Full Judgment Text
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
W.P.Nos.18046-18052/2011 c/w W.P.Nos.18046-18052/2011 c/w W.P.Nos.18046-18052/2011 c/w W.P.Nos.18046-18052/2011 c/w
W.P.Nos.18476-18482/2011, W.P.Nos.18476-18482/2011, W.P.Nos.18476-18482/2011, W.P.Nos.18476-18482/2011,
W.P.Nos.19962-19965/2011(S-RES) W.P.Nos.19962-19965/2011(S-RES) W.P.Nos.19962-19965/2011(S-RES) W.P.Nos.19962-19965/2011(S-RES)
WP Nos 18046-18052 OF 2011
BETWEEN
------------
1 ARASUKUMARI
D/O MAHADEVA SWAMY H S
AGED 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
CENSUS SECTION, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE
2 KUMARA SWAMY P
S/O LATE PAPANNA
AGED 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT
REVENUE SECTION,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
3 SURESH BABU H V
S/O VENKATASHESHAIAH H K
AGED 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
2
ZONE-1, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
4 PRASAD M
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA M
AGED 30 YEARS,
FIRST GRADE REVENUE INSPECTOR ZONE-3
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
5 YOGENDRA T
S/O LATE THAMMANNA M
AGED 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
ZONE-2 MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
6 NAGENDRA SWAMY T N
S/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
ZONE-3 MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
7 MAHADEVA SWAMY S/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
ZONE-6 MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri : PADMANABHA MAHALE, SR.COUNSEL
FOR Sri: S N BHAT, ADV. )
3
AND :
------
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE
2 THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : S.VIJAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR Sri RAVINDRANATH P.V., HCGP FOR R1
Sri : H C SHIVARAMU, ADV., FOR R2 )
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE RULES TITLED AS "THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL
CORPOATATIONS [COMMON RECRUITMENT OF OFFICERS
& EMPLOYEES] RULES 2011" PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA GAZETTE DT.11.4.11 UNDER NOTIFICATION
DT.11.4.11 VIDE ANN-A ARE ULTRA VIRES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & THE PROVISIONS OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT 1976.
WP Nos. 18476-18482 OF 2011
BETWEEN
------------
1 THE MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ®
REP. BY SRI B HANUMANTHEGOWDA
VICE PRESIDENT
NAGARAPALIKE OFFICE PREMISES,
4
SAYYAJIRAO ROAD,
MYSORE 570 024
2 SRI RAGHAVENDRA R
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY S.B.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
ZONE 08, MYSORE CITY CORPROATION
MYSORE 570 024
3 SRI VENKATESH S.D.
S/O SRI DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST GRADE REVENUE
INSPECTOR, ZONE 06, MYSORE CITY
CORPORATION, MYSORE 570 024
4 SRI SIDDARAJU M S
S/O SRI P SIDDACHAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
ZONE 07, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE 570 024
5 SMT MALATHI H
W/O GOPALA KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST GRADE REVENUE
INSPECTOR, C.F.W.B. FAMILY
PLANNING CENTRER, TILAKNAGAR,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE 570 024
5
6 SMT MANJULA S
W/O SRI RAJESH M S
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST GRADE REVENUE
INSPECTOR ZONE 06,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE 570 024
7 SRI SATISH M S
S/O LATE SRI SRINIVAS T
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
ZONE 03, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE 570 024 ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri :VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV., FOR
Sri B B BAJENTRI, ADV.)
AND :
------
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001
2 THE COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJIRAO ROAD,
MYSORE 570 024
MYSORE DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : S.VIJAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR Sri RAVINDRANATH P.V., HCGP FOR R1
Smt M.P.GEETHA DEVI, ADV. FOR R2)
6
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THEM TO THE DRAFT KMC RULES,
2010 (ANNEXURE-E & F) AND ETC.
