Sri G Ravi vs State Of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court13 July 2012N.Kumar · H.S.Kempanna

Citation2012 SCC OnLine Kar 9267

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The judgment's ratio decidendi focuses on the following principles of law, stated in order of the court's reasoning: The initial recruitment of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers through Government Order dated 19-10-1992 and notification dated 23-11-1993, which restricted appointments to candidates from five specific districts (Bijapur, Gulbarga, Raichur, Bidar and Bellary), violates Article 16(3) of the Constitution because any residential qualification for public employment can only be prescribed by Parliament by legislative enactment, not by executive order or State regulation, and such a prescription is itself permissible only at the State level under Article 16(3), not in parts of a State. No person can be appointed even on temporary, contract, or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates through proper advertisement, as equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 16 requires every such appointment to be made by open advertisement enabling all eligible persons to compete on merit, and any appointment made by merely obtaining names from Employment Exchange without public advertisement violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An illegal appointment made in violation of constitutional requirements cannot be validated or regularised by subsequent administrative action, including absorption, because if an order is bad in its inception it does not get sanctified at a later stage, and the illegality strikes at the root of the order; therefore, a person illegally appointed cannot be absorbed into service and absorption cannot be resorted to regularise an illegal appointment. Regularisation is not a mode of recruitment and can only cure procedural irregularities that do not go to the root of the appointment; where the appointment itself is in infraction of rules or in violation of constitutional provisions, illegality cannot be regularised, and conferring permanence on employment whose initial appointment is illegal is impermissible in law. The exception carved out in the Supreme Court's Umadevi judgment permitting regularisation of irregular appointments made by employees who worked for 10 years or more without court protection applies only where the appointment is irregular (not illegal) and was made against sanctioned posts with requisite qualifications, and this exception cannot be extended to appointments that are illegal from inception or made under cover of litigation. A subordinate legislation invoking a non-obstante clause cannot override constitutional requirements and does not confer freedom on the rule-making authority to enact rules contrary to the constitutional scheme; therefore, if an earlier law is constitutionally valid and a rule enacted with non-obstante clause is constitutionally invalid, the adoption of the non-obstante clause to override a constitutionally valid law renders that rule itself arbitrary and liable to be struck down on grounds of violating Article 14. The human hardship or long service of employees cannot justify regularisation or absorption of those initially appointed illegally or irregularly without following due recruitment procedure, as accepting such an argument would perpetuate illegality in public employment and negate the constitutional scheme ensuring equal opportunity in public employment to all qualified persons.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE®

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2012

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA

WRIT PETITION NOs.41145 - 41158/2010 (S-KAT)C/WWRIT PETITION NOs.4914 - 4945/2011 (S-KAT) ,WRIT PETITION NO.9519/2011 (S-KAT),WRIT PETITION NOs. 2897-2901/2012 (S-KAT)WRIT PETITION NO. 21232/2012 (S-KAT)

WRIT PETITION NOs.41145 - 41158/2010 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI G RAVIS/O G.CHANNABASAPPA,AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,MIG-5, BEHIND HEAD POST OFFICE,CHANNAGIRI POST TALUK,DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213

2. SRI. L.H YOGENDRAPPAS/O L. HANUMANTHAPPA,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,RUDRAPURA AT POST,CHANNAGIRI TALUK,DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 2182

3. SRI. H.R RAMESHAS/O RAMAIAH,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,R/O AMAR JYOTHI NAGAROPP. TO KANNAIAH SHETTY THOTA,BEHIND HEMAVATHI OFFICES & QUARTERS,BEHIND RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAMA,KUNIGAL ROAD,MARALUR POST,TUMKUR-5

4. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA H.RS/O REVAPPA H.AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,HIREKOGALUR AT POST,CHANNAGIRI TALUK,DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

5. SRI. MAHARUDRAPPA H.BS/O H. BASAPPA,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,CHANNAPURA AT POST,CHANNAGIRI TALUK,DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

6. SRI. A.R RAJANNAS/O A.G RANGAPPA,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARSAGRICULTURIST, CHICKJAJAURPOST, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 523

7. SRI. K.P MAHESHWARAPPAS/O K. PARAMESWARAPPA,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,KAKANUR POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,DAVANAGERE DISTRICT3

8. SRI. E. NAGOJIS/O ERANNA,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,C/O BORE GOWDA,POST OFFICE ROAD, NO. 244, JYOTHINAGAR, SIRA TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137

9. SRI. D. RANGA SWAMYS/O DASAPPA KAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,KURUBARA KERI,SANTHEBENNUR POSTCHANNAGIRI TALUK,DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

10. SRI. S.H. MURTHYS/O SARATHI HANUMANTHAPPA,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,CHICKJAJUR AT POST,HOLALKERE TALUKCHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 523

11. SRI. HANUMANTHAS/O SURYANARAYANA C.HAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,RESIDING AT RENUKADEVI NILAYA,BEHIND DAYANANDA PRINTERS,2ND STAGE,VINOBHANAGAR,SHIMOGA-577 201

12. SRI. D.B SURYA PRASADS/O BHASKER D.NAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,R/AT 2ND CROSS, "B" BLOCK,GANDHINAGAR,SHIMOGA-577 2014

13. SRI N.S RAMESH BABUS/O N. SHIVARUDRAPPA,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,R/AT "NEELA" 3RD CROSS,BASAVESHWARANAGARSHIMOGA-577 201

14. SRI. M.S MURTHYS/O M. SHANKARAIAH,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,R/O THIPPAGONDANAHALLI POST,CHANNAGIRI TALUK,DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI & VINOD GOWDA -ADVS.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKAREPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ANDADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,VIDHANA SOUDHA,BANGALORE

2. THE SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION,M.S BUILDING,DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE

3. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAMAREPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORU.K.P ALAMATTI,BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586 2015

4. THE DIRECTOREMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE,NO.22, HOSUR ROAD,BANGALORE-29

5. THE CHIEF ENGINEERUPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,BHEEMARAYANAGUDI,GULBARGA DISTRICT-585 101

6. S.I. SAJJANAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

7. H.R SULIBHAVIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

8. NARASAPPAAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

9. A. SURESHAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

10. LAXMAN SIDDANAKOLLAAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

11. SATHYANARAYAN SHETTIAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

12. SHANKARAGOUDA HIREGOUDARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

13. M. RAMALINGA REDDYAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

14. SHIVASHANKAR KAMESHETTYAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,6

15. B.M. SHASHIKALAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,D/O C.B.M VEERBASAIAHOWN,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,O/O MANAGING DIRECTOR,KBJNL, ALAMATTI

16. V.G. MIKKALAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

17. D.H. VENKATESHAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

18. RAVINDRA S PATILAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,S/O SHIVANNAGOUDA PATIL,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KBJNL DAM ZONE, ALAMATTI

19. RAMANGOUDA L HALLURAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

20. GOPIKRISHNAAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

21. G. SHIVAPRAKASHAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,O/O THE UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,REHABILITATION DIVISION, NO.8,JAMAKHANDI

22. J.R MUKKANNA NAIKAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

23. S.L. SHIVANALAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,7

24. MALLINATH ALEGAONAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

25. ASHOK PATILAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

26. M.M TAPALAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

27. P.D KUMARAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

28. MD. S.L. GUDNALAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

29. PAMPAPATHY M ASHOKAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

30. RAVINDRAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

31. H.M.T. SWAMYAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

32. G. P. HADIMOORUAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

33. SHRISHAIL KALYANIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

34. BASAPPA METIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

35. MALLAPPA M. TUMBARAMATTIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,8

36. I. PRAKASHAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

37. SUNIL KUMARAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

38. GADIGAPPAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

39. NAGESHWARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,REHABILITATION DIVISION,NO.5, BILAGI

40. D. GOPINATHACHARAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

41. I. VEERABABUAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

42. B.Y. BANDIWADDARAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

43. N.Y. BHAVIAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

44. ADAMAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,S/O KASIM SAB, MAJORASSISTANT ENGINEER,O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, UPPERKRISHNA PROJECT DIVISION, BAGALKOT

45. B.D WADEYARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,9

46. LAXMIKANTH EAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

47. G.A NAGARAJAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

48. GOUSEMOHAMMED BANGIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

49. SUBRAMANYA MAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

50. B.M GURUBASAVARAJAIAHAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

51. G.S. PATTANASHETTYAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

52. M.H. TOTAGERAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

53. LINGARAJAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

54. CHANDRAKANTH M. GANGASHETTYAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

55. BASAVARAJAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

56. CHANDRAKANTH SAJJANASHETTYAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O UPPER KRISHNAPROJECT, REHABILITATION DIVISION, NO.8,JAMKHANDI

57. M. NAGANATHAAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,10

S/O M. PAMAPANNA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,O/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLICHEALTH ENGINEERING (UPPER KRISHNAPROJECT) SUB-DIVISION, NO.2, HUNGAGUNDA,ALAMATTI

58. S. DATTATREYA SETTYAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

59. VIJAYAKUMAR HONNAPPA MUCHAAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

60. MALLAPPA BASAPPA KONNAPPANAVARAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

61. SUBHASCHANDRAAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

62. NAGAPPA HEBBIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

63. NAGESHWAR RAO PILLIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

64. NAGESH C.HAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

65. B.H. PUJARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

66. ANIL KUMARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

67. NAGARAJ MAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

68. D. BASAVARAJAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,11

69. R.B BIRADARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

70. DODDANAGOUDA PATILAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

71. PASHUPATI M.SAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

72. MAYAPPA L. PADAGANURAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

73. S.K. VEENAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,D/O G.S. NAGANNA GOWDA,ASSISTANT ENGINEER,O/O SE, R & R, UPPER KRISHNAPROJECT, BAGALKOT

74. PATNE SOMANATH KASHINATHAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

75. J.S KURIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

76. C.V MATHAPATIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

77. NAGAPPA M.G.KAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

78. SOMALINGAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

79. I.MAHADEVAPPAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,12

80. SUBHAS LALAPPAAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

81. RAMLINGESHWAR PATILAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

82. R. SUDARSHAN REDDYAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

83. SIDDAPPA S. HIKKALAGUTTIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

84. JAGANATH REDDYAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

85. M.S GODEKARAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

86. BASANGOUDAAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

87. MOHD. MOHAMOODAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

88. I S HOSURAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

89. CHANNAYYA M KOPPADAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

90. P P KATARKIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

91. SRINIVAS PAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

92. S S KARAGARAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,13

93. ISHWARAPPA L KALASAAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

94. VENKAPPA LAKSHMAPPA SHEGUNASHIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

95. MILINDA M ARAKERIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

96. DHARNENDRASWAMYAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

97. UMESH SHANKAR RAO NAIKAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSASSISTANT ENGIENERREHABILITATION DIVISIONNO.5, BILAGI.

98. ABDUL HASSANAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

99. S M KOLALAGIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

100. P V MULLURAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

101. SAYAD FAZAL MAHAMOODAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

102. VEERENDRA KAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

103. SHIVAMURTHY G RAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,14

104. R S HADLIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

105. M N PADMAJAAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

106. SUREKANTHAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

107. N MAHESHAPPAAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

108. MANOHAR S BISNALAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

109. R K KULKARNIAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

110. RAVIPRAKASH BAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

111. S N HIREMANIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

112. SRIMANTH S BENNURAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

113. M C YARNALAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

114. KANTAPPA NARASAPPAAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

115. V G KULKARNIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,15

116. MADHUMATI PATILAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

117. CHADNRAREDDY PATILAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

118. SAYAD JAKIR HUSSAIN SURKIAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

119. VASANTH ULLIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

120. G T KALASKARAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

121. KIRANKUMAR KUSAPPA JAINAPURAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

122. H B PURUSHOTTAMAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

123. NAGESHAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

124. KALAL HIRALALAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

125. B KRISHNAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

126. SHIVANAGOUDA T GOUDARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

127. RAGHAVENDRAAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

128. MAHABOOBSABAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,16

129. SIDDAPPA B GALAGALIAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

130. S RATHODAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

131. G N HANAMANTH RAJAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

132. RAJASHEKAR KAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,ASSISTANT ENGINEERPUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERINGUPPER KRISHNA PROJECT DIVISOIN.

