promotional ladder, whereas in
the instant case, there is no nexus between Assistant
Engineer and Junior Engineer. It is further contended that
under the BBMP (General Cadre and Recruitment of Officers
and Employees) Rules, 2020 (‘2020 Rules’ for short), a
Junior Engineer is first promoted to Assistant Engineer
Grade-II and then to Assistant Executive Engineer Grade-II.
However, under the 2011 Rules, a Junior Engineer cannot be
promoted to Assistant Engineer at all, so his only way
forward is to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
31
Further, the 25% quota exists to give Junior Engineers a
route they would otherwise be denied and that the two sets
of rules therefore cannot be compared. It is further
contended that the 2011 Rules have been in force since
2011 and that the vacancies sought to be filled by the
circular dated 09.09.2022 fall within the Junior Engineers’
quota, and that the mere pendency of a proposed
amendment cannot be a ground to deny Junior Engineers’
promotion under the 2011 Rules as they presently stand.
13. The learned Additional Advocate General places
reliance on the following decisions:-
• State of Uttarakhand and Others v. S.K. Singh
and Others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 49; and• S.N. Chandrashekar and Another v. State of
Karnataka and Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC
208.
14. Shri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeals No.941 and
942/2023 contends that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate that under the 2011 Rules, promotion to the
cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) was
32
apportioned as 50% from Assistant Engineers and 25% from
Junior Engineers, and that the writ petitioners’ challenge
was only a grievance that their own chances of promotion
were affected. It was further contended that the
classification for promotion based on educational
qualification was unimpeachable, since a Diploma holder
enters the cadre as Junior Engineer (Civil) whereas a
graduate degree holder enters as Assistant Engineer (Civil).
Further, the differing eligibility periods of three years and
five years, along with the separate quotas of 50% and 25%,
were founded on relevant considerations, as held in State of
Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa reported in
(1974) 1 SCC 19.
15. It is further contended that the Order of the
learned Single Judge amounted to nullifying the policy of the
employer by sub-consciously entering into the wisdom of the
Rule, which is impermissible in law. It was further contended
that the learned Single Judge failed to apply the test laid
down in P.U. Joshi and Others v. Accountant General,
Ahmedabad and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632,
33
wherein the Apex Court held that a Court has no role in
determining recruitment methodology or selection criteria
and cannot sit in appeal over the employer’s judgment, to
direct that a post be filled by a particular mode, except
where the action is contrary to a constitutional or statutory
provision. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge misread the case of State of Uttarakhand and
Others v. S.K. Singh and Others reported in (2019) 10
SCC 49, on accelerated promotion, and failed to appreciate
that rule-making power under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India is legislative in nature and the test
for constitutionality being whether the legislature was
competent to enact the provision.
16. Shri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel
places reliance on the following judgments:-
• M.S. Ramesh and Others v. State of Karnataka
and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.7561 of 2023
by order dated 11.01.2024;
• C. Beepathuma and Others v. Velasari
Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya and Others
reported in AIR 1965 SC 241;
34
• Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West
Bengal v. Keshab Chandra Mandal reported in AIR
1950 SC 265;
• Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v.
Golden Chariot Airport and Another reported in
(2010) 10 SCC 422;
• B.S. Mahabaleshwara and Others v. The State of
Karnataka and Others passed in Writ Petition No.