WP Nos 19962-19965 OF 2011
BETWEEN
------------
1 B BALAKRISHNA GOWDA
S/O. KEPU GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS TOWN PLANNING
OFFICER MANGALORE CITY
CORPORATION, LALBAGH,
MANGALORE & R/AT: "SHRI
MANGALA" D.NO.2-18-1560/2,
1ST "B" CROSS, KAPIKAD, BIJAI,
MANGALORE 575004
2 MANJUNATHA SWAMY S.E
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. ESHWARAPPA,
WORKING AS ASST TOWN
PLANNING OFFICER MANGALORE CITY
CORPORATION, LALBAGH
MANGALORE & R/AT: PLOT
NO.002, JYOTHI KIRAN APARTMENT
HAT HILL, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
MANGALORE 575006
7
3 P.B. SHIVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BABU P
WORKING AS ASST TOWN PLANNING
OFFICER, MANGALORE CITY
CORPORATION, LALBAGH
MANGALORE 575003 &
R/AT: PLOT NO.203
MOSACO APARTMENTS
NEHRU AVENUE CROSS RD
LALBAGH, MANGALORE 575003.
4 DILEEP S. GADYAL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. SONAVVA
WORKING AS ASST TOWN
PLANNING OFFICER MANGALORE
CITY CORPORATION,LALBAGH
MANGALORE 575003 &
R/AT: T.B. NO.1, CITY CORPORATION
QUARTERS, PANDESHWAR
MANGALORE 575001
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri : M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADV. FOR
M/S.SUBBA RAO & CO. ADV. )
AND :
------
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
& MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES ROOM
NO.401, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001
8
2 THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION,GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA, 9TH FLOOR, VISHVESVARAIAH
TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001
3 THE CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
LALBAGH, MANGALORE 575003
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : S.VIJAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR Sri RAVINDRANATH P.V., HCGP FOR R1 & R2
M/S A K VASANTH & M K GIRISH FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 11.4.2011 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E
AS THE SAME IS OPPOSED TO SECTION 82 TO 85 OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL COUNCILS ACT, 1976 AND
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, H.N.NAGAMOHAN
DAS. J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING;
O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R
In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed to
declare the “Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common
9
Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011” (for
short “Rules 2011”) as unconstitutional and for other reliefs.
2. Prior to 1976 different legislations were in force
in different parts of the State of Karnataka governing the
municipal administration. In order to bring all the municipal
establishments under a single enactment the Government of
Karnataka enacted “Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act
1976” (for short “KMC Act”). Consequently the Karnataka
Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977 came into force (for short
“Rules 1977”). Rule 10 to 26 of Chapter VI of Rules 1977
deals with procedure for appointment, reservation of posts,
misconduct etc. With the increase in population, the area of
urban local bodies also increased. This development
necessitated efficient management of manpower in the urban
local bodies. Under the existing rules, promotional
10
opportunities to certain category of employees was stagnant.
In order to remove certain anomalies in the existing rules, for
better promotional opportunities and efficient management
of manpower, the Government of Karnataka by exercising
power under Section 421 of the KMC Act, 1976 repealed
Rules 10 to 26 of Rules 1977 and enacted the impugned Rules
2011.
3. Petitioners in W.P.No.18046-52/2011 and
W.P.No.18476-482/2011 are the employees and their
associations working in Mysore City Corporation.
Petitioners in W.P.No.19962-65/2011 are the employees
working in Mangalore City Corporation. Petitioners being
aggrieved by the impugned Rules 2011 are before this Court.
4. Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel,
Sri B.B.Bajentri and Sri Narayana Bhat, learned Advocates
11
advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners. It is
contended that the object of Article 243W of the
Constitution is to strengthen the grass root level urban
democratic institutions. The impugned Rules are contrary to
the object of the Constitution. Further the impugned Rules
are contrary to Act 1976. The exclusion of similarly situated
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’)
from the operation of the impugned Rules is discriminatory,
arbitrary and unconstitutional. The impugned Rules takes
away the autonomy of the urban local bodies which they
were enjoying under the previous Rules 1977. It is
contended that the impugned Rules alter the service
conditions of the existing employees and there would be
curtailment of chances of promotion. Reliance is placed on
the following decisions:
12
i) 2006 AIR SCW 743
Shanti G.Patel vs. State of Maharashtra
ii) AIR 1988 SC 876
General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief vs.
Subhash Chandra
iii) Punjab Water Supply & Sewarage Board
vs.Ranjodh Singh and ors.