133. M R BIRADARAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

134. RENUKAPRASADAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

135. THIPPANNAGOUDA SOMANAGOUDA ANNADANIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

136. RAVINDRA KUMAR SAJJANAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

137. ABHIMANYA K SAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

138. SURENDRA REDDYAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

139. S N SIDDAPURAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,17

140. SURESHAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

141. MOHYD ABDUL MUJEEBAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

142. S S HADLAGERIAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

143. SHIVAKUMAR BAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

144. G BHASKAR REDDYAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

145. B S WADRIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

146. P B NIMBARAGIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

147. G BHEEMA NAIKAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

148. M BAL REDDYAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

149. R M HUNDEKARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

150. SUBASH SHARANAPPA NAIKWADAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

151. S R NAIKAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

152. PRAKASH MAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,18

153. B SANNAPARASHURAMAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

154. RAMANJANEYALU P MAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

155. R K JOGANNAVARAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

156. M SURESHAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

157. C K HARIHARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

158. R N HAJERIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

159. ASPAK AHAMAD KOLHARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

160. S Y HOKRANIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

161. B BASAPPAAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

162. S Y HULLYALKARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

163. JAYRAM REDDYAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

164. B R RATHODAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS19

165. NINGANAGOUDA N PATILAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,ASSISTANT ENGINEERO/O UPPER KRISHNA PROJECTREHABILITATION SUB DIVISOIN,NO.11 ALAMATTI

166. F H LAMANIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

167. NAGARAJ GAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

168. Y VASANTH KUMARAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

169. V I CHANAGONDAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

170. G C MANJUNATHAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

171. M KRISHNAIAHAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

172. P MADHUKUMARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

173. RAJA TAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

174. ARUNKUMAR MALLAPPA SALAPURAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

175. R A VASTRADAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS20

176. GORAKHANATH CHANNASHETTYAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

177. JAGANNATH JOTIRLINGAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

178. G C METIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

179. H MALLIKARJUNAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

180. SUJATHA L JADHAVAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,D/O LAXMAN JADHAVASSISTANT ENGINEERO/O CHIEF ENGINEERALAMATTI.

181. R T METRIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

182. K M SHIVAPRAKASHAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

183. MAHANTHAPPA KANNURAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

184. BASVARAJ KUMBARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

185. K SHANKARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

186. B VENKATESH PRASADAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,S/O B ANJANEYALIASSISTANT ENGINEER21

O/O M.B.C. SUB DIVISION,NO.6, GADDANAKERI.

187. SRINIVASACHAR JOSHIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

188. J C RATHODAGED ABUT 45 YEARS

189. SHIVALINGAPPA S SAVUKARAGED ABUT 46 YEARS

190. VIGNESHWAR MAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

191. K B H SHIVASHANKARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

192. RANGAIAH BADIGERAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

193. HANAMANTH G DASARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

194. S H PUJARIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

195. G G PAWARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

196. N D PAWARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

197. BASAVANTH D MADARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

198. P N HADAGALIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS22

199. CHANDRAHAS BANDIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

200. B G BELDALAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

201. B T DODAMANIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

202. DANGE VIJAYAKUMARAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

203. MALLIKARJU M SAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

204. RAJASEKHARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

205. H SATHYAPPAAGED ABUT 44 YEARS

206. SAYED IBRAHIMAGED ABUT 45 YEARS

207. G V VENKATESHALUAGED ABOUT 45 YEAS

208. B N BILAGUNDIAGED ABOUT 46 YEAS

209. RAJENDRA S WALIKARAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

210. RAMESH GOPU RATHODAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS23

211. C RAVINDRANATHS/O RAMANAPPA CAGED ABOUT 45 YEARSASSISTANT ENGINEERO/O SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERDAM CIRCLE ,ALAMATTI

212. DEVIDAS CHABANAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

213. DASAVANTH L GAJAREAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

214. RANGANATH KHAKRIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

215. T DEVADASAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

216. K H MASUTIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

217. A R ALABALAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

218. BARIKAR CHANDRAPPAAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

219. J S GADDIMATHAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

220. D S INGALEAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

221. ZAKIR HUSAIN KADRIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS24

222. CHINDANANDAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

223. SAMBHAJI SUBASCHANDRAAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

224. S M MURNALAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

225. AMARANATHAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

226. MOHD HUSSAINAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

227. P HEMANTA RAJAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

228. VISHWANATHAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

229. MOHAN DASAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

230. TYAGI TUKARAMAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

231. S B BAGIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

232. SUREGOUDA NEELANGOUDA PATILAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

233. MALLAPPA S DIVATARAGED ABOUT 44 YEARSS/O S N DEVATORNASSISTANT ENGINEERO/O M D KBJNL ALAMATTI25

234. M M HUJARATTIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

235. VINODKUMAR GUPTAAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

236. B G DIDDIMANIAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

237. B C KATTIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

238. V M SURESHAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSASSISTANT ENGINEERS/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERREHABILITATION DIVISION, NO.5BILAGI

239. SHIVARAJ PATILAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

240. SATYAPRAKASH MULGEAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

241. P B HIREMATHAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

242. PANDURANGAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

243. SHANTAVEERESH A MATHAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

244. G N ANIL RAJAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS26

245. SHARMA L SURESHAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

246. G S KANNURAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

247. VAIJANATH ALURAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

248. NAGARAJ R DODWADAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

249. RAMAPPA MAHANATAPPA JUMANALAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

250. AYYAPPA BILAPPA HANUMAPPA BILAWADAGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

251. ASHOK REDDY PATILAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

252. P G HAJERIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

253. SHRAVANKUMAR M RONADAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

254. M REVANASIDDAIAHAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

255. T VENKATAREDDYAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

256. A C CHOORIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

257. NABILAL MEERSAAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS27

258. B S KANDAGALAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

259. MURALIDHAR SADANANDRAOAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

260. A S METIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

261. P MADHUSUDHAN BABUAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

262. KRISHNA K MAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSS/O MALLESH K MASSISTANT ENGINEERO/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERKBJNL. REHABILITATION SUB-DIVISION NO.3ALAMATTI

263. AZIZAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

264. PRABHAKAR AAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

265. A N MASALIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

266. NITIN V PATILAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

267. RAMESH KOLAREAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

268. S S DOLLIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS28

269. MANOJ KUMARAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

270. A M KOKAREAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

271. L M NAIKAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

272. R D BIRADARAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

273. W. AZIT KUMARAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

274. M THAMBI DURAIAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

275. N B PATILAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

276. S S MANJINALAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

277. B KUMARASWAMYAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

278. S GOUTHAMAGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

279. M SHREENATHAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

280. D M DHRUVAKUMARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS29

281. RAMESH NAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

282. EREGOUDAAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

283. R D GANGADHARAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

284. G K SURESHAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

285. C R BABU KRISHNADEVAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

286. R VENUGOPALAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

287. K KRISHNAPPAAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

288. H V RAMAKRISHNAAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

289. C HANAMANTHAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

290. T N RAMACHANDRAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

291. N D RAGHUNATHAAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

292. R MANJUNATHAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

293. C NAGARAJAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS30

294. PARASHURAM B BAJANTRIAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

295. SUDHAKAR MARUTI DHANAWADKARAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

296. RAVIKANTH T KOMBEAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

297. DILIPKUMAR MASAJI POLAGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

298. H D MADESHAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

299. C SADASHIVAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

300. LINGARAJGOUDA CAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

301. RAFIAHAMEDAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

302. M H PUTTAHONNEGOUDAAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

303. RAJASHEKHAR H SAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

304. K S MOHAN KUMARAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

305. N S DEVEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS31

306. M J KUMARAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

307. KRISHNEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

308. HIMAKAR RAOAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

309. CHANDRASEKHAR G NAGATHANAGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

310. A C RAMAMUTHYAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

311. A C V VASUDEVAMURTHYAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

312. B MARUTHIAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

313. S S TUMBARMATTIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

314. CHANDRAKANTH MAHADAYYAAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

315. GUNDAPPAAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

316. K BHAKTA PRAHLADAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

317. V PARAMESHWARAPPAAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS32

318. A POLI REDDYAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

319. SHARANABASAVARAJAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

320. SHRIHARIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

321. S S UPPALADINNIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

322. RAMESH BAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

323. S M KARAJAGIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

324. RAVINDRA NAGAPPAAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

325. A L PATROTIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

326. SHEKARAPPA BADIGERAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

327. M J NADUGADDIAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

328. SATYANARAYAN RAO PAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

329. Y ABUJAR GFARIAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

330. Y B NAGARAJA ACHARIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS33

331. PRAHLADAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

332. SHANTAPPA S KOLLIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

333. JAYAGOPALAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

334. S R TEGGIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

335. R D JADHAVAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

336. S H MUDHOLAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

337. SHIVARAJ HANMUMAREDDYAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

338. D VIJAYALAXMIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

339. S S BELAGALAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

340. SIDHARUDH SHANKARAPPAAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

341. MUDDARAJ RAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

342. VISHNU THEERATHAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS34

343. M R BAGAWANAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

344. S NAGARAJ GOWDAAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

345. RAJAKUMARAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

346. L K MAHESHS/O LEPAJI KALALAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSJUNIOR ENGINEERO/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERSP NO.8, R & R UPPER KRISHNA PROJECTJAMAKGHANDI

347. B SWAMY KOTERSHAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

348. ISHWAR S KUMBARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

349. L KUBENDRA NAIKAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

350. M M KENDHULIS/O MAHADEVAPA KENDHULLIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSJUNIOR ENGINEER,O/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPHE (UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT)SUB-DIVISION, NO.2, HUNAGUND CAMP ALAMATTI

351. PRAKASH ALURAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS35

352. BASAVARAJ L MAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

353. B D BANDIWADDARAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

354. K NIJALINGAPPAAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

355. GOPAL REDDYAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

356. K GURULINGAPPAAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

357. GOUSUDDINAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

358. S M DYAMANNAVARAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

359. MALLAPPA NAGAPPAAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

360. PREMASAGARAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

361. ERANNA NARASAPPAAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

362. MUSAS/O MAHAMOODSABAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

363. SITARAMA RAO BHEEMSEN RAOAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS36

364. M S BHAJANTRIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

365. K A GOPALAPPAAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

366. BANNAPPAAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

367. KATANNAVARA JAYANNAAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSS/O K HANUMANTHAPPAJUNIOR ENGINEER,O/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KBJNL SUB-DIVISION 2, ALAMATTI

