LexM .B. HIREGOUDAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M .B. HIREGOUDAR
A
v
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 29, 1991.
[A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.)
B
K mataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
1957: Rules 5 and 7 -
Schedule II -
Column 2.
A{
Junior Engineen--Assistant Engineers--lnte~eniority-Selection of c
Junior Engineer by State Public Service Commission in the absence of
Recmitment Rules--Appointment by Directo,-....Recruitment Rules framed
subsequently-Period from the date of appointment to framing of mies reek-
oned for the purposes of seniority--Appointment o/ Junior Engineers by
Director held valid.
D
...
Komataka State_ Govemment's M<:motandum dated 5th July, 1976-
Guidelines for regularisation of i"egular appointmenis--Applicability of.
The appellant, a Rigman in the Department of Mines and Geology,
State of Karnataka, was initially appointed as a local candidate on the
newly created post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). Later he was E
regularly selected by the State Public Service Commission and appointed
on the said post on 4.5.1970 by the Director and was confirmed on the said
post on 29.9.1972. On 16.12.1974, he, alongwith respondents No. 3 to 7,
who were driUers in the Department, was promoted as Assistant Drilling
Engineer and was shown senior to them. However, in the. revised
provisional seniority list as well as in the final seniority list, he was shown F
junior to respondents No. 3 to 7 in the cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineer.
The appellant filed an application before the State Administra·
tive Tribu~al challenging the seniority lists which was rejected holding (i)
the appellant's appointment as Junior Engineer was irregular because it
was not supported by Recruitment Rules and the Director was not the
appointing authority; (ii) since the appellant had not acquired three years· G
-.+'
experience as regular incumbent he was not qualified to be promoted as
Assistant Drilling Engineer; his regular employment could only be related
from the date of framing of the Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, the
Tribunal held that appellant's service from 4th May, 1970 to 23rd August,
1973 could not be taken into consideration for reckoning his seniority and
hence he was junior to Respondents No.3 to 7.
599
H
600
SUPRE\\{E COURT REPORTS
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.
A
The appellant filed an appeal in this Court challenging the
Tribunal's order contending that (i) in view of his recruitment as a regular
employe on selection by the Service Commission his employment was
regular in nature; (ii) the p~st to which he was appointed was regularly
created post and was higher than that of respondents even during the
period there existed recruitment rules; in any case after his confirmation
B it was not open to the Tribunal to hold bis appointment irregular; and (iii)
in view of the guidelines .issued by the State Government, under which
irregular appointments were regularised, even if it is assumed his initial
appointment was irregular it has to be treated regular throughout.
C
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal
this Court : ·
HELD :1. Rule 7(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,
Control & Appeal ) Rules, 1957 read with column 2 of Schedule II thereto
clearly shows that the Director is the appointing authority for Junior.
D Engineers. The appellant was found qualified and was duly selected by the
Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Engineer in 1970. fie
worked on the post uninterruptedly till he was promoted to the next higher
post of Assistant Drilling Engh1eer alongwith the respondents No. 3 to 7.
The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in holding that the appointment
E made was irregular and that the Director was not the appointing authority
for Junior Engineers. Accordingly his experience in the post of Junior
Engineer from 1970 till his promotion to the next higher post could not be
ignored. [605-F, 604-G, 607-H, 608-A]
2. Since the posts existed on the establishment and selection for
F appointment was made by the State Public Service Commission and the
Director was competent to make the appointment, it cannot be said that
the absence of recruitment rules made the appointment illegal or
irregular. Moreover, the irregular appointments were regularised by the
Government Memorandum dated 5th July, 1976. [606 B-C]
d
3. The appellant's seniority which had stabilised over a period of
time and on the basis whereof he wasExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.