Civil Appeal Nos.5632 with 5633/2006
5. Per contra, Sri Vijay Shankar, learned Advocate
General contends that the impugned Rules do not take away
the powers enjoyed by the local bodies in the matter of
planning and development of local area. The impugned
Rules removes the anomalies in the existing Rules and
provides for better management of manpower, efficient
service in the local bodies and provides better promotional
opportunities to its employees. Reliance is placed on the
following decisions:
13
i) AIR 1996 SC 1627
State of A.P. vs. Mc.Dowell & Co.
ii) ii) ii) ii) (2003) 2 SCC 632
PU Joshi & others vs. Accountant General
iii) iii) iii) iii) (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 851
Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani
iv) iv) iv) iv) AIR 1975 SC 1146
B.Banerjee vs. Smt.Anita Pan
v) v) (1998) 1 SCC 285
v) v)
Kasambhai F.Ghanchi vs. Chandubhai D.Rajput
vi) vi) vi) vi) (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 938
Dilip Kumar Garg vs. State of UP
6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused
the entire writ papers.
7. The Supreme Court in State of AP vs. McDowell
& Co. AIR 1996 SC 1627 held that “ a law made by the
Parliament or the Legislature can be struck down by Courts
on two ground and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of
14
legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed in Part – II of the
Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There
is no third ground .
8. Keeping in view this dictum of the Apex Court
as stated above, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in
the present case. Section 91 of the KMC Act, 1976 empowers
the Government to make Rules regarding the conditions of
service like the tenure of office, salaries and allowances,
provident fund, pension, gratuity, leave of absence and other
conditions of service of officers and other employees, the
procedure to be followed in imposing the penalty, suspension
and any other matter incidental to or necessary for the
purpose of regulating the appointment of conditions of
service of persons appointed. Section 91A empowers the
15
State government to transfer the employees of corporation to
corresponding post in any other Corporation or in any local
authority constituted under any law made by the State
legislature or the government. Section 421 empowers the
Government generally to make rules, regulations and bye-
laws to carryout the purpose of KMC Act, 1976. The
impugned Rules 2011 are made by the Government by
exercising power under Section 421. Therefore, the
Government of Karnataka is having legislative competency to
enact the impugned Rules 2011. On the competency of the
Government, there is no much argument by learned
Advocates on the side of petitioners. Therefore, I hold that
the Government by exercising power under the provisions of
KMC Act, 1976 legislated the impugned Rules 2011 and the
same is within their legislative competency.
16
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on
Article 243W of the Constitution contend that the impugned
Rules 2011 are contrary to the object of the Constitution.
Article 243W empowers the State Governments to make law
by endowing the urban local bodies to function as
institutions of self Government. The State Government to
legislate containing provisions of devolution of powers and
responsibilities subject to the conditions specified in the
twelth schedule. The twelth schedule provides for urban
planning including town planning, regulation of land use and
construction of buildings. On the other hand, the impugned
Rules 2011 relates to recruitment, promotion, change of
cadre, increment, abolition of posts etc. The impugned Rules
2011 are in no way contrary to the object specified in Article
243W.
17
10. The impugned Rules are not made applicable to
the BBMP. The contention of petitioners that the exclusion
of similarly situated urban local body BBMP from the
application of the impugned Rules 2011 is discriminatory and
arbitrary under Article 14(g) of the Constitution. I decline to
accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners.
The Supreme Court in Sakhawant Ali vs. State of Orissa AIR
1955 SC 166 held that “ Legislation enacted for the
achievement of a particular object or purpose need not be all
embracing. It is for the Legislature to determine what
categories it would embrace within the scope of legislation
and merely because certain categories would embrace within
the scope of legislation and merely because certain categories
which would stand on the same footing as those which are
covered by the legislation are left out would not render
legislation which has been enacted in any manner
18
discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right
guaranteed by Art.14”
Further in Pannalal Bansilal Patil vs. State of A.P. it is
held as under:
“12........ A uniform law, though is highly desirable,
enactment thereof in one go perhaps may be counter
productive to unity and integrity of the nation. In a
democracy governed by Rule of law, gradual progressive
change and order should be brought about. Making law or
amendment to a law is a slow process and the legislature
attempts to remedy where the need is felt most acute. It
would therefore, be inexpedient and incorrect to think that
all laws have to be made uniformly applicable to all people in
one go. The mischief or defect which is most acute can be
remedied by process of law at stages”.