368. L D GUNTIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

369. MURALIDHARAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

370. Z A MAMADAPURAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

371. S B SULIBHAVIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

372. B TALAKAPPAAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

373. V L KAMBARAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

374. MANAPPAAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS37

375. AMARAPPAAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

376. BASAVARAJAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

377. SANJEEV MANIK RAO HIROLIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

378. A HONNURAPPAAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

379. BASAVARAJAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

380. RAVIRAJ DEVIDAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

381. A K NAIKAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

382. N PARAMESH NAIKAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

383. MALLIKARJUNA HAMPAYYAAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

384. SURYAKANT SADHURA WADIKARAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

385. MALLIKARJUNA HIREMANIAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

386. S T MADARAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

387. S M PUJARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS38

388. G RAMAREDDYAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

389. THIMMANNA RATNAGIRIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

390. B H BARKERAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

391. RAJKUMARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

392. SHANTHAPPAAGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

393. D Y KOLKARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

394. S I SHIRURAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

395. U DEVANNAAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

396. RAGHAVENDRAAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

397. V V CHAVANAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

398. G T JATADHARAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

399. DASTAGIR CHOUDARIAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS39

400. S R CHALAWADIAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

401. B Y HUNDEKARAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

402. R N JOSHIAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

403. SHANKAR MUTAPPA BANDIWADDARAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

404. G M GOPAL KRISHNAAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

405. JAGDISH BAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

406. S.R.DESHPANDEAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

407. V.SURESH BABUAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

408. SMT.I.S.DALALIAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

409. AMRUIT,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

410. R.S.MALAGATTIAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

411. K.N.WADIYARAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

412. P.S.DADDIAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS40

413. V.M.NYAMAGONDAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

414. B.M.HALAWARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

415. RAVIDRANATHAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

416. A.SUNDRAWADIVERUAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

417. B.K.NAGARAJAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

418. K.P.KESHAVA MURTHYAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

419. CHANNAKESHAVAAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

420. K.H.PRAKASHAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

421. S.NIRMALESHAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

422. N.N.RAJEGOUDAAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

RESPONDENTS 6 TO 422WERE ALL EMPLOYED ONCONTRACT BASIS TOWORK ASASSISTANT/ENGINEERS/JUNIOR ENGINEERSUNDER THE RESPONDENT41

NO.5 AND ONE NOWABSORBED UNDER THEIMPUGNED RULES.OFFICE OF THE CHIEFENGINEER, UPPERKRISHNA PROJECT,BHEEMARAYANAGUDI,GULBARGA DISTRICT.

423. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENTORGANIZATION,BY ITS ENGINEER - IN - CHIEF,ANANDARAO CIRCLE,BANGALORE - 560 009 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.VIJAYA SHANKAR - ADVOCATE GENERALA/W SRI.RAGHAVENDRA GAYATHRI - GOVT. ADV.FOR R1, R2 & R4,

SRI.M.R.C. RAVI - ADV. FOR R3 & R5,

SRI.P.S.RAJAGOPAL -SR. COUNSEL FORSRI.M.N. PRASANNA AND SRI.K.PUTTEGOWDA -ADVS. FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 9, 14, 37, 20, 24,29, 30, 35, 48, 49, 54, 57, 63, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 84,91, 92, 95, 97, 100, 102, 107, 109, 112, 113, 117,118, 120, 122, 125, 126, 137, 143, 148, 157, 159,163, 168, 175, 180, 186, 187, 190, 192, 199, 200,201, 203, 214, 218, 223, 230, 234, 238, 247, 256,261, 265, 269, 273, 274, 316, 326, 340, 357, 361,363, 364, 365, 368, 376, 369, 377, 378, 382, 383,385, 388, 398, 404, 50, 65, 70, 165, 191, 367, 93 &213,42

SRI.ASHOK HARNAHALLI - SR. COUNSEL A/WSRI.M.R. SHAILENDRA - ADV. FOR RESPONDENTNOS.8, 32, 39, 66, 74, 75, 111, 108, 114, 131, 140,152, 144, 162, 164, 174, 181, 184, 226, 206, 246,330, 333, 342, 348, 351, 354, 182, 15, 18, 27, 36,41, 42, 51, 53, 55, 61, 64, 71, 73, 87, 88, 98, 101,103, 106, 116, 123, 127, 129, 130, 135, 138, 139,141, 151, 153, 156, 161, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172,173, 177, 178, 189, 193, 195, 204, 208, 209, 211,215, 224, 227, 233, 235, 240, 241, 244, 245, 254,257, 262, 263, 264, 266, 270, 271, 276, 290, 292,294, 295, 296, 297, 300, 309, 314, 317, 319, 322,324, 325, 328, 335, 336, 337, 343, 347, 358, 370,373, 384, 399, 400 & 419,

SRI. ASHOK HARNAHALLI - SR. COUNSEL A/WSRI.SUBRAMANYA.R ADV. FOR ASHOKHARNAHALLI ASSOCIATES FOR RESPONDENTNOS.21, 40, 46, 68, 77, 89, 101, 145, 207, 217, 231,239, 243, 319 & 391,

SRI.B.B.BAJENTRI - ADV. FOR RESPONDENTNOS.150, 179, 43, 45, 46, 13, 22, 33, 44, 47, 48, 90,96, 105, 115, 119, 122, 130, 132, 146, 237, 252,297, 309, 343, 250, 193, 184, AND 315,

OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED THROUGHPAPER PUBLICATION DATED:12-01-2012 INSAMYUKTHA KARNATAKA EDITION AND THE SAMEARE HELD SUFFICIENT.43

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOs.1473/03, 1474/03, 1479/03, 1480/03, 1481/03, 1482/03, 1488/03, 1497/03, 1498/03, 1494/03, 985 TO 987/05 AND 1263/03 AS PER ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,.

IN WRIT PETITION NOs.4914 - 4945/2011 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI S.A.CHORAGE S/O SHRI APPASAHEB G CHORAGE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PLOT NO.111, JYOTHIRMAY SHAHU NAGAR, B K KANGRALI ROAD BELGAUM-10

2. SHRI N.R.PATEELA S/O SHRI B.NIJALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.1939/8, "JANANI" 16TH CROSS, ANJANAYA BADAVANE DAVANAGERE-577 004

3. SHRI GIRISH K.R S/O SHRI K.RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.52, A BLOCK, I MAIN 4TH CROSS J.H.PATEL EXTENSION SHIMOGA-577 204 44

4. SHRI DAYANAND S.HUGUR S/O SHRI SHIVABASAPA G.HUGAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PLOT NO.107, SECTOR II SHIVABASAVA NAGAR BELGAUM-10

5. SHRI C.P.HALAGALIMATH S/O PATADAYYA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS "ISHWAR KRUPA", K H COLONY HULKOTI-582205 TQ & DST. GADAG

6. SHRI NAGARAJ ABASAHEB DESAI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PLOT NO.726, CTS NO.8350, SECTOR NO.5, SHRINGAR M.M.EXTENSION BELGAUM-590 016

7. SHRI S.V.MATHAD S/O SHRI V.S.MATHAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PLOT NO.65, OMKAR NAGAR AT PO-SHINDOLLI TQ & DIST BELGAUM-591124 8. SHRI D.V.BADRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS MII 26, ADARSH NAGAR NEAR GANESH TEMPLE BIJAPUR

9. SHRI L.B.PATIL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AT PO:HOLE ALUR TALUK-RON 45

DIST. GADAG

10. SHRI R.S.BHUPALI PLOT NO.2143, SECTOR NO.9 MALMARUTHI EXTENSION BELGAUM-590 016

11. SHRI K.O.SHEKARAPPA S/O LATE ONKARAPPA K AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS I MAIN, II CROSS, J.H.PATEL EXTN SHIMOGA-577204

12. SHRI R.SHASHIDHARA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS H.NO.23, I B MAIN, B SECTOR YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE

13. SHRI RAJASHEKAR S.AKKATHOTI C/O B.P. HEBBAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS BGHYAWANTHI NILAYA BEHIND GUEST HOUSE, KALYAN NAGAR AT PO:SINDAGI TALUK :SINDAGI BIJAPUR DISTRICT 14. SHRI MAHADEV D.NIMBAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AT PO:TAMBA TALUK: INDI BIJAPUR DISTRICT

15. SHRI GURAPPA S.PUTTI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS C/O B.R.NANAMATTI 46

ADAKIGALLI, JORAPURPETH BIJAPUR-586101

16. SHRI SOMASHEKHAR S.CHALAKOPP AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.254, A/1, MURGOD ROAD AT PO:MARAKUMBI SAUNDATTI TALUK BELGUAM DIST

17. SHRI AMARAYYASWAMI S/O AMARRAYYA SWAMI HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AT:NANDHALLI, PO:YALAGOAL JEWARGI TALUK GULBARGA DISTRICT-585 325

18. SHRI VIVEKANAND.S S/O SHRI SHANMUKAPPA L .YALIGAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.48/2, B SHAHU NAGAR BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE BELGAUM-10

19. SHRI JAYANT A.CHORAGE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PLOT NO.111, "YOTHIRMAY" B. K. KANGRALI ROAD SHAHU NAGAR BELGAUM-10

20. SHRI C. N. SAVALGI S/O NAGAPPA S.SAVALGI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BANJARA NAGAR OPP:MUGULKODMATH SHOLAPUR ROAD BIJAPUR 47

21. SHRI R. M. SAVALGI S/O SHRI NAGAPPA S.SAVALGI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BANJARA NAGAR OPP:MUGULKODMATH SHOLAPUR ROAD BIJAPUR

22. SHRI K.M.KULIGOD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BASAWAGALLI BASAVAN KUDACHI BELGAUM-12

23. A.P.DODDACHANNEGOWDA S/O LATE PUTTAMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.536/1, KARASAVADI ROAD VINAYAKA BADAVANE, NEAR CHANDRADHARSHAN KALYAN MANTAP MANDYA

24. SHRI A V KRISHNA S/O A VEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SRI BHYRAVESHWARA KRUPA II STAGE, KRISHNANAGARA PANDAVAPURA TOWN, PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISRICT

25. SHRI M RAMESH S/O MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS C/O NAGASETTY, 3RD CROSS MARIGOWDA LAYOUT BEHIND ANDHRA MESS NEAR SUBBAPPA GODOWN 48

MANDYA

26. V N SRINIVAS S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.2746, 4TH CROSS GANOLLI NAGAR MANDYA-571 401

27. SHRI S ADINARAYANA S/O V SANJEEVA SETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.23, IV STAGE T K LAYOUT MYSORE-570 023

28. SHRI PRASANNA KUMAR V R S/O LATE T RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.296, STORE STREET, HUNSUR MYSORE DISTRICT

29. SHRI RAVIKUMARA S/O CHOWDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS HOSAHUNDI VILLAGE MANDAKAL POST MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT

30. SHRI D S SIDDAIAH S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SPANDANA ARCHITECT SLV BUILDING, V V ROAD MANDYA - 571 415

31. SHRI C KUMAR S/O CHANNEGOWDA 49

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS HOUSING BOARD COLONY ARAKERE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 415

32. SRI V KRISHNA KUMAR S/O VEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS HITTANAHALLI KOPPAL KIRAGAVALUHALLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.S.V.NARASIMHAN A/W SRI.GIRISH S JAMBAGI - ADVS.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE

2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGIATION BANGALORE

3. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAMA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR U K P ALAMATTI BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586 201

4. THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE NO.22, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE-29