14366 of 2008 (S-KAT) and Connected Matters
by order dated 19.06.2012;
• C. Vijaya Baskar and Others v. Government of
Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj Department and
Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5573;
• State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit reported in 1967
SCC OnLine SC 384;
• Dhole Govind Sahebrao and Others v. Union of
India and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 727;
• Roop Chand Adlakha and Others v. Delhi
Development Authority and Others reported in
1989 Supp (1) SCC 116;
• Hardev Singh v. Union of India and Another
reported in (2011) 10 SCC 121;
• K. Narayanan and Others v. State of Karnataka
and Others reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 44;
• P. Sudhakar Rao and Others v. U. Govinda Rao
and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 693;
35
• Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Others reported
in (2008) 9 SCC 242;
• Deepak Agarwal and Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others reported in (2011) 6 SCC 725;
• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar reported
in (2023) 3 SCC 773;
• T. Aruna and Others v. Secretary, A.P. Public
Service Commission and Others reported in (2001)
9 SCC 54;
• Patangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav
Deshmukh and Others reported in (2001) 3 SCC
594;
• Dilip Kumar Garg and Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 753;
• P. Murugesan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
and Others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 340;
• Chandravathi P.K. and Others v. C.K. Saji and
Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 734;
• Kuldeep Kumar Gupta and Others v. H.P. State
Electricity Board and Others reported in (2001) 1
SCC 475;
• State of Mysore v. M.H. Krishna Murthy and
Others reported in (1973) 3 SCC 559; and
• Mohammad Shujat Ali and Others v. Union of
India and Others reported in (1975) 3 SCC 76.
36
17. Similar contentions are raised by Shri Vijaya
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ
Appeal No.863/2023. It is contended that the finding of the
learned Single Judge that promotion to the next cadre would
mean from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer
and then Assistant Executive Engineer is erroneous, because
Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer are source cadre for
Assistant Executive Engineer and separate quotas are being
maintained for each feeder cadre. Further, accelerated
promotion for Junior Engineer is permissible according to the
Apex Court’s judgment in Triloki Nath Khosa‘s case
(supra).
18. It is also contended that the learned Single
Judge’s reliance on B.S. Mahabaleshwara‘s case (supra) is
misplaced, because the instant case deals with promotion
from Junior Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer based
on experience, whereas in B.S. Mahabaleshwara‘s case
(supra) involved the amalgamation of three cadres and
transfer from the cadre of Training Officers possessing
degree in Engineering. It is further contended that the
37
learned Single Judge could not have compared the Cadre
and Recruitment Rules of other departments as the facts
and circumstances of this case are entirely different. It is
further contended that the finding of the learned Single
Judge is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
because pay-scale and educational qualification cannot be
the sole criterion to determine the eligibility for promotion to
a higher cadre, since both the Junior Engineer and Assistant
Engineer have a separate quota for promotion to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer.
19. Shri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel has placed
the following decisions on record:-
• P.U. Joshi and Others v. Accountant General,
Ahmedabad and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC
632;
• Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Others reported
in (2008) 9 SCC 242;
• Deepak Agarwal and Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others reported in (2011) 6 SCC 725;
and• State of Uttarakhand and Others v. S.K. Singh and
Others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 49.
38
20. Shri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.1038/2023,
submits that the private appellants herein were appointed
through direct recruitment as Junior Engineers (Electrical)
through the 2011 Rules. While the learned Single Judge
correctly noted that educational qualification can be a
criterion in promotional matters, it is erroneously held that it
should be the sole criterion, which is an unconstitutional
overreach by the learned Single Judge. Matters of
recruitment, qualification and selection criteria fall
exclusively within the domain of the employer, and judicial
review is permissible only where the action is shown to be
contrary to a constitutional or statutory provision.
21. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge has not considered the law laid down in T.R.
Kothandaraman and Others v. Tamil Nadu Water
Supply and Drainage Board and Others reported in
(1994) 6 SCC 282, wherein the Apex Court held that
promotional classification between degree holders and
diploma holders is constitutionally valid. The Apex Court
39
further recognised that excessive emphasis on higher
educational qualifications may cause a dent to social justice,
as it is the poorer sections of society that would be deprived
of their legitimate expectations. It is further contended that
the practical consequence of the impugned judgment is that
the Junior Engineers, who accepted employment on the
basis of service conditions that included a promotion after
five years, would have to remain Junior Engineers for life. It
is also contended that quashing the 2011 Rules would not
only exclude future promotions, but would also unsettle past
promotions made based on the Rules.