11. Thus it is well settled that Article 14 does not
forbid reasonable clarification for the purpose of legislation.
It is brought out that the number of employees in BBMP
19
exceeds the number of employees employed in all other
urban local bodies in the State of Karnataka. The nature of
management of manpower, the promotional opportunities
etc are entirely different in BBMP when compared to other
urban local bodies in the State. The Government in its
wisdom excluded the BBMP from the application of
impugned Rules 2011. This classification of BBMP from
other local bodies can neither be said discriminatory,
arbitrary or opposed to Article 14(g) of the Constitution.
12. It is contended that under the impugned Rules
2011 a provision is made for classification of posts etc and the
same has resulted in hardship and inconvenience to the
petitioners. I decline to accept this contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners. Under Rule 11 of the impugned
Rules, 2011 an option is given to an employee for change of
20
cadre subject to certain conditions, Rule 16 specifies that no
posts shall be abolished unless such posts become vacant and
Rule 17 specifies that any right, privilege, obligation or
liability acquired, accrued or incurred will not be affected.
Thus the interest of the petitioners is protected and in no
way the impugned Rules, 2011 will affect the right of
petitioners and other employees.
13. The Supreme Court in P.U.Joshi vs. Accountant
General (2003)2 SCC 632 held as under:
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 and within the
exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of
21
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/substruction
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 cadres/categories of service, as may be required
from time to time by abolishing 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
22
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.
14. As already stated the rights and benefits already
earned by the petitioners are protected under the impugned
Rules 2011. In the earlier Rules the Commissioner of a
Municipality/Corporation had the power to recruit Group C
and D employees and in the impugned Rules, 2011 it is
restricted only to group D employees. Again this change will
not affect the interest of petitioners and they cannot insist
the Government to continue the same situation forever. It is
for the Government and it is within their power to bring
changes in the existing service rules. I find no illegality for
interference with the impugned Rules, 2011.
23
For the reasons stated above these writ petitions are
hereby dismissed. The interim order granted in these writ
petitions is hereby vacated. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
DKB.
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
W.P.Nos.18046-18052/2011 c/w W.P.Nos.18046-18052/2011 c/w W.P.Nos.18046-18052/2011 c/w W.P.Nos.18046-18052/2011 c/w
W.P.Nos.18476-18482/2011, W.P.Nos.18476-18482/2011, W.P.Nos.18476-18482/2011, W.P.Nos.18476-18482/2011,
W.P.Nos.19962-19965/2011(S-RES) W.P.Nos.19962-19965/2011(S-RES) W.P.Nos.19962-19965/2011(S-RES) W.P.Nos.19962-19965/2011(S-RES)
WP Nos 18046-18052 OF 2011
BETWEEN
------------
1 ARASUKUMARI
D/O MAHADEVA SWAMY H S
AGED 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
CENSUS SECTION, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE
2 KUMARA SWAMY P
S/O LATE PAPANNA
AGED 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT
REVENUE SECTION,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
3 SURESH BABU H V
S/O VENKATASHESHAIAH H K
AGED 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
2
ZONE-1, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
4 PRASAD M
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA M
AGED 30 YEARS,
FIRST GRADE REVENUE INSPECTOR ZONE-3
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
5 YOGENDRA T
S/O LATE THAMMANNA M
AGED 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
ZONE-2 MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
6 NAGENDRA SWAMY T N
S/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
ZONE-3 MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
7 MAHADEVA SWAMY S/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
ZONE-6 MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri : PADMANABHA MAHALE, SR.COUNSEL
FOR Sri: S N BHAT, ADV. )
3
AND :
------
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE
2 THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : S.VIJAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR Sri RAVINDRANATH P.V., HCGP FOR R1
Sri : H C SHIVARAMU, ADV., FOR R2 )
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE RULES TITLED AS "THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL
CORPOATATIONS [COMMON RECRUITMENT OF OFFICERS
& EMPLOYEES] RULES 2011" PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA GAZETTE DT.11.4.11 UNDER NOTIFICATION
DT.11.4.11 VIDE ANN-A ARE ULTRA VIRES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & THE PROVISIONS OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT 1976.