5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT 50

BHEEMARAYANAGUDI GULBARGA DISTRICT-585 101

6. S I SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

7. H R SULIBHAVI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

8. NARASASPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

9. A SURESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

10. LAXMAN SIDDANAKOLLA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

11. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

12. SHANKARAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

13. M RAMALINGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

14. SHIVASHAKAR KEMESHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

15. B M SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

16. V G MIKKAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

17. D H VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 51

18. RAVINDRA S PATIL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

19. RAMANGOUDA L. HALLUR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

20. GOPIKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

21. G. SHIVAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

22. J.R MUKKANNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

23. S.L. SHIVANAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

24. MALLINATH ALEGAON AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

25. ASHOK PATIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

26. M.M TAPAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

27. P.D KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

28. MD. S.L. GUDNAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

29. PAMAPAPATHY M AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

30. RAVINDRA 52

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

31. H.M.T. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

32. G.P. HADIMOORU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

33. SHRISHAIL KALYANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

34. BASAPPA METI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

35. MALLAPPA M. TUMBARAMATTI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

36. I. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

37. SUNIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

38. GADIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

39. NAGESHWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

40. D. GOPINATHACHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

41. I. VEERABABU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

42. B.Y. BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 53

43. N.Y. BHAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

44. ADAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

45. D. WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

46. LAXMIKATH E AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

47. G.A. NAGARAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

48. GOUSEMOHAMMED BANGI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

49. SUBRAMANYA M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

50. B.M GURUBASAVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

51. G.S PATTANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

52. M.H. TOTAGER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

53. LINGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

54. CHANDRAKANTH M GANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

55. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 54

56. CHANDRAKANTH SAJJANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

57. M. NAGANATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

58. S. DATTAREYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

59. VIJAYAKUMAR HONNAPPA MUCHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

60. MALLAPPA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

61. SUBHASCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

62. NAGAPPA HEBBI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

63. NAGESHWAR RAO PILLI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

64. NAGESH C.H AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

65. B.H. PUJAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

66. ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

67. NAGARAJ M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 55

68. D. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

69. R.B. BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

70. DODDANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

71. PASHUPATI M.S AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

72. MAYAPPA L PADAGANUR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

73. S K VEENA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

74. PATNE SOMANATH KASHINATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

75. J S KURI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

76. C V MATHAPATI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

77. NAGAPPA M G K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

78. SOMALINGA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

79. I MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

80. SUBHAS LALAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 56

81. RAMALINGESWAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

82. R SUDARSHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

83. SIDDAPPA S HIKKALAGUTTI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

84. JAGANATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

85. M S GODEKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

86. BASANGOUDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

87. MOHD MAHAMOOD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

88. I S HOSUR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

89. CHANNAYYA M KOPPAD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

90. P P KATARKI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

91. SRINIVAS P AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

92. S S KARAGAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 57

93. ISHWARAPPA L KALASA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

94. VENKATAPPA LASHMAPA SHEGUNASHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

95. MILINDA M ARAKERI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

96. DHARNENDRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

97. UMESH SHANKAR RAO NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

98. ABDUL HASSAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

99. S M KOLALAGI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

100. P V MULLUR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

101. SAYAD FAZAL MAHAMMOOD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

102. VEERENDRA K AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

103. SHIVAMURTHY G R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

104. R S HADLI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

105. M N PADMAJA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 58

106. SUREKANTH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

107. N MAHESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

108. MANOHAR S BISNAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

109. R K KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

110. RAVIPRAKASH B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

111. S N HIREMANI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

112. SRIMANTH S BENNUR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

113. M C YARNAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

114. KANTAPPA NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

115. V G KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

116. MADHUMATI PATIL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

117. CHANDRAREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 59

118. SAYAD JAKIR HUSSAIN SURKI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

119. VASANTH ULLI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

120. G T KALASKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

121. KIRANKUMAR KUSAPPA JAINAPUR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

122. H B PURUSHOTTAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

123. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

124. KALAL HIRALAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

125. B KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

126. SHIVANAGOUDA T GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

127. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

128. MAHABOOBSAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

129. SIDDAPPA B GALAGALI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

130. S S RATHOD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 60

131. G N HANAMANTH RAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

132. RAJASHEKAR K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

133. M R RIRADAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

134. RENUKAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

135. THIPPANNAGOUDA SOMANAGOUDA ANNADANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

136. RAVINDRA KUMAR SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

137. ABHIMANYA K S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

138. SURENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

139. S N SIDDAPUR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

140. SURESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

141. MOH ABDUL NUKEED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

142. S S HADLAGERI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 61

143. SHIVAKUMAR B AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

144. G BHASKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

145. B S WADRI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

146. P B NIMBARAGI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

147. G BHEEMA NIAK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

148. M BAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

149. R M HUNDEKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

150. SUBASH SHARANAPPA NAIKWAD AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

151. S R NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

152. PRAKASH M AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

153. B SANNAPARASHURAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

154. RAMANJANEYALU P M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

155. R K JOGANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 62

156. M SURESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

157. C K HARIHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

158. R N HAJERI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

159. ASPAK AHAMAD KOLHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

160. S Y HOKRANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

161. B BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

162. N V HULLYALKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

163. JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

164. B R RATHOD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

165. NINGANAGUDA N PATIL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

166. F H LAMANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

167. G NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 63

168. Y VASANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

169. V I CHANAGOND AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

170. G C MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

171. M KRISHANIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

172. P MADHUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

173. RAJA T AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

174. ARUNKUMAR MALLAPPA SALDAPUR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

175. R A VASTRAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

176. GORAKHANATH CHANNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

177. JAGANNATH JOTIRLING AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

178. G C METI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

179. H MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

180. SUJATA L JADHAV AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 64

181. R T METRI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

182. K M SHIVAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

183. MAHANTAPPA KANNUR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

184. BASAVARAJ KUMBAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

185. K SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

186. B VENKATESH PRASAD AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

187. SRINIVASACHAR JOSHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

188. J C RATHOD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

189. SHIVALINGAPPA S SAVUKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

190. VIGNESHWAR M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

191. K B H SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

192. RANGAIAH BADIGER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 65

193. HANAMANTH G DASAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

194. S H PUJARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

195. G G PAWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEAS

196. N D PAWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

197. BASAVANTH D MADAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

198. P N HADAGALI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

199. CHANDRAHAS BANDI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

200. B G BELDAL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

201. B T DODAMANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

202. DANGE VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

203. M MALLIKARJUNA M S AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

204. RAJASEKHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

205. H SATYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 66

206. SAYED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

207. G V VENIKATESHALU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

208. B N BILAGUNDI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

209. RAJENDRA S WALIKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

210. RAMESH GOPU RATHOD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

211. C RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

212. DEVIDAS CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

213. DASAVANTA L GAJARE AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

214. RANGANATH BHAKRI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

215. T DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

216. K H MASUTI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

217. A R ALABAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

218. BARIKAR CHANDRAPPA 67

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

219. J S GADDIMAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

220. D S INGALE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

221. ZAKIR HUSAIN KADRI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

222 CHIDANAND AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

223. SAMBHAJI SUBASCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

224. S M MURNAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

225. AMARANATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

226. MOHD HUSAIN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

227. P HEMANTA RAJA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

228. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

229. MOHAN DAS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

230. TYAGI TUKARAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 68

231. S B BAGI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

232. SUREGOUDA NEELANGOUDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

233. MALLAPPA S DIVATAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

234. M M HUJARATTI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

235. VINDOKUMAR GUPATA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

236. B G DIDDIMANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

237. B C KATTI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

238. V M SURESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

239. SHIVARAJ PATIL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

240. SATYAPRAKASH MULGE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

241. P B HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

242. PANDURANGA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

243. SHANTAVEERESH A MATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 69

244. G N ANUL RAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

245. SHARMA L SURESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

246. G S KANNUR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

247. VAIJANATH ALUR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

248. NAGARAJ R DODWAD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

249. RAMAPPA MANATAPPA JUMANAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

250. RAMAPPA HANAMAPPA BILAWAD AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

251. ASHOK REDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

252. P G HAJERI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

253. SHRVANKUMAR M RONAD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

254. M REVANASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

255. T VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 70

256. A C CHOORI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

257. NIBILAL MEERSA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

258. B S KANDAGAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

259. MURALLIDHAR SADANANDRAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

260. A S METI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

261. P MADHUSUDHAN BABU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

262. KRISHNA K M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

263. AZIZ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

264. PRABHAKAR A AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

265. A N MASALI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

266. NITION V PATIL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

