Supreme Court of India
H.R. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 28 February 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 2 S.C.R. 594 · 1997 INSC 212
- Also cited as
- (1997) 3 SCC 639
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
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.
p. 594, margin F
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 Gardners and Field Assistants 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 posts of 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 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 paragraph of the judgment as under :
pp. 594–595, margin G
"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 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 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 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
p. 595, margin C
leads to economic ruination."
p. 595, margin 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 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 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 ~ 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 circumstance5, 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 that basis. Accordingly, we do not fmd any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal wmanting interference.
pp. 595–596, margin G
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.
p. 596, margin C