WP Nos. 18476-18482 OF 2011
BETWEEN
------------
1 THE MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ®
REP. BY SRI B HANUMANTHEGOWDA
VICE PRESIDENT
NAGARAPALIKE OFFICE PREMISES,
4
SAYYAJIRAO ROAD,
MYSORE 570 024
2 SRI RAGHAVENDRA R
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY S.B.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
ZONE 08, MYSORE CITY CORPROATION
MYSORE 570 024
3 SRI VENKATESH S.D.
S/O SRI DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST GRADE REVENUE
INSPECTOR, ZONE 06, MYSORE CITY
CORPORATION, MYSORE 570 024
4 SRI SIDDARAJU M S
S/O SRI P SIDDACHAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
ZONE 07, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE 570 024
5 SMT MALATHI H
W/O GOPALA KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST GRADE REVENUE
INSPECTOR, C.F.W.B. FAMILY
PLANNING CENTRER, TILAKNAGAR,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION,
MYSORE 570 024
5
6 SMT MANJULA S
W/O SRI RAJESH M S
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST GRADE REVENUE
INSPECTOR ZONE 06,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE 570 024
7 SRI SATISH M S
S/O LATE SRI SRINIVAS T
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
ZONE 03, MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
MYSORE 570 024 ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri :VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV., FOR
Sri B B BAJENTRI, ADV.)
AND :
------
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001
2 THE COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJIRAO ROAD,
MYSORE 570 024
MYSORE DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : S.VIJAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR Sri RAVINDRANATH P.V., HCGP FOR R1
Smt M.P.GEETHA DEVI, ADV. FOR R2)
6
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THEM TO THE DRAFT KMC RULES,
2010 (ANNEXURE-E & F) AND ETC.
WP Nos 19962-19965 OF 2011
BETWEEN
------------
1 B BALAKRISHNA GOWDA
S/O. KEPU GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS TOWN PLANNING
OFFICER MANGALORE CITY
CORPORATION, LALBAGH,
MANGALORE & R/AT: "SHRI
MANGALA" D.NO.2-18-1560/2,
1ST "B" CROSS, KAPIKAD, BIJAI,
MANGALORE 575004
2 MANJUNATHA SWAMY S.E
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. ESHWARAPPA,
WORKING AS ASST TOWN
PLANNING OFFICER MANGALORE CITY
CORPORATION, LALBAGH
MANGALORE & R/AT: PLOT
NO.002, JYOTHI KIRAN APARTMENT
HAT HILL, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
MANGALORE 575006
7
3 P.B. SHIVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BABU P
WORKING AS ASST TOWN PLANNING
OFFICER, MANGALORE CITY
CORPORATION, LALBAGH
MANGALORE 575003 &
R/AT: PLOT NO.203
MOSACO APARTMENTS
NEHRU AVENUE CROSS RD
LALBAGH, MANGALORE 575003.
4 DILEEP S. GADYAL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. SONAVVA
WORKING AS ASST TOWN
PLANNING OFFICER MANGALORE
CITY CORPORATION,LALBAGH
MANGALORE 575003 &
R/AT: T.B. NO.1, CITY CORPORATION
QUARTERS, PANDESHWAR
MANGALORE 575001
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri : M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADV. FOR
M/S.SUBBA RAO & CO. ADV. )
AND :
------
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
& MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES ROOM
NO.401, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001
8
2 THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION,GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA, 9TH FLOOR, VISHVESVARAIAH
TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001
3 THE CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
LALBAGH, MANGALORE 575003
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : S.VIJAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR Sri RAVINDRANATH P.V., HCGP FOR R1 & R2
M/S A K VASANTH & M K GIRISH FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 11.4.2011 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E
AS THE SAME IS OPPOSED TO SECTION 82 TO 85 OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL COUNCILS ACT, 1976 AND
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, H.N.NAGAMOHAN
DAS. J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING;
O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R
In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed to
declare the “Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common
9
Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011” (for
short “Rules 2011”) as unconstitutional and for other reliefs.