267. RAMESH KOLARE AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

268. S S DOLLI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 71

269. MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

270. A M KOKARE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

271. L M NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 EYARS

272. R D BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

273. W AZIT KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

274. M THAMBI DURAI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

275. N B PATIL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

276. S S MANJINAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

277. B KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

278. S GOWTHAM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

279. M SHREENATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

280. D M DRAVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

281. RAMESH N 72

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

282. EREGOUDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

283. R D GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

284. G K SURESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

285. C R BABU KRISHNA DEV AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

286. R VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

287. K KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

288. H V RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

289. C HANAMANTH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

290. T N RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

291. N D RAGHUNATHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

292. R MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

293. C NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 73

294. PARASHURAM B BAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

295. SUDHAKAR MARUTI DHANAWADKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

296. RAVIKANTH T KOMBE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

297. DILIPKUMAR MASAJI POL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

298. H D MADESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

299. C SADASHIVA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

300. LINGARAJGOUD C AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

301. RAFIAHAMAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

302. M H PUTTAHONNEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

303. RAJASHEKAR H S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

304. K S MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

305. N S DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

306. M J KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 74

307. KIRSHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

308. HIMAKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

309. CHANDRASEKHAR G NAGATHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

310. A C RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

311. A C V VASUDEVAMURTH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

312. B MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

313. S S TUMBARMATTI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

314. CHANDRAKANTH MAHADAYYA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

315. GUNDLAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

316. K BHAKTA PRALHAD AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

317. V PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

318. A POLI REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

319. SHARANABASAVARAJ 75

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

320. SHRIHARI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

321. S S UPPALADINNI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

322. RAMESH B AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

323. S M KARAJAGI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

324. RAVINDRA NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

325. A L PATROTI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

326. SHEKARAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

327. M J NADUGADDI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

328. SATYANARAYAN RAO P AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

329. Y ABUJAR GFARI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

330. Y B NAGARAJ ACHARI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

331. PRALHAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 76

332. SHANTAPPA S KOLLI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

333. JAYAGOPALI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

334. S R TEGGI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

335. R D JADHAV AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

336. S H MUDHOL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

337. SHIVARAJ HANUMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

338. D VIJAYALAXMI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

339. S S BELAGAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

340. SIDHARUDH SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

341. MUDDARAJ R AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

342. VISHNU THEERTHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

343. M R BAGAWAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

344. S NAGARAJ GOUDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 77

345. RAJAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

346. L K MAHESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

347. B SWAMY KOTRESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

348. ISHWAR S KUMBAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

349. L KUBENDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

350. M M KENDHULI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

351. PRAKASH ALUR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

352. BASAVARAJ L M AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

353. B D BANDIWADDAR AGED 33 YEARS

354. K NIJALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

355. GOPAL REDDY AGED 36 YEARS

356. K GURULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

357. GOUSUDDIN 78

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

358. S M DYAMANNAVAR AGED 32 YEARS

359. MALLAPPA NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

360. PREMASAGAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

361. ERANNA NARASPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

362. MUST S/O MAHAMOODSAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

363. SITARAMA RAO BHEEMSEN RAO AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

364. M S BHAJNTRI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

365. K A GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

366. BANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

367. KATANNAVARA JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

368. L D GUNTI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

369. MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 79

370. Z A MAMDAPUR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

371. S B SULIBHAVI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

372. B TAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

373. V L KAMBAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

374. MANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

375. AMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

376. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

377. SANJEEV MANIK RAO HIROLI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

378. A.HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

379. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

380. RAVIRAJ DEVID AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

381. A K NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

382. N PARAMESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 80

383. MALLIKARJUNA HAMPAYYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

384. SURYAKANT SADHURA WADIKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

385. MALLIKARJUN HAMPAYYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

386. S T MADAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

387. S M PUJAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

388. G RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

389. TIMMANNA RATNAGIRI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

390. B H BARKER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

391. RAJKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

392. SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

393. D Y KOLKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

394. S I SHIRUR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 81

395. U DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

396. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

397. V V CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

398. G T JATADHAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

399. DASTAGIR CHOUDARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

400. S R CHALAWADI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

401. B Y HUNDEKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

402. R N JOSHI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

403. SHANKAR MUTTAPPA BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

404. G M GOPAL KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

405. JAGADISH B AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

406. S R DESHPANDE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

407. V SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 82

408. SMT I S DALALI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

409. AMRUIT AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

410. R S MALAGATTI AGED 41 YEARS

411. K N WADIYAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

412. P S DADDI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

413. V M NYAMAGOND AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

414. B N HALAWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

415. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

416. A SUNDARWADIVELU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

417. B K NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

418. K P KESHAVA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

419. CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

420. K H PRAKASH 83

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

421. S NIRMALESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

422. R RAJEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

R-6 TO R-422 ARE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES , K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.P.S.RAJAGOPAL - SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI.K.PUTTEGOWDA - ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.9, 14, 37, 20, 24, 29, 30, 35, 48, 49, 54, 57, 63, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 84, 91, 92, 95, 97, 100, 102, 107, 109, 112, 113, 117, 118, 120, 122, 125, 126, 137, 143, 148, 157, 159, 163, 168, 175, 180, 186, 187, 190, 192, 199, 200, 201, 203, 214, 218, 223, 230, 234, 238, 247, 256, 261, 265, 269, 273, 274, 316, 326, 340, 357, 361, 363, 364, 365, 368, 376, 369, 377, 378, 382, 383, 385, 388, 398, 404, 31, 50, 65, 70, 165, 191, 367, 93 AND 213.

SRI.ASHOK HARNAHALLI - SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M.R.SHAILENDRA - ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.15, 18, 27, 36, 41, 42, 51, 53, 55, 61, 64, 71, 73, 87, 88, 98, 101, 103, 106, 123, 127, 129, 130, 135, 138, 139, 141, 151, 153, 156, 161, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 177, 178, 189, 193, 195, 204, 208, 209, 211, 215, 224, 227, 233, 235, 240, 241, 244, 245, 254, 257, 262, 263, 264, 266, 270, 271, 276, 290, 292, 294, 295, 296, 297, 300, 309, 314, 317, 319, 322, 324, 325, 328, 335, 336, 337, 343, 347, 358, 370, 373, 384, 399, 400, 419, 8, 32, 39, 66, 74, 75, 108, 111, 114, 131, 144, 140, 152, 162, 164, 174, 181, 184, 206, 226, 246, 330, 342, 348, 333, 351, 354 & 182. 84

SRI.ASHOK HARNAHALLI - SR. COUNSEL FOR ASHOK HARNAHALLI ASSOCIATES FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 21, 46, 40, 68, 77, 89, 101, 145, 207, 217, 231, 239, 243, 319 & 391.

SRI.VIJAY SHANKAR S - ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI.RAGHAVENDRA GAYATHRI - GOVT. ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 4 & 5.

SRI.M.R.C. RAVI - ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 293, 299, 302, 311, 418, 304, 312, 284, 298, 420, 421 AND 422.

SRI.B.B.BAJENTRI - ADV. FOR R-386 AND R-393.

SRI.G.G.CHAGASHETTI & SRI.I.R. BIRADAR - ADVS. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.45, 133, 389, 374, 259, 213, 80, 216, 212 AND 134.

RESPONDENT NOS.6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 25, 33, 44, 47, 56, 60, 62, 67, 82, 83, 90, 93, 94, 96, 99, 104, 105, 115, 119, 124, 132, 146, 154, 155, 158, 160, 171, 197, 198, 210, 219, 221, 225, 226, 232, 236, 237, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 258, 260, 268, 275, 283, 284, 298, 301, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 310, 321, 332, 334, 336, 339, 350, 381, 387, 390, 394, 402, 408, 411, 412, 413, 414 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.

RESOURCES SERVICES (SPECIAL) RULES 2002 ISSUED VIDE NOTIFICATION DT. 18.10.02 (VIDE ANNEX- A & B) AS NULL AND VOID WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO SELECT AND APPOINT THE PETITIONERS TO THE POST OF JUNIOR/ASSISTANT ENGINEERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C & R RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT CALLED THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS (IRRIGATION SERVICES) (RECRUITMENT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS AND JUNIOR ENGINEERS) (SPECIAL RULES, 1998) PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 11.2.1999 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

WRIT PETITION NO.9519/2011 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

JAGADEESH S/O MURIGEPPA SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O GACHINAKATTI COLONY B.L.D.E. HOSPITAL ROAD, BIJAPUR ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.ARAVIND H - ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE

2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION BANGALORE

3. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAMA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR UKP ALAMATTI 86

BIJAPUR DISTRICT 586 201

4. THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, NO 22, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE 29

5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT 585 101

6. S L SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

7. H R SULIBHAVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

8. NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

9. A SURESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

10. LAXMAN SIDDANAKOLLA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

11. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

12. SHANKARAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

13. M RAMALINGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

14. SHIVASHANKAR KAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 87

15. B M SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

16. V G MIKKI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

17. D H VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

18. REVINDRA S PATIL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

19. RAMANGOUDA L HALLUR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

20. GOPIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

21. G SHIVAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

22. J R MUKKANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

23. S L SHIVANAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

24. MALLINATH ALEGAON AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

25. ASHOK PATIL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

26. M M TAPAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

27. P D KUMAR 88

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

28. MD S L GUDNAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

29. PAMPAPATHY M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

30. RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

31. H M T SWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

32. G P HADIMOORU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

33. SHRISHAIL KALYANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

34. BASAPPA METI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

35. MALLAPPA M TUMBARMATTI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

36. I PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

37. SUNIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

38. GADIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

39. NAGESHWARA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 89

40. D GOPINATHACHAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

41. I VEERABABU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

42. B Y BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

43. N Y BHAVI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

44. ADAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

45. B D WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

46. LAXMIKANTH E AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

47. G A NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

48. GOUSE MOHAMMED BANGI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

49. SUBRAMNYA M AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

50. B M GURUBASAVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

51. G S PATTANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

52. M H TOTAGAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 90

53. LINGARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

54. CHANDRAKANTH M GANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

55. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

56. CHANDRAKANTH SAJJANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

57. M NAGANATHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

58. S DATTATREYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 59. VIJAYAKUMAR HONNAPPA MUCHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