22. Shri. Nagapraveena, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants in W.A.No.1369/2023, contends that the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10290/2023 failed to
properly appreciate T.R. Kothandaraman‘s case (supra),
where the Apex Court upheld an identical 3:2 classification
between degree and diploma holders for promotion as
constitutionally valid. This has left the private appellants
permanently confined to the post of Junior Engineer contrary
to the service conditions under which they were originally
40
appointed. It is further contended that the reliance placed
on W.P.No.1575/2023, which held that experience cannot be
a sole substitute for educational qualification, is similarly
misconceived. Reliance is also placed on Triloki Nath
Khosa‘s case (supra), wherein the Court held that the
burden lies on the party alleging that a rule is arbitrary or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution to plead and prove
the same. It is further contended that judicial scrutiny is
limited to examining whether the classification rests on a
reasonable basis bearing nexus to the object sought to be
achieved, and does not extend to the Court substituting its
own judgment for that of the rule-making authority, a
principle reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench in
Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India reported in
(1975) 3 SCC 76. It is further contended that this is not a
case of impermissible accelerated promotion, as the Junior
Engineer and Assistant Engineer cadres operate
independently with separate promotional streams, and no
cadre is being bypassed.
41
23. Shri. M.S. Bhagwath, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.200/2024
and respondent No.2 in Writ Appeal No.941/2023 contends
that the 2011 Rules, to the extent they provide for filling
25% of the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) by
promotion from Junior Engineer (Civil), is arbitrary. It is
contended that the State has also notified the 2020 Rules of
the BBMP but the method of filling the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer differs from the 2011 Rules. In the 2011
Rules, the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is filled by
direct recruitment as well as promotion from Assistant
Engineer or Junior Engineer, whereas under the 2020 Rules,
it is filled only by promotion from Assistant Engineer or by
deputation, with a distinction drawn between graduates and
non-graduates. The 2011 Rules wrongly treat degree holders
and diploma holders alike and allow Junior Engineers
possessing only a diploma to be directly promoted to the
post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The State cannot
prescribe two different methods of recruitment to the same
post in two different Corporations, and doing so is arbitrary
42
and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Reliance is placed on Triloki Nath Khosa‘s case (supra),
which held that persons drawn from different sources who
are integrated into one class can validly be classified for
promotion on the basis of educational qualification. Applying
this principle, since persons in the same cadre can be
classified on the basis of educational qualification, denying
promotional opportunities to those lacking the requisite
qualification cannot be said to be unconstitutional. However,
2011 Rules, prescribe a higher qualification (degree) for the
lower cadre of Assistant Engineer while permitting a lower
qualification (diploma) for the higher cadre of Assistant
Executive Engineer, which is unconstitutional.
24. It is further contended that the State
Government, vide its Circular dated 06.07.2020, had
directed that 2011 Rules be amended every three years and
that educational qualifications prescribed for direct
recruitment should ordinarily also apply for promotion.
Despite the Circular mandating revision every three years,
2011 Rules have not been amended to date. The 2011 Rules
43
suffer from a further infirmity that Assistant Executive
Engineer is a Group A post, Assistant Engineer is Group B,
and Junior Engineer is Group C, however, the 2011 Rules
permit a Group C employee (Junior Engineer) to be directly
promoted to a Group A post (Assistant Executive Engineer),
bypassing the intermediate Group B cadre altogether. This is
without rational basis and unjustly deprives eligible and
qualified Assistant Engineers of their right to be considered
for promotion. Reliance is also placed on P.U. Joshi‘s case
(supra), which held that prescribing classification and
recruitment conditions falls primarily within the domain of
the rule-making authority and must be upheld, if based on a
reasonable basis. In the instant case, eligible Assistant
Engineers are denied their 25% share of promotional
opportunities in the Civil cadre, and this Court therefore has
the power to adjudicate the present dispute.