2. Prior to 1976 different legislations were in force
in different parts of the State of Karnataka governing the
municipal administration. In order to bring all the municipal
establishments under a single enactment the Government of
Karnataka enacted “Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act
1976” (for short “KMC Act”). Consequently the Karnataka
Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977 came into force (for short
“Rules 1977”). Rule 10 to 26 of Chapter VI of Rules 1977
deals with procedure for appointment, reservation of posts,
misconduct etc. With the increase in population, the area of
urban local bodies also increased. This development
necessitated efficient management of manpower in the urban
local bodies. Under the existing rules, promotional
10
opportunities to certain category of employees was stagnant.
In order to remove certain anomalies in the existing rules, for
better promotional opportunities and efficient management
of manpower, the Government of Karnataka by exercising
power under Section 421 of the KMC Act, 1976 repealed
Rules 10 to 26 of Rules 1977 and enacted the impugned Rules
2011.
3. Petitioners in W.P.No.18046-52/2011 and
W.P.No.18476-482/2011 are the employees and their
associations working in Mysore City Corporation.
Petitioners in W.P.No.19962-65/2011 are the employees
working in Mangalore City Corporation. Petitioners being
aggrieved by the impugned Rules 2011 are before this Court.
4. Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel,
Sri B.B.Bajentri and Sri Narayana Bhat, learned Advocates
11
advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners. It is
contended that the object of Article 243W of the
Constitution is to strengthen the grass root level urban
democratic institutions. The impugned Rules are contrary to
the object of the Constitution. Further the impugned Rules
are contrary to Act 1976. The exclusion of similarly situated
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’)
from the operation of the impugned Rules is discriminatory,
arbitrary and unconstitutional. The impugned Rules takes
away the autonomy of the urban local bodies which they
were enjoying under the previous Rules 1977. It is
contended that the impugned Rules alter the service
conditions of the existing employees and there would be
curtailment of chances of promotion. Reliance is placed on
the following decisions:
12
i) 2006 AIR SCW 743
Shanti G.Patel vs. State of Maharashtra
ii) AIR 1988 SC 876
General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief vs.
Subhash Chandra
iii) Punjab Water Supply & Sewarage Board
vs.Ranjodh Singh and ors.
Civil Appeal Nos.5632 with 5633/2006
5. Per contra, Sri Vijay Shankar, learned Advocate
General contends that the impugned Rules do not take away
the powers enjoyed by the local bodies in the matter of
planning and development of local area. The impugned
Rules removes the anomalies in the existing Rules and
provides for better management of manpower, efficient
service in the local bodies and provides better promotional
opportunities to its employees. Reliance is placed on the
following decisions:
13
i) AIR 1996 SC 1627
State of A.P. vs. Mc.Dowell & Co.
ii) ii) ii) ii) (2003) 2 SCC 632
PU Joshi & others vs. Accountant General
iii) iii) iii) iii) (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 851
Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani
iv) iv) iv) iv) AIR 1975 SC 1146
B.Banerjee vs. Smt.Anita Pan
v) v) (1998) 1 SCC 285
v) v)
Kasambhai F.Ghanchi vs. Chandubhai D.Rajput
vi) vi) vi) vi) (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 938
Dilip Kumar Garg vs. State of UP
6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused
the entire writ papers.
7. The Supreme Court in State of AP vs. McDowell
& Co. AIR 1996 SC 1627 held that “ a law made by the
Parliament or the Legislature can be struck down by Courts
on two ground and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of
14
legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed in Part – II of the
Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There
is no third ground .
8. Keeping in view this dictum of the Apex Court
as stated above, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in
the present case. Section 91 of the KMC Act, 1976 empowers
the Government to make Rules regarding the conditions of
service like the tenure of office, salaries and allowances,
provident fund, pension, gratuity, leave of absence and other
conditions of service of officers and other employees, the
procedure to be followed in imposing the penalty, suspension
and any other matter incidental to or necessary for the
purpose of regulating the appointment of conditions of
service of persons appointed. Section 91A empowers the
15
State government to transfer the employees of corporation to
corresponding post in any other Corporation or in any local
authority constituted under any law made by the State
legislature or the government. Section 421 empowers the
Government generally to make rules, regulations and bye-
laws to carryout the purpose of KMC Act, 1976. The
impugned Rules 2011 are made by the Government by
exercising power under Section 421. Therefore, the
Government of Karnataka is having legislative competency to
enact the impugned Rules 2011. On the competency of the
Government, there is no much argument by learned
Advocates on the side of petitioners. Therefore, I hold that
the Government by exercising power under the provisions of
KMC Act, 1976 legislated the impugned Rules 2011 and the
same is within their legislative competency.