60. MALLAPPA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

61. SUBHASCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

62. NAGAPPA HEBBI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

63. NAGESHWAR RAO PILLI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

64. NAGESH C H AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

65. B H PUJAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 91

66. ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

67. NAGARAJ M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

68. D BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

69. R B BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

70. DODDANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

71. PASHUPATI M S AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

72. MAYAPPA L PADAGANUR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

73. S K VEENA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

74. PATNE SOMANATH KASHINATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

75. J S KURI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

76. C V MATHAPATI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

77. NAGAPPA M G K AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

78. SOMALING 92

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

79. I MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

80. SUBHASH LALAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

81. RAMALINGESHWAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

82. R SUDARSHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

83. SIDDAPPA S HIKKALAGUTTI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

84. JAGANNATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

85. M S GODEKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

86. BASANGOUDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

87. MOHD. MOHAMOOD AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

88. I S HOSUR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

89. CHANNAYYA M KOPPAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

90. P P KATARKI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 93

91. SRINIVAS P AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

92. S S KARAGAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

93. ISHWARAPPA L KALASA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

94. VENKAPPA LASHMAPPA SHEGUNASHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

95. MILLINDA M ARAKERI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

96. DHARANENDRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

97. UMESH SHANKAR RAO NIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

98. ABDUL HASSAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

99. S M KALALAGI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

100. P V MULLUR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

101. SAYAD FAZAL MAHAMOOD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

102. VEERENDRA K AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

103. SHIVAMURTHY G R AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 94

104. R S HADLI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

105. M N PADMAJA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

106. SUREKANTH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

107. N MAHESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

108. MANOHAR S BISNAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

109. R K KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

110. RAVIPRAKASH B AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

111. S N HIREMANI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

112. SRIMANTH S BENNUR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

113. M C YARNAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

114. KANTAPPA NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

115. V G KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 95

116. MADUMATI PATIL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

117. CHANDRAREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

118. SAYAD JAKIR HUSSAIN SURKI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

119. VASANTH ULLI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

120. G T KALASKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

121. KRIANKUMAR KUSAPPA JAINAPUR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

122. H B PURUSHOTTAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

123. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

124. KALAL HIRALAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

125. B KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

126. SHIVANAGOUDA T GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

127. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

128. MAHABOOBASAB AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 96

129. SIDDAPPA B GALAGALI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

130. S S RATHOD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

131. G N HANAMANTH RAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

132. RAJASHEKAR K AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

133. M R BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

134. RENUKAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

135. THIPPANNANGOUDA SOMANAGOUDA ANNADANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

136. RAVINDRA KUMAR SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

137. ABHIMANYA K S AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

138. SURENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

139. S N SIDDAPUR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

140. SURESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 97

141. MOHD ABDUL MAJEEB AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

142. S S HADLAGERI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

143. SHIVAKUMAR B AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

144. G BHASKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

145. B S WADRI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

146. P B NIMBARAGI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

147. G BHEEMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

148. M BAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

149. R M HUNDEKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

150. SUBASH SHARANAPPA NAIKWAD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

151. S R NAIK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

152. PRAKASH M AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

153. B SANNAPARASHURAM 98

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

154. RAMANJANEYALU P M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

155. R K JOGANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

156. M SURESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

157. C K HARIHAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

158. R N HAJERI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

159. ASPAK AHAMAD KOLHAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

160. S Y HOKRANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

161. B BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

162. N V HULLYALKAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

163. JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

164. B R RATHOD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

165. NINGANAGOUDA N PATIL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 99

166. F H LAMANI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

167. G NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

168. Y VASANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

169. V I GHANAGOND AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

170. G V MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

171. M KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

172. P MADHUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

173. RAJA T AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

174. ARUNKUMAR MALLAPPA SALDAPUR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

175. R A VASTRAD AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

176. GORAKHANATH CHANNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

177. JAGANNATHA JOTIRLING AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

178. G C METI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 100

179. H MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

180. SUJATA L JADHAV AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

181. R T METRI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

182. K M SHIVAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

183. MAHANTAPPA KANNUR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

184. BASAVARAJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

185. K SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

186. B VENAKTESH PRASAD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

187. SRINIVASACHAR JOSHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

188. J G RATHOD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

189. SHIVALINGAPPA S SAVUKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

190. VIGNESHWAR M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

191. K B H SHIVASHANKAR 101

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

192. RANGAIAH BADIGAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

193. HANAMANTH G DASAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

194. S H PUJARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

195. G G PAWAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

196. N D PAWAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

197. BASVANATH D MADAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

198. P N HADAGALI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

199. CHANDRAHAS BANDI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

200. B G BELDAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

201. B T DODDAMANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

202. DANGE VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

203. MALLIKARJUN M S AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 102

204. RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

205. H SATYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

206. SAYAD IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

207. G V VENAKTESHALU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

208. B N BILAGUNDI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

209. RAJENDRA S WALIKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

210. RAMESH GOPU RATHOD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

211. C RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

212. DEVIDAR CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

213. DASAVANTA L GAJARE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

214. RANGANATHA BHAKRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

215. T DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

216. K H MASUTI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 103

217. A R ALABAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

218. BARIKAR CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

219. J S GADDIMATH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

220. D S INGALE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

221. ZAKIR HUSSAIN KADRI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

222. CHIDANAND AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

223. SAMBAJI SUBASCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

224. S M MURNAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

225. AMARNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

226. MOHD. HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

227. P HEMANTA RAJA AGED ABOUT 45 YEAS

228. VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

229. MOHAN DAS 104

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

230. TYAGI TUKARAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

231. S B BAGI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

232. SUREGOUDA NEELANANGOUDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

233. MALLAPPA S DIVATAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

234. M.M. HUJARATTI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

235. VINODKUMAR GUPTA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

236. G B DIDDIMANI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

237. B C KATTI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

238. V M SURESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

239. SHIVARAJ PATIL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

240. SATYAPRAKASH MULGE AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

241. P B HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 105

242. PANDURANGA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

243. SHANTAVEERESH A MATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEAS

244. G N ANIL RAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

245. SHARMA L SURESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

246. G S KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

247. VAIJANATH ALUR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

248. NAGARAJ R DODWAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

249. RAMAPPA MAHANTAPPA JUMANAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

250. RAMAPPA HANAMAPPA BILAWAD AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

251. ASHOK REDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

252. P J HAJERI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

253. SHIVANKUMAR M RONAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

254. M REVANASIDDAIAH 106

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

255. T VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

256. A C CHOORI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

257. NABILAL MEERSA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

258. B S KANDAGAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEAS

259. MURLIDHAR SADANAND RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

260. A.S. METI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

261. P MADHUSUDHAN BABU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

262. KRISHNA K M AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

263. AZIZ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

264. PRABHAKAR A AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

265. A N MASALI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

266. NITION V PATIL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 107

267. RAMESH KOLARE AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

268. S S DOLLI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

269. MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

270. A M KOKARE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

271. L M NAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

272. R D BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEAS

273. W AZIT KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

274. M THAMBI DURAI AGED ABOUT 47 YEAS

275. N B PATIL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

276. S MANJINAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

277. B KUMARSWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

278. S GOUTHAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

279. M SHREENATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 108

280. D M DRAVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

281. RAMESH N AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

282. EREGOUDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

283. R D GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

284. G K SURESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

285. C R BABU KRISHNADEV AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

286. R VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

287. K KRISSHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

288. H V RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

289. C HANAMANTH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

290. T N RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

291. N D RAGHUNATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

292. R MANJUNATH 109

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

293. C NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

294. PARASHURAM B BAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

295. SUDHAKAR MARUTI DHANWADKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

296. RAVIKANTH T KOMBE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

297. DILIPKUMAR MASAJI POL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

298. H K MADESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

299. C SADASHIVA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

300. LINGARAJAGOUDA C AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

301. RAFIAHAMAD AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

302. M H PUTTAHONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

303. RAJASHEKHAR H S AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

304. K S MOHANKUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 110

305. N S DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

306. M J KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

307. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

308. HIMAKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

309. CHANDRASHEKAR G NAGATHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

310. A C RAMMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

311. A C VASUDEVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

312. B MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

313. S S TUMBARMATTI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

314. CHANDRAKANTH MAHADAYYA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

315. GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

316. K BHAKTA PRALHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

317. V PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 111

318. A POLI REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

319. SHARANABASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

320. SHRIJARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

321. S S UPPALADINNI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

322. RAMESH B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

323. S M KARAJAGI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

324. RAVINDRA NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

325. A L PATROTI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

326. SHEKARAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

327. M J NADUGADDI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

328. SATYANARAYANA RAO P AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

329. Y ABUJAR GFARI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

330. Y B NAGARAJ ACHARI 112

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

331. PRALHAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

332. SHANTAPPA S KOLLI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

333. JAYAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

334. S R TEGGI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

335. R D JADHAV AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

336. S H MUDHOL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

337. SHIVARAJ HANUMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

338. D VIJAYALAXMI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

339. S S BELAGAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

340. SIDHARUDH SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

341. MUDDURAJ R AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

342. VISHNU THEERTHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 113

343. M R BAGAWAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

344. S NAGARAJ GOUDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

345. RAJAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

346. L K MAHESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

347. B SWAMY KOTRESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 348. ISHWAR S KUMBAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

349 .L KUBENDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

350. M M KENDHULI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

351. PRAKASH ALUR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

352. BASAVARAJ L M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

353. B D BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

354. K NIJALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

355. GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 114

356. K GURULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

357. GOUSUDDIN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

358. S M DYAMANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

359. MALLAPPA NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

360. PREMASAGAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

361. ERANNA NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

362. MUSA S/O MAHAMOODSAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

363. SITARAM RAO BHEEMSEN RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

364. M S BHAKANTRI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

365. K A GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

366. BANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

367. KATANNAVARA JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

368. L D GUNTI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 115

369. MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

370. Z A MAMADAPUR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

371. S B SULIBHAVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

372. B TAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

373. V L KAMBAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

374. MANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

375. AMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

376. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

377. SANJEEV MANIK RAO HIROLI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

378. A HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

379. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

380. RAVIRAJ DEVID AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 116

381. A K NAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

382. N PARAMESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

383. MALLIKARJUN HAMPAYYA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

384. SURYAKANT SADHURAO WADIKA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

385. MALLIKARJUN HIREMANI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

386. S T MADAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

387. S M PUJAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

388. G RAMREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

389. THIMMANNA RATNAGIRI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

390. B H BARKER AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

391. RAJKUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

392. SHANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

393. D Y SHIRUR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 117

394. S I SHIRUR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

395. U DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

396. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

397. V V CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

398. G T JATADHAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

399. DASTAGIR CHOUDARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

400. S R CHALAWADI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

401. B Y HUNDEKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

402. R N JOSHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

403. SHAKAR MUTTAPPA BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

404. G M GOPAL KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

405. JAGADISH B AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

406. S R DESHPANDE 118

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

407. V SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

408. SMT I S DALALI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

409. AMRUIT AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

410. R S MALAGATTI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

411. K N WADIYAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

412. P.S.DADDI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

413. V N NYAMAGOND AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

414. B M HALAWAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

415. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

416. A SUNDRAVADIVELU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

417. B K NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

418. K P KESHAVA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 119

419. CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

420. K H PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

421. S NIRMALESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

422. N N RAJEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ... RESPONDENTS

RESPONDENTS 6 TO 422 APPOINTED ON CONTRACT BASIS AS ASSISTANT ENGINEERS AND JUNIOR ENGINEERS RESPECTIVELY, TO WORK UNDER THE CHIEF ENGINEER, UKP BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, ARE NOW ABSOLUTED AS MUCH UNDER THE KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES (ABSORPTION OF AEs AND JEs APPOINTED AS CONTRACT BASIS AND ON ADHOC BASIS, IN THE WATER RESOURCES SERVICES) (SPECIAL) RULES, 2002.

(BY SRI.ASHOK HARNAHALLI - SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. M.R.SHAILENDRA- ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.15, 18, 27, 36, 41, 42, 51, 53, 55, 61, 64, 71, 73, 87, 88, 98, 101, 103, 106, 130, 135, 138, 139, 141, 151, 153, 156, 161, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 177, 178, 189, 193, 195, 204, 208, 209, 211, 215, 224, 227, 233, 235, 240, 241, 244, 245, 254, 257, 262, 263, 264, 266, 270, 271, 276, 290, 292, 294, 295, 296, 297, 300, 309, 314, 317, 319, 322, 324, 325, 328, 335, 336, 337, 343, 347, 358, 370, 373, 384, 399, 400, 419, 8, 32, 39, 66, 74, 75, 108, 111, 114, 131, 144, 140, 152, 162, 164, 174, 181, 182, 184, 206, 226, 246, 330, 333, 342, 348, 351 & 354.

SRI.VIJAYA SHANKAR S - ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI.RAGHAVENDRA GAYATHRI - GOVT. ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, & 4. 120

SRI.M.R.C. RAVI - ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 5.

SRI. ASHOK HARNAHALLI ASSOCIATES FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 21, 40, 46, 68, 77, 89, 101, 145, 207, 217, 231, 239, 243, 319 & 391.

SRI.P.S.RAJAGOPAL - SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI.M.N.PUTTEGOWDA - ADV. AND SRI.PRASANNA - ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.9, 14, 37, 20, 24, 29, 30, 35, 48, 49, 54, 57, 63, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 84, 91, 92, 95, 97, 100, 102, 107, 109, 112, 113, 117, 118, 120, 122, 125, 126, 137, 143, 148, 157, 159, 163, 168, 175, 180, 186, 187, 190, 192, 199, 200, 201, 203, 214, 218, 223, 230, 234, 238, 247, 256, 261, 265, 269, 273, 274, 316, 326, 340, 357, 361, 363, 364, 365, 368, 376, 369, 377, 378, 382, 383, 385, 388, 398, 404, 50, 65, 70, 165, 191, 367, 93 AND 213,

VIDE ORDER DATED 10.02.2012 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH FOR THE FOLLOWING RESPONDENTS NOS. 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 34, 38, 43, 44, 45, 47, 52, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 67, 69, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 99, 104, 105, 110, 115, 116, 119, 121, 124, 128, 132, 133, 134, 136, 142, 146, 147, 149, 150, 89, 154, 155, 158, 160, 171, 176, 179, 183, 185, 188, 162, 194, 196, 197, 198, 202, 205, 209, 206, 210, 212, 213, 216, 219, 79, 220, 221, 222, 225, 228, 229, 232, 236, 237, 242, 248, 249, 323, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 258, 259, 260, 267, 268, 272, 275, 213, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 150, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 293, 298, 299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 318, 320, 321, 323, 327, 329, 331, 332, 334, 338, 339, 341, 344, 345, 346, 349, 350, 352, 353, 355, 356, 359, 360, 362, 366, 371, 372, 374, 375, 379, 380, 381, 386, 387, 389, 393, 401, 402, 403, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 421 & 422. 121

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT 9.4.10 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KAT IN A.NO.3005/03 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS AND THE IMPUGNED RULES CALLED THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES (ABSORPTION OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS AND JUNIOR ENGINEERS APPOINTED ON CONTRACT BASIS AND ON ADHOC BASIS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SERVICES (SPECIAL) RULES 2002 ISSUED VIDE NOTIFICATION DT. 18.10.02 (VIDE ANNEX- A & B) AS NULL AND VOID WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO SELECT AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF JUNIOR/ASSISTANT ENGINEERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C & R RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT CALLED THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS (IRRIGATION SERVICES) (RECRUITMENT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS AND JUNIOR ENGINEERS) (SPECIAL RULES, 1998) PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 11.2.99 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

WRIT PETITION NOs. 2897-2901/2012 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. K MANJAPPA S/O KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.2240, 4TH CROSS SHIVANANDA NAGAR MUDALAPALYA BANGALORE - 560 072

2. N SHIVALINGEGOWDA S/O K NINGE GOWDA 122

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS YENNEHOLE KOPPAL PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

3. SUBHASH S/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D.T. 5TH CROSS NAGASAMUDRA ROAD, GAYATHRI EXTENSION, CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT.

