LexTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus B.V. THIMMAPPA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. B.V. THIMMAPPA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. AUGUST 23, 1993 B [AM. AHMADI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] Kamataka Civil Se1vices (SC1vice and Kanl!ada Language Examina- tion) Rules, 1974: Sub-11tle ( l)(i) of Rule 4 read with sub- mies (J) & (2) of Rule 3-Whether person;< gaining promotions dwing the pe1iod allowed to C pass pre.mibed examinations liable to revenion if they fail to finally pass the exa111inations within the premibed pe1iod-Whether such penalty. co11ld be intplied fron1 the objects of these Rules? Section 4 of Kamalaka Se1vices Exa111inations Act, 1976-Whether new penalties co11ld be aaded by way of implication from the Rules when the Rules D allude 011ly to the penalties "specified" therein. E Interpretation of statutes : scope of inferences wananted by i111plica- tion-Whether any penalty can be i11fe1red from the objects of the Statute/ Rules/Regulations without support from textual provisions. New State of Mysore (later re-named as Karnataka) came into existence under the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 (the S.R. Act) did not have Kannada language as their mother tongue nor did they know Kan- nada. Therefore, the State Government brought into force the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Langnage Examination) Rules, 1974 F with the object of improving the <1uality of their services. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules made it obligatory for the Government servants to pass the prescribed Kannada language and ser~ vice examinations "ith the prescribed period or extended period as laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. The second, third and fourth provisos to G sub-rule (3) (a) of Rule 3 defines the categories of personnel exempted from certain penalties or restriction contained in sub-rule (3)(a). Rule 4 placed certain restrictions on the promotion and appointment by transfer of those employees who failed to pass wi~hin the prescribed or extended period the requisite examinations, e.g. at the end of the said period those who failed H to clear the requisite examinations became ineligible for further promo- 71 ?. STATEOFKARNATAKA v.B.V.TH!MMAPPA 713 lions by virtue of sub-rnle(l) (i) of Rule 4. Section 4 of Karnataka Services A Examinations Act, 1976 envisaged that failure by the State government servants to pass these examinations within the prescribed/ extended period shall entail the consequences "specified" in the Rules. A considerable number of personnel who failed to pass the required examinations within the prescribed/extended period had, during the prescribed/extended period, gained further promotions. While preparing B the inter se provisional seniority lists for it servants, the State Government took the view that the said promotees need not be reverted. This view was challenged by several Government servants who were junior to the said promotees but had passed the prescribed examinations within the stipu- C lated period, the former filed writ petitions in the High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Conrt allowed a batch of such petitions and quashed the impugned provisional seniority list, based on that order, another learned single Judge allowed two more similar writ petitions. Against these orders, two respondents therein, namely, the State Govern- ment and the Comptroller of the State Accounts Department, filed writ D appeals, before a Division Bench; another writ petition was also referred to the same Division Bench for a decision. Upholding the view of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench by its common Judgment dated 30th November, 1984, reverted those E employees who were promoted after the commencement of the Rules while did not revert those promoted before the said commencement; and directed the State Government to re do the seniority I:sts within six months. Feeling aggrieved b;r the Judgment dated 30 November, 1984, the State of Karnataka preferred Civil Appeals and S.L.P.'s before this Court; and a Government servant who feeling aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court in a Writ Appeal rendered following the judgment dated 30th November, 1984, also filed an appeal by special leave. The State urged, Inter alia, that there was no express provision in the Rules for reversion of Government Servants from higher posts to which they had already gained promotions during the periods allowed to pass the required examinations. But the respondents supported the contra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.