25. Shri. M.S. Bhagwath, learned Senior Counsel
places reliance on the following decisions:-
• State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar
and Others reported in (2023) 3 SCC 773;
44
• B.S. Mahabaleshwara and Others v. The State of
Karnataka and Others passed in Writ Petition
No.14366 of 2008 (S-KAT) and Connected Matters
by order dated 19.06.2012;
• M.S. Ramesh and Others v. State of Karnataka and
Others passed in Civil Appeal No.7561 of 2023 by
order dated 11.01.2024;
• K. Narayanan and Others v. State of Karnataka and
Others reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 44;
• Director, Central Rice Research Institution, Cuttack
and Another v. Khetra Mohan Das reported in 1994
Supp (3) SCC 595;
• Shakuntala Sharma (Mrs.) v. High Court of H.P. at
Shimla and Another reported in (1994) 2 SCC 411;
and• Joaquim I.M. Dias v. R.S. Revonkar and Others
reported in 1989 SCC OnLine Bom 248.
26. Shri. Vigneshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in Writ Appeal
942/2023, contends that no person in the Assistant Engineer
(Civil) cadre ranks higher in seniority than the writ petitioner
in W.P.No.2236/2023, and therefore she ought to have been
considered before the Junior Engineers (Civil). To promote
the said private appellants while bypassing the writ
45
petitioner would defeat the very object of the seniority list
and discourage qualified persons from public employment.
Therefore, the writ petitioner was liable to be promoted.
27. Shri. Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1038/2023,
raises similar contentions as the learned counsels appearing
for the private respondents herein. It is contended that the
cadres of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer are distinct
and the experience of a diploma-holding Junior Engineer
cannot be equated with that of a degree-holding Assistant
Engineer for the purpose of filling the higher promotional
post. It is further contended that in comparable service rules
governing similar cadres, promotion to the cadre of
Assistant Executive Engineer is through the feeder cadre of
Assistant Engineer. The post of Junior Engineer is
subordinate to Assistant Engineer in the cadre hierarchy and
permitting a Junior Engineer to be promoted to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer is to treat unequals as equals
which defeats the legitimate promotional expectation of the
Assistant Engineers.
46
28. We have considered the contentions advanced
and the pleadings and the extensive materials on record. We
have also given our anxious consideration to the reasoning
of the learned Single Judge and referred to the precedents
relied on by the learned counsel appearing on all sides.
29. The learned Single Judge found that the central
question for consideration was whether post of Junior
Engineer is a feeder cadre to the promotion to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer or not?
30. However, on consideration of the contentions
placed on record and the pleadings, we are of the opinion
that the questions which actually require consideration in
these batch of cases are as follows:-
(i) Can there be a promotion from a particular post
(Junior Engineer in this case) to a higher post in
the hierarchy (Assistant Executive Engineer),
skipping an intermediary post (Assistant
Engineer)?
(ii) Whether there can be two feeder categories
having different qualification and different scales
47of pay and classification for appointment to a
higher post?
(iii) Is the Rule under challenge bad in law?
31. The learned Single Judge has relied on the
definition of promotion as provided in Rule 2(t) of the 2011
Rules. Rule 2(t) of the 2011 Rules reads as follows:
“(t) ‘Promotion’ means appointment of an officer or
employee from a post or grade of service or class
of service to a higher post or higher grade of
service or higher class of service.”
The learned Single Judge held that this definition shows a
clear legislative intent that promotion must proceed from the
immediate feeder cadre to the next higher post. The learned
Single Judge, relying on the decision in T. Aruna and
Others v. Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission
reported in (2001) 9 SCC 54 and Mangi Lal v. State of
Rajasthan reported in (2007) 9 SCC 189, went on to hold
that promotion can be provided only from one post in the
feeder category to the next higher post and not to any other
still higher post in the hierarchy of posts. Relying on S.K.
Singh‘s case (supra), it was held that there can be no
48
absolute equality between persons belonging to two different
posts for promotion to a still higher post.
