http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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:                          O R D E R      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    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.