PETITIONER:
H.R. RAMACHANDRAIAH & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
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 Karnataka Horticulture (Department) Recruitment Rules, 1974. Under the hierarchy of the posts, there are Gardeners, Peons, Zamadars including Attenders, Head Gardeners and Field Assistant in the said Department and various scales of pay have been prescribed in the above Rules. The Rules prescribe 25% quota for recruitment by promotion to the post of Field Assistants from the cadre of Head Gardeners, 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 the Laboratory Attenders are equivalent to Head Gardeners and, therefore, they are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Field Assistant. They placed reliance 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 consideration has given the direction in the operative paragraph of the judgement as under:
"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 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 of
Tribunals to ensure that party who
has suffered on account of
decisions should be put back to the
position as far as practicable in
to the position as far as
practicable in which he would have
been, if decision adversely
affecting him had not been passed.
Courts/Tribunals should not ’be
oblivious of any unmerited 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
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 vie of the
length of service of the
Applicants, since recovery in
lumpsum would be oppressive and
leads to economic ruination. "
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 came to be issued. While reiteration that action should be taken against erring 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 hat the learned counsel for the petitioners. May be that the learned single judge of the High Court had taken the view that the petitioners. May be that the learned single judge of the High Court had taken the view that the Laboratory Attenders could also be treated as Head Gardeners. Unless the Rules are integrated and the channel of promotion is given, by interpretation one category cannot be transposed from other channels and fitted into altogether a different category of service merely because channel of promotion in that service is not provided. Under these circumstances, 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 belong and cannot claim promotion on tat basis. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.