16
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on
Article 243W of the Constitution contend that the impugned
Rules 2011 are contrary to the object of the Constitution.
Article 243W empowers the State Governments to make law
by endowing the urban local bodies to function as
institutions of self Government. The State Government to
legislate containing provisions of devolution of powers and
responsibilities subject to the conditions specified in the
twelth schedule. The twelth schedule provides for urban
planning including town planning, regulation of land use and
construction of buildings. On the other hand, the impugned
Rules 2011 relates to recruitment, promotion, change of
cadre, increment, abolition of posts etc. The impugned Rules
2011 are in no way contrary to the object specified in Article
243W.
17
10. The impugned Rules are not made applicable to
the BBMP. The contention of petitioners that the exclusion
of similarly situated urban local body BBMP from the
application of the impugned Rules 2011 is discriminatory and
arbitrary under Article 14(g) of the Constitution. I decline to
accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners.
The Supreme Court in Sakhawant Ali vs. State of Orissa AIR
1955 SC 166 held that “ Legislation enacted for the
achievement of a particular object or purpose need not be all
embracing. It is for the Legislature to determine what
categories it would embrace within the scope of legislation
and merely because certain categories would embrace within
the scope of legislation and merely because certain categories
which would stand on the same footing as those which are
covered by the legislation are left out would not render
legislation which has been enacted in any manner
18
discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right
guaranteed by Art.14”
Further in Pannalal Bansilal Patil vs. State of A.P. it is
held as under:
“12........ A uniform law, though is highly desirable,
enactment thereof in one go perhaps may be counter
productive to unity and integrity of the nation. In a
democracy governed by Rule of law, gradual progressive
change and order should be brought about. Making law or
amendment to a law is a slow process and the legislature
attempts to remedy where the need is felt most acute. It
would therefore, be inexpedient and incorrect to think that
all laws have to be made uniformly applicable to all people in
one go. The mischief or defect which is most acute can be
remedied by process of law at stages”.
11. Thus it is well settled that Article 14 does not
forbid reasonable clarification for the purpose of legislation.
It is brought out that the number of employees in BBMP
19
exceeds the number of employees employed in all other
urban local bodies in the State of Karnataka. The nature of
management of manpower, the promotional opportunities
etc are entirely different in BBMP when compared to other
urban local bodies in the State. The Government in its
wisdom excluded the BBMP from the application of
impugned Rules 2011. This classification of BBMP from
other local bodies can neither be said discriminatory,
arbitrary or opposed to Article 14(g) of the Constitution.
12. It is contended that under the impugned Rules
2011 a provision is made for classification of posts etc and the
same has resulted in hardship and inconvenience to the
petitioners. I decline to accept this contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners. Under Rule 11 of the impugned
Rules, 2011 an option is given to an employee for change of
20
cadre subject to certain conditions, Rule 16 specifies that no
posts shall be abolished unless such posts become vacant and
Rule 17 specifies that any right, privilege, obligation or
liability acquired, accrued or incurred will not be affected.
Thus the interest of the petitioners is protected and in no
way the impugned Rules, 2011 will affect the right of
petitioners and other employees.
13. The Supreme Court in P.U.Joshi vs. Accountant
General (2003)2 SCC 632 held as under:
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 and within the
exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of
21
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/substruction
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 cadres/categories of service, as may be required
from time to time by abolishing 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
22
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.
14. As already stated the rights and benefits already
earned by the petitioners are protected under the impugned
Rules 2011. In the earlier Rules the Commissioner of a
Municipality/Corporation had the power to recruit Group C
and D employees and in the impugned Rules, 2011 it is
restricted only to group D employees. Again this change will
not affect the interest of petitioners and they cannot insist
the Government to continue the same situation forever. It is
for the Government and it is within their power to bring
changes in the existing service rules. I find no illegality for
interference with the impugned Rules, 2011.
23
For the reasons stated above these writ petitions are
hereby dismissed. The interim order granted in these writ
petitions is hereby vacated. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
DKB.