32. It is essential for us to advert to the concept of
promotion in service jurisprudence. The celebrated Author,
Shri. Samaraditya Pal in his book “Law Relating to Public
Service” (4th Edition, 2021), defines ‘promotion’ as
“Promotion, in the context of the law relating to service,
means advancing or raising an employee to a higher office
or rank or post than the one the employee was holding or to
a higher scale of pay than the one the employee was
enjoying immediately before such promotion.” Further, the
Apex Court in Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab reported
in (1994) 5 SCC 392, held that under service law
jurisprudence, “promotion” means advancement in rank,
grade or both and is always a step towards advancement to
a higher position, grade or honour. Therefore, promotion is
advancement in position from a lower post to a higher post
in the service hierarchy. A reading of Rule 2(t) of the 2011
Rules would only show that the concept of promotion being
progression of an employee from a lower post to a higher
49
post in the hierarchy is emphasised therein. There is nothing
in the Rule which can be read to mean that there can be no
progression from a feeder category to a higher post, without
being appointed or promoted to an intermediate post. As
such, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned
Single Judge that promotion could only be to next higher
post is not supported by law or by anything stated in Rule
2(t) of the 2011 Rules.
33. The contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the party respondents is to the effect
that the rule that includes the post of Junior Engineers as a
feeder category along with Assistant Engineers, (which is a
higher category post carrying higher scale of pay) is illegal
and arbitrary. It is contended that equating unequals equally
amounts to discrimination. Much reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
B.S. Mahabaleshwara‘s case (supra) which is affirmed by
the Apex Court. It is contended that the post of Assistant
Engineer and Junior Engineer are in different categories, the
nature of their duties are different, qualifications are
50
different and therefore the rules equate different cadres
equally, which is not reasonable.
34. The decisions relied on are authority on the point
that there can be valid differentiation on the basis of
different qualifications. However, we see no prohibition in
any of the decisions that there cannot be two prescribed
qualifications, one higher and one lower, for one post. We
also find no proposition in any of the decisions that a
Diploma holder and a Degree holder cannot be eligible for
appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. In
the instant case, as noticed above, the 2011 Rules
specifically provide that the Junior Engineers would be
eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive
Engineers only after completing a longer period, that is, five
years in the feeder category, while Assistant Engineers will
be so eligible for promotion on completing three years of
service. Further, the quota prescribed in the 2011 Rules
would ensure that only 25% of the posts of Assistant
Executive Engineers can be filled up from Junior Engineers,
while the rest of the posts are to be filled up by promoting
51
Assistant Engineers, who have completed three years in
service.
35. The learned Additional Advocate General would
contend that the question of deciding the feeder categories,
quotas for promotion and qualifications, fall completely
within the realm of the rule-making authority and the
Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with this exercise,
unless there is a clear illegality in the said exercise. In the
instant case, it is contended that the rule-making authority
has taken an informed decision to include both the posts of
Junior Engineers as well as Assistant Engineers in the feeder
category for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive
Engineer. It is contended that this is a decision taken after
due consultations with the service organisations and in the
interest of a proper administration of the Municipalities. The
nature of the duties and responsibilities of the posts in the
service and the nature of the work expected from the
members of the service being matters which are clearly
known to the rule-making authority, it would be for the rule-
making authority to take appropriate decisions as to what
52
the qualifications for appointment to the post are to be, and
what feeder categories have to be included. It is submitted
that once such an exercise is made by the rule-making
authority unless there is demonstrable arbitrariness or
illegality in the Rules so framed, the Court could not have
interfered in the exercise of the executive power by the rule-
making authority.
36. In Triloki Nath Khosa‘s case (supra), the Apex
Court held that when a party seeks to impeach the validity
of the rule made by a competent authority on the ground
that the rules offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity. There
is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of
enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to
show that there has been a clear transgression of the
constitutional principle. A rule cannot be struck down as
discriminatory on any a priori reasoning. Further, it was held
that classification is primarily for the legislature or for the
statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the
terms and conditions of service and if looked at from the
53
standpoint of the authority making it, the classification is
found to rest on a reasonable basis, it has to be upheld.
37. Further, in T.R. Kothandaraman‘s case (supra),
the Apex Court held as under:-
“21. The validity of aforesaid Rule 2(b), which has
prescribed the ratio of 3:2 for direct recruits and
promotees — the former being degree-holders and latter
diploma-holders — is challenged as violative of the
guarantee of quality embodied in Article 16. The counsel
for the respondents has, inter alia, drawn our attention to
the fact that this differentiation is ancient as mentioned in
the counter-affidavit filed by the State, a part of which has
been quoted at pages 13 to 16 of SLP (C) No. 10645 of
1989. A perusal of the same shows that the degree-holder
Assistant Engineers were designated as Assistant Engineer
(Agriculture Engineering) and given gazetted status,
whereas diploma-holders were denied the same. This
apart, the degree-holders were given higher scale of pay.