4. C S SUDHIR S/O C D SUBBE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.914, FIRST CORSS, FIRST BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE-570023

5. K H RAMESH S/O HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.4101, SUGNA, II CROSS, BANDHI GOWDA LAYOUT MANDYA ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.S.V.NARASIMHAN AND SRI.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA-ADVS.,)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGLORE

2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION 123

M S BUIDLING, BANGALORE.

3. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAMA REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR U.K.P ALAMATTI BIJAPUR DISTRICT 586 201

4. THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE SUBBAIAH CIRCLE BANGALORE 29

5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER UPPER KRIHNSA PROJECT BHEMARAYANGUDI GULBARGA DSITRICT 585 101

6. S J SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

7. H R SULIBHAVI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

8 NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

9. A SURESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

10. LAXMAN SIDDANAKOLLA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

11. SATYANARAYANA SHETTI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

12. SHANKARAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 124

13. M RAMALNIGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

14. SHIVASHANKAR KAMESHEETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

15. B B SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

16. V G MIKKAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

17. D H VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

18. RAVINDRA S PATIL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

19. RAMANGOUDA L HALLUR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

20. GOPIKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

21. G SHIVAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

22. J R MUKKANNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

23. S L SHIVANAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

24. MALLINATH ALEGAON AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

25. ASHOK PATIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 125

26. M M TAPAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

27. P D KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

28. MD. S L GUDNAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

29. PAMPAPATHY M AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

30. RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

31. H M T SWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

32. G P HADIMOORU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

33. SHRISHAIL KALYANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

34. BASAPPA METI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

35. MALLAPPA M THUMBARAMATTI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

36 I PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

37. SUNIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 126

38 GADIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

39 NAGESHWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

40 D GOPINATHCHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

41 I VEERABABU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

42. B Y BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

43. N Y BHAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

44. ADAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

45. B D WADEYAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

46. LAXMIKANNTH E AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

47. G A NAGARAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

48. GOUSEMOHAMMED BANGI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

49. SUBRAMANYA M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

50. B M GURUBASAVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 127

51. G.S.PATTANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

52. M H TOTAGER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

53. LINGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

54. CHANDRAKANTH M GANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

55. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

56. CHANDRAKANTH SAJJANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

57. M NAGANATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

58. S DATTATREYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

59. VIJAYAKUMAR HONNAPPA MUCHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

60. MALLAPPA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

61. SUBHASCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

62. NAGAPPA HEBBI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 128

63. NAGESHWAR RAO PILLI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

64. NAGESH C H AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

65. B H PUJAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

66. ANILKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

67. NAGARAJ M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

68. D BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

69. R.B. BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

70. DODDANGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

71. PASHUPATI M S AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

72. MAYAPPA L PADAGANUR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

73. S K VEENA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

74. PATNE SOMANATH KASHINATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

75. J S KURI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 129

76. C V MATHAPATI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

77. NAGAPPA M G K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

78. SOMALING AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

79. I MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

80. SUBHASH LALAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

81. RAMLINGESHWAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

82. R SUNDARSHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

83. SIDDAPPA S HIKKALAGUTTI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

84. JAGANATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

85. M S GODEKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

86. BASANGOUDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

87. MOHD MAHAMOOD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

88. I S HOSUR 130

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

89. CHANNAYYA M KOPPAD AGED ABOUT 38 YEAR

90. P P KATARKI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

91. SRINIVAS P AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

92. S S KARAGAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

93. ISHWARAPPA L KALASA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

94. VENKAPPA LASHAMAPPA SHEGUNASHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

95. MILLINDA M ARAKERI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

96. DHARNENDRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

97. UMESH SHANKAR RAO NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

98. ABUL HASSAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

99. S M KOLALAGI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

100. P V MULLUR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 131

101. SAYAD FAZAL MAHAMOOD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

102. VEERENDRA K AGED ABOUT 30YEARS

103. SHIVAMURTHY G R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

104. R S HADLI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

105. M N PADMAJA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

106. SUREKANTH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

107. N MAHESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

108. MANOHAR S BISNAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

109. R K KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

110. RAVIPRAKASH B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

111. S N HIREMANI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

112. SRIMANTH S BENNUR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

113. M C YARNAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 132

114. KANTAPPA NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

115. V G KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

116. MADHUMATI PATIL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

117. CHANDRAREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

118. SAYAD JAKIR HUSSAIN SURKI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

119. VASANTH ULLI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

120. G T KALASKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

121. KIRANKUMAR KUSAPPA JAINAPUR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

122. H B PURUSHOTTAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

123. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

124. KALAL HIRALAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

125. B KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 133

126. SHIVANAGOUDA T GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

127. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

128. MAHABOOBSAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

129. SIDDAPPA B GALAGALI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

130. S S RATHOD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

131. G N HANAMANTH RAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

132. RAJASHEKAR K AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

133. M R BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

134. RENUKAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

135. THIPPANNAGOUDA SOMANAGOUDA ANNADANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

136. RAVINDRA KUMAR SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

137. ABHIMANYA K S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

138. SURENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 134

139. S N SIDDAPUR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

140. SURESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

141. MOHD ABDUL MUJEEB AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

142. S S HADLAGERI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

143. SHIVAKUMAR B AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

144. G BHASKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

145. B S WADRI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

146. P.B. NIMBARAGI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

147. G. BHEEMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

148. M. BAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

149. R.M. HUNDEKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

150. SUBASH SHARANAPPA NAIKWAD AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 135

151. S.R.NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

152. PRAKASH M AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

153. B. SANNAPARASHURAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

154. RAMANJANEYALU P.M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

155. R.K. JOGANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

156. M. SURESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

157. C.K. HARIHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

158. R.N. HAJERI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

159. ASPAK AHAMAD KOLHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

160. S.Y. HOKRANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

161. B. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

162. N.V. HULLYALKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

163. JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 136

164. B.R. RATHOD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

165. NINGANAGOUDA N. PATIL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

166. F.H.LAMANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

167. G. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

168. Y. VASANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

169. V.I. CHANAGOND AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

170. G.C. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

171. M. KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

172. P. MADHUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

173. RAJA T AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

174. ARUNKUMAR MALLAPPA SALDAPUR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

175. R.A. VASTRAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 137

176. GORAKHANATH CHANNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

177. JAGANNATH JOTIRLING AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

178. G.C. METI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

179. H. MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

180. SUJATA L.JADHAV AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

181. R.T. METRI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

182. K.M. SHIVAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

183. MAHANTAPPA KANNUR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

184. BASAVARAJ KUMBAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

185. K. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

186. B. VENKATESH PRASAD AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

187. SRINIVASACHAR JOSHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

188. J.G. RATHOD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 138

189. SHIVALINGAPPA S. SAVUKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

190. VIGNESHWAR M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

191. K.B.H. SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

192. RANGAHIAH BADIGER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

193. HANUMANT G. DASAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

194. S.H. PUJARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

195. G.G PAWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

196. N.D. PAWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

197. BASAVANTH D. MADAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

198. P.N. HADAGALLI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

199. CHANDRAHAS BANDI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

200. B.G. BELDAL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 139

201. B.T. DODAMANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

202. DANGE VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

203. MALLIKARJUN M.S AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

204. RAJASEKHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

205. H. SATYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

206. SAYED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

207. G.V. VENKATESHALU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

208. B.N. BILAGUNDI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

209. RAJENDRA S. WALIKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

210. RAMESH GOPU RATHOD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

211. C. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

212. DEVIDAS CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

213. DASAVANTA L. GAJARE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 140

214. RANGANATH BHAKRI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

215. T. DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

216. K.H.MASUTI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

217. A.R. ALABAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

218. BARIKAR CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 219. J.S. GADDIMATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

