H.R. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 28-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
H.R. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 28, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Kamataka Horticulture (Department) Recruitment Rules, 1974: 
C 
Promotion-Laboratory Attenders in Department of Horticul-
ture-Claiming promotion to the post of Field Assistant treating themselves 
equivalent to Head Gardeners-Claim rejected by Tribunal-Held, unless the 
petitioners get into the channel of promotion under the statutory Rules, they 
cannot, by interpretation, be fitted into the category to which they do not 
D belong and cannot claim promotion on that basis-There is no illegality in 
the order passed by the Tribunal warranting inteiference. 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leaye Petition 
(C) Nos. 3713-14 of 1997. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.96 of the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in A. No. 1374-75 of 1996. 
F 
G 
G.V. Chandrasekhar for P.P. Singh for the Petitioners. 
Rama Jois, S.N. Bhat for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These special leave petitions arise from the order of the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal, made on October 31, 1996 in Application Nos. 
1374 and 1375/96. 
The admitted position is that the petitioners were appointed as 
Laboratory Attenders in the Department of Horticulture under the Kar-
nataka Horticulture (Department) Recruitment Rules, 1974. Under the 
hierarchy of the posts, there are Gardeners, Peons, Zamadars including 
Attenders, Head Gardners and Field Assistants in the said Department 
H and various scales of pay have been prescribed in the above Rules. The 
594 
... 
-
H.R RAMACHANDRAIAH v. STATE 
595 
Rules prescribe 25% quota for recruitment by promotion to the posts of A 
Field Assistants from the cadre of Head Gardners, Gardeners, Maistries 
and col. 3 thereof prescribes the minimum. qualification for promotion to 
the same category. The petitioners had filed the OA claiming promotion 
to the posts of Field Assistant treating that Laboratory Attenders are 
equivalent to Head Gardners and, therefore, they are eligible to be con-
sidered for promotion to the post of Field Assistant. They placed reliance B 
on the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. 
The Tribunal has not accepted the same and dismissed the petition. The 
Tribunal on an elaborate consideration has given the direction in the 
operative paragraph of the judgment as under : 
c 
"We, therefore, direct the Government to constitute a high 
powered committee to go into the details of the mechanics which 
prompted the Director to pass such orders giving retrospective 
promotion and further releasing huge sums of money from the 
public exchequer. On the basis of the report of the Committee, 
suitable action be taken against such errant officials after holding D 
enquiry as required under law in respect of the losses caused to 
the Government. In an action by way of restitution, it will be the 
endeavour of the Courts or Tribunals to ensure that party who has 
suffered on account of decision should be put back to the position 
as far as practicable in which he would have been, if decision E 
adversely affecting him had not been passed. Courts/Tribunals 
should not be oblivious of any unmarited hardship to be suffered 
by the party against whom action by way of restitution is taken. In 
deciding appropriate action by way. of restitution, the 
Tribunals/Courts should take a pragmatic view and frame relief in F 
such a manner as may be reasonable, fair and practicable and does 
not bring about unmerited hardship to either of parties. While 
initiating recovery, the State is directed to consider of granting 
phased instalments having in view of the length of service of the 
Applicants, since recovery in lumpsum would be oppressive and 
leads to economic ruination." 
G 
It would appear that by giving retrospective promotions to various 
persons, huge public funds have been frittered away by an illegal action of 
the Director of Horticulture and, therefore, the aforestated direction canie 
to be issued. While reiterating that action should be taken against erring H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A officers and personal responsibility also fixed; apart from that, disciplinary 
action should be taken against the persons concerned. We do not think 
that there is any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for 
the petitioners. May be that the l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.