H.R. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

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.

          G.V. Chandrasekhar for P.P. Singh for the Petitioners.

          Rama Jois, S.N. Bhat for the Respondents.
F         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.
G         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 learned single Judge of the High Court
  had taken the view that the Laboratory Attenders could also be treated as
B 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 interpreta-
C tion 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.

          The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

D R.P.                                                       Petition dismissed.




                                                                                   "\