The affidavit further shows that the post of Executive
Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) calls for higher skill,
administration, planning and evolving of proposals and
drafting. In these aspects most of the diploma-holders
were found lacking. It has been mentioned in this affidavit
that the degree-holders had studied for six years at
college level after leaving school stage, whereas diploma-
holders have only three years’ study at the level of
Institute of Technology after school stage. Because of this,
higher technical calibre in degree-holders is presumed.
Insofar as the common seniority list is concerned, the
54submission in the counter-affidavit is that the same “did
not allow (sic) to give preference in promoting graduates
to the level of Assistant Executive Engineer (Agricultural
Engineering) in the department”. The further averment is
that in other departments where separate lists were being
maintained, ratio adopted was 3:1, whereas in the
department at hand ratio of 3:2 was recommended taking
into account large number of diploma-holders.
22. The aforesaid shows that higher educational
qualification has relevance insofar as the holding of higher
promotional post is concerned, in view of the nature of the
functions and duties attached to that post. The
classification has, therefore, nexus with the object to be
achieved. This apart, history also supports the
differentiation sought to be made by the rule in question.
We, therefore, uphold the classification as valid.
24. In the present cases the ratio is 3:2 and we
regard the same as reasonable in view of what has been
stated above relating to adoption of this ratio. Having felt
satisfied about the permissibility of the classification also,
the cases challenging the constitutionality of the quota for
promotion as fixed in this service have to be dismissed.”
38. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that
chances of promotion would not constitute conditions of
service and mere alteration of chances of promotion would
not be a ground for invalidating an otherwise valid
55
prescription of rules or conditions of service by a Competent
Authority.
39. In P.U. Joshi‘s case (supra), the Apex Court
clearly held at paragraph No.10, as follows:-
“10. We have carefully considered the submissions
made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the
constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres,
categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of
qualifications and other conditions of service including
avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such
promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the
exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject,
of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the
Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory
tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a
particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or
avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its
views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and
within the competency of the State to change the rules
relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by
addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria
and other conditions of service including avenues of
promotion, from time to time, as the administrative
exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by
appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments
or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different
categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further
classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as
reconstitute and restructure the pattern and
56cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time
to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and
creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any
employee of the State to claim that rules governing
conditions of his service should be forever the same as the
one when he entered service for all purposes and except
for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already
earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a
government servant has no right to challenge the
authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force
new rules relating to even an existing service.”
(emphasis supplied)
40. In Union of India v. Pushpa Rani reported in
(2008) 9 SCC 242, the Apex Court held that the Court
cannot sit in appeal over the employer’s judgment,
determine the methodology of recruitment or the criteria of
selection, or direct the manner in which the cadres should
be structured or restructured, unless the action of the
employer is arbitrary or mala fide. Paragraph No.37 of the
judgment is extracted below:-
“37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we
consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position
that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts,
formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres,
prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and
qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service
57records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain
of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving
efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the
employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in
such matters only if it is shown that the action of the
employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory
provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala
fides. The court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of
the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by
direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The court
has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment
or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open
to the court to make comparative evaluation of the merit
of the candidates. The court cannot suggest the manner in
which the employer should structure or restructure the
cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of
administration.”
(emphasis supplied)
41. This position was affirmed in the case of State of
Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari reported in (2012) 9
SCC 545. Further, in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz
Ahmad reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2680, the Apex
Court held that the State as employer is entitled to prescribe
the qualifications as a condition of eligibility and the Courts
exercising judicial review are not to expand the ambit of the
58
prescribed qualifications, or determine the equivalence of a
qualification. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:-
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the
interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in
Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596] in the subsequent decision in Anita
[State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170] . The
decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule
10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible
to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily
presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower,
qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is
a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer
is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of
eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial
review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is
not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the
power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification
should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter
for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.
The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on a specific statutory
rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could
presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification.
xxxxx
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post,
the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind
several features including the nature of the job, the
aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the
59
functionality of a qualification and the content of the
course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a
qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to
assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of
administrative decision-making. The State as a public
employer may well take into account social perspectives
that require the creation of job opportunities across the
societal structure. All these are essentially matters of
policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the
decision in Jyoti K.K. must be understood in the context of
a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a
lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the
post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision
in Jyoti K.K. turned.”
(emphasis supplied)
42. Further, in Chandravathi P.K. and Others v.
C.K. Saji and Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 734, the
Apex Court held that the State as an employer is entitled to
fix separate quota of promotion for degree holders, diploma
holders and certificate holders separately in exercise of its
rule making power under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India and such a rule is not unconstitutional.
60
43. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court in C. Vijaya
Baskar and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.
by its Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
Mad 5573, where, it was held that the Constitutional
Courts, in exercise of judicial review, would not readily
interfere with policy decisions taken by the State unless, it is
satisfied that the rule-making authority has acted arbitrarily,
unreasonably or in such a capricious manner so as to erode
upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was therefore, held
that the inclusion of Junior Engineers and Assistant
Engineers in the feeder category for promotion to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer with a ratio of 6:2 or 3:1, is
not an illegal exercise. It was further held that
administrative authorities are in the best position to decide
the requisite qualifications for promotion to the post of
Assistant Executive Engineer and it is not for the
Constitutional Courts to sit over their decisions like a Court
61
of Appeal. The power of judicial review can be exercised
only if the state action is contrary to the constitutional law
statutory provisions or is vitiated by mala fides and/or is
arbitrary.
44. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents have placed reliance on the decision of a co-
equal bench of this Court in B.S. Mahabaleshwara‘s case
(supra), we notice that the essential question considered in
the said decision was with regard to an amalgamation of
three cadres of unequal posts into the feeder category, that
is, providing for 33-1/3rd % of posts of Principal Grade II by
direct recruitment, 33-1/3rd % by promotion from the cadre
of Training Officers and 33-1/3rd % from transfer from the
three cadres, that is, Training Officers, Assistant Training
Officers and Junior Training Officers. This Court had found
that the inclusion of three categories of posts which had
different scales of pay, qualifications as well as duties and
responsibilities to one consolidated quota in the feeder
category, amounted to treating unequals equally. It was
noticed that there was no quota specifically set out for the
62
different posts and unequal posts were treated equally
within the 33-1/3rd % quota. The facts and the law being
completely different, the ratio would have no application in
the instant case. In the instant case, the only question to be
considered is whether the fixing of two feeder categories
with separate quotas and separate qualifying service for
promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is bad
in law or not.
45. Having considered all the contentions advanced,
we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not
justified in holding that there was any illegality or
arbitrariness in the fixation of two different feeder categories
for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
This is more so, in view of the fact that the higher post has
been given a higher quota for appointment with a lower
period of qualifying service in the feeder category. We find
that no grounds have been made out for a successful
challenge to the rules. Since the prescription of the
qualification and the determination of the feeder category,
being in the realm of the executive power of the State,
63
without a clear pleading and finding on illegality, it could not
have been interfered with. We find that the learned Single
Judge has erred in this exercise. The appeals therefore
succeed.
46. In the result:-
(i) The Writ Appeals are allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated 10.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.1575/2023 (S-RES) and Order
dated 17.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.10290/2023 by the learned Single
Judge are set aside.
(iii) The writ petitions filed challenging the 2011
Rules shall stand dismissed.
(iv) However, in case, the writ petitioners have
any contentions with regard to
implementation of 2011 Rules, they are free
to make representations before the
respondent, who shall consider them in
accordance with law. It is also made clear
that promotions can be carried out in
accordance with the 2011 Rules.
64
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
cp*