220. D.S. INGALE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

221. ZAKIR HUSAIN KADRI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

222. CHIDANAND AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

223. SAMBHAJI SUBASHCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

224. S.M. MURNAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

225. AMARNATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

226. MOHD. HUSAIN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 141

227. P. HEMANTA RAJA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

228. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

229. MOHAN DAS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

230. TYAGI TUKARAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

231. S.B. BAGI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

232. SUREGOUDA NEELANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

233. MALLAPPA S. DIVATAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

234. M.M. HUJARATTI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

235. VINODKUMAR GUPTA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

236. G.B. DIDDIMANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

237. B.C. KATTI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

238. V.M. SURESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 142

239. SHIVARAJ PATIL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

240. SATYAPRAKASH MULGE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

241. P.B. HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

242. PANDURANGA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

243. SHANTAVEERSH A.MATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

244. G.N. ANIL RAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

245. SHARMA L. SURESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

246. G.S.KANNUR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

247. VAIJANATH ALUR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

248. NAGARAJ R. DODWAD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

249. RAMAPPA MAHANTAPPA JUMANAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

250. RAMAPPA HANAMAPPA BILAWAD AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 143

251. ASHOK REDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

252. P.G. HAJERI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

253. SHRAVANKUMAR M. RONAD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

254. M. REVANASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

255. T. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

256. A.C. CHOORI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

257. NABILAL MEERSA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

258. B.S KANDAGAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

259. MURALIDHAR SADANANDRAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

260. A.S. METI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

261. P. MADHUSUDHAN BABU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

262. KRISHNA K.M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 144

263. AZIZ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

264. PRABHAKAR A AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

265. A.N. MASALI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

266. NITION V PATIL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

267. RAMESH KOLARE AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

268. S.S. DOLLI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

269. MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

270. A.M. KOKARE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

271. L.M. NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

272. R.D. BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

273. W. AZIZ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

274. M THAMBI DURAI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 145

275. N.B. PAIL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

276. S.S. MANJINAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

277. B. KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

278. S. GOUTHAM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

279. M. SHREENATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

280. D.M. DRAVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

281. RAMESH N AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

282. EREGOUDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

283. R.D. GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

284. G.K. SURESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

285. C.R. BABU KRISHNADEV AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

286. R. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 146

287. K. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

288. H.V. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

289. C. HANAMANTH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

290. T.N. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

291. N.D. RAGHUNATHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

292. R MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

293. C NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

294. PARASHURAM B BAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

295. SUDHAKAR MARUTI DHANAWADKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

296. RAVIKANTH T KOMBE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

297. DILIPKUMAR MASAJI POL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

298. H K MADESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 147

299. C SADASHIVA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

300. LINGARAJGOUDA C AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

301. RAFIAHAMAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

302. M H PUTTAHONNEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

303. RAJASEKHAR H S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

304. K S MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

305. N S DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

306. M J KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

307. KRISHNEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

308. HIMAKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

309. CHANDRASEKHAR G NAGATHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

310. A C RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 148

311. A C VASUDEVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

312. B MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

313. S S TUMBARMATTI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

314. CHANDRAKANTHMAHADAYYA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

315. GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

316. K BHAKTA PRALHAD AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

317. V PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

318. A POLI REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

319. SHARANABASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

320. SHRIHARI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

321. S S UPPALADINNI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

322. RAMESH B AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 149

323. S M KARAJAGI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

324. RAVINDRA NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

325. A L PATROTI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

326. SHEKARAPPA BADIGAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

327. M J NADUGADDI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

328. SATYANARAYAN RAO P AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

329. Y ABUJAR GFARI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

330. Y B NAGARAJ ACHARI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

331. PRALHAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

332. SHANTAPPA S KOLLI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

333. JAYAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

334. S R TEGGI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 150

335. R D JADHAV AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

336. S H MUDHOL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

337. SHIVARAJ HANUMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

338. D VIJAYALAXMI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

339. S S BELAGAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

340. SIDHARUDH SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

341. MUDDURAJ R AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

342. VISHNU THEERTHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

343. M R BHAGAWAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

344. S NAGARAJ GOUDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

345. RAJKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

346. L K MAHESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 151

347. B SWAMY KOTRESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

348. ISHWAR S KUMBAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

349. L KUBENDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

350. M M KENDHULI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

351. PRAKASH ALUR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

352. BASAVARAJ L M AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

353. B D BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

354. K NIJALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

355. GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

356. K GURULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

357. GOUSUDDIN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

358. S M DYAMANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 152

359. MALLAPPA NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

360. PREMASAGAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

361. ERANNA NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

362. MUSA S/O MAHAMOODSAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

363. SITARAM RAO BHEEMSEN RAO AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

364. M S BHAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

365. K A GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

366. BANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

367. KATANNAVARA JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

368. L D GUNTI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

369. MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

370. Z A MAMADAPUR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 153

371. S B SULIBHAVI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

372. B TAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

373. V L KAMBAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

374. MANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

375. AMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

376. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

377. SANJEEV MANIK RAO HIROLI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

378. A HONNURAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

379. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

380. RAVIRAJ DEVID AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

381. A K NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

382. N PARAMESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 154

383. MALLIKARJUN HAMPAYYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

384. SURYAKANT SADHURAO WADIKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

385. MALLIKARJUN HIREMANI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

386. S T MADAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

387. S M PUJAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

388. G RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

389. THIMMANNA RATNAGIRI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

390. B H BARKER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

391. RAJKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

392. SHANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

393. D Y KOLKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

394. S L SHIRUR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 155

395. U DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

396. RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

397. V V CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

398. G T JATADHAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

399. DASTAGIR CHOUDARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

400. S R CHALAWADI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

401. B Y HUNDEKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

402. R N JOSHI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

403. SHANKAR MUTTAPPA BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

404. G M GOPAL KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

405. JAGADEESH B AGED 33 YEARS

406. S R DEHSPANDE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 156

407. V SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

408. SMT I S DALALI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

409. AMRUIT AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

410. R S MALAGATTI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

411. K N WADIYAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

412. P S DADDI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

413. V M NYAMAGOND AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

414. B M HALAWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

415. RAVINDRANATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

416. A SUNDRAWADIVELU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

417. B K NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

418. K P KESHAVA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 157

419. CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

420. K H PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

421. S NIRMALESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

422. H N RAJEGOUDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

RESPONDENTS 6 TO 422 WERE ALL EMPLOYED ON CONTRACT BASIS TO WORK AS ASSISTANT/ ENGINEERS/JUNIOR ENGINEERS UNDER THE RESPONDENT NO.5 AND ONE NOW ABSORBED UNDER THE IMPUGNED RULES.

423. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGLORE - 560 001

424. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION BY ITS ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560009

425. S I SAJJAN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST. ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 158

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

426. H R SULLIBHAVI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

427. NARASAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

428. A SURESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

429. LAXMAN SIDDANAKOLLA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

430. SATHYANARAYAN SHETTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 159

431. SHANKARAGOUDA HARIGOUDAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

432. M RAMAL INGAREDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

433. SHIVASHANKAR KAMESHETY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

434. B M SHASHIKALA D/O CBM VEERABASAIAHOWN ASST. ENGINEER O/O MANAGING DIRECTOR KBJNL. ALMATTI

435. V G MIKKALI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

436. D H VENKATESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR 160

ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

437. RAVINDRA S PATIL S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL ASST ENGINEER O/ AEE, KBJNL DAM ZONE ALMATTI

438. RAMANAGOUDA L HALLUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

439. GOPALAKRISHNA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

440. G SHIVAPRAKASH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, ASST ENGINEER , O/O UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, REHABILITATION DIVN. NO.8, JAMKHANDI

441. J R MUKKANNA NAIK FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 161

442. S L SHIVANAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

443. MALLINATH ALEGAON FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

444. ASHOK PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

445. M M TAPAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

446. P D KUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

447. MD S L GUDNAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 162

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

448. PAMPAPATHY M FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

449. RAVINDRA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

450. H M T SWAMY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

451. G P HADIMOORU FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

452. SHRISHAIL KALYANI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 163

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

453. BASAPPA METI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

454. MALLAPPA M TUMBRARAMATTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

455. I PRAKASH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

456. SUNIL KUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

457. GADIGAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 164

458. NAGESHWAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, ASST ENGINEER, REHABILITATION DIVN NO.5, BILGI

459. D GOPINATHACHAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

460. I VEERABABU FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

461. B Y BANDIWADDAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

462. N Y BHAVI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

463. ADAM S/O KHASIM SAB ASST ENGINEER, O/O EXE. ENGINEER, 165

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING UKP DIVISION, BAGALKOT

464. D B WADEYAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

465. LAXMIKANTH E FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

466. G A NAGARAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

467. GOUSEMOHAMMED BANGI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

468. SUBRAMANY M FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 166

469. B M GURUBASAVARAJAIAH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

470. G S PATTANASHETTY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

471. M H TOTAGER FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

472. LINGARAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

473. CHANDRAKANTH M GANGASHETTY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

474. BASAVARAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 167

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

475. CHANDRAKANTHA SAJJASHETTY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, ASST ENGINEER O/O UKP, REHABILITATION DN., NO.8, JAMKHANDI

476. M NAGANATHA S/O M PAMPANNA ASST ENGINEER O/O A E E PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING (UKP), SUB DIVISION NO.2 HUNAGUND, ALMATTI -586201

477. S DATTAREYS SHETTY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

478. VIJAYAKUMAR HONNAPPA MUCHA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

479. MALLAPPA BASAPPA KONAPPANAVAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 168

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

480. SUBHASCHANDRA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

481. NAGAPPA HEBBI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

482. NAGESHWAR RAO PILLI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

483. NAGESH C H FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

484. B H PUJAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 169

485. ANIL KUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

486. NAGARAJ M FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

487. D BASAVARAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

488. R B BIRADAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

489. DODDANAGOUDA PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

490. PASHUPATI M S FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 170

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

491. MAYAPPA L PADAGANUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

492. S K VEENA D/O G S NAGANA GOWDA ASST. ENGINEER, O/O S E R & R, U KP BAGALKOT-587101

493. PATNE SOMANATH KABHINATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

494. J S KURI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

495. C V MATHAPATI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 171

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

496. NAGAPPA M G K FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

497. SOMALING FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

498. I MAHAEVAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

499. SUBASH LALAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

500. RAMLINGEHSWAR PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 172

501. R SUNDARSHAN REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

502. SIDDAPPA S HIKKALAGUTTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

503. JAGANATH REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

504. M S GODEKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

505. BASANGOUDA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

506. MOHD MAHAMOOD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 173

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

507. I S HOSUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

508. CHANNAYYA M KOPPAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

509. P P KATARKI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

510. SRINIVAS P FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

511. S S KARAKGAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 174

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

512. ISHWARAPPA L KALASA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

513. VENKATAPPA LAKSHMAPPA SHEGUNSHI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

514. MILIND M ARAKERI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

515. DHARANENDRASWAMY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

516. UMESH SHANKAR RAO NAIK FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT ASST. ENGINEER, REHABILITATION DIVN NO.5 BILIGI 175

517. ABUL HASSAN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

518. S M KOLALAGI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

519. P V MULLUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

520. SAYAD FAZAL MAHAMOOD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

521. VEERENDRA K FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

522. SHIVAMURTHY G R FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 176

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

523. R S HADLI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

524. M N PADMAJA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

525. SUREKANTH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

526. N MAHESHAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

527. MANOHAR S BISNAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 177

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

528. R K KULKARNI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

529. RAVI PRAKASH B FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

530. S N HIREMATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

531. SRIMANTH S BENNUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

532. M C YARNAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 178

533. KANTAPPA NARASAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

534. V G KULKARNI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

535. MADHUMATI PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

536. CHANDRAREDDY PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

537. SAYAD JAKIR HUSAIN BURKI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

538. VASANTH ULLI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 179

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

539. G T KALASKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

540. KIRANKUMAR KUSAPPA JAINAPUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

541. H B PURUSHOTTAM FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

542. NAGESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

543. KALAL HIRALAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 180

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

544. B KRISHNA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

545. SHIVANAGOUDA T GOUDAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

546. RAGHAVENDRA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

547. MAHABOOBSAB FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

548. SIDDAPPA B GALAGALI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 181

549. S S RATHOD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

550. G N HANAMANTH RAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

551. RAJASHEKAR K FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, 35 YEARS ASST. ENGINEER , PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING UKP DIVISION, BAGALKOT.

552. M R BIRADAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST. ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

553. RENUKAPRASAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

554. THIPPANNAGOUNDA SOMANAGOUDA ANNADANI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR 182

ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

555. RAVINDRA KUMAR SAJJAN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

556. ABHIMANYA K S FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

557. SURENDRA REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

558. S N SIDDAPUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

559. SURESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 183

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

560. MOHD. ABDUL MAJEEB FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

561. S S HADLAGERI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

562. SHIVAKUMAR B FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

563. G BHASKAR REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

564. B S WADRI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 184

565. P B NIMBARAGI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

566. G BHEEMA NAIK FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

567. M BAL REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

568. R M JUNDEKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

569. SUBASH SHARNAPPA NAIKWAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

570. S R NAIK FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 185

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

571. PRAKASH M FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

572. B SANNAPARASHURAM FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

573. RAMANHANEYALU P M FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

574. R K JOGANNAVAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

575. M SURESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 186

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

576. C K HARIHAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

577. R N HAJERI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

578. ASPAK AHAMED KOLHAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

579. S Y HOKRANI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

580. B BASAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 187

581. S Y HULLYALKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

582. JAYARAM REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

583. B R RATHOD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

584. NINGANAGOUDA N PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, ASST. ENGINEER, O/O UKP, REHABILITATION SUB-DVN, NO. 11, ALMATTI

585. F H LAMANI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

586. G NAGARAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR 188

ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

587. Y VASANTH KUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

588. V I CHANAGOUND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

589. G C MANJUNATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

590. M KRISHNAIAH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

591. P MADHUKUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 189

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

592. RAJA T FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

593. ARUNKUMAR MALLAPPA SALAPUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

594. R A VASTRAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

595. GORAKHANATH CHANNASHETTY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

596. JAGANNATH JOTIRLING FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 190

597. G C METI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

598. H MALLIKARJUN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

599. SUJATA L JADHAV D/O LAXMAN JADHAV ASST. ENGINEER, O/O CHIEF ENGINEER, DAM ZONE, ALMATTI

600. R T METRI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

601. K M SHIVAPRAKASH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

602. MAHANTAPPA KANNUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 191

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

603. BASAVARAJ KUMBAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

604. K SHANKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

605. B VENKATESH PRASAD S/O B ANJANEYALI ASST. ENGINEER, O/O M.B. C. SUB-DVN, NO. 6 GADDANAKERI

606. SRINIVASACHAR JOSHI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

607. J G RATHOD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 192

608. SHIVALINGAPPA S SAVUKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

609. VIGNESHWAR M FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

610. K B H SHIVASHANKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

611. RANGAIAH BADIGER FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

612. HANAMANTH G DASAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

613. S H PUJARI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 193

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

614. G C PAWAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

615. N D PAWAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

616. BASAVANTH D MADAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

617. P N HADAGALI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

618. CHANDRAHAS BANDI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 194

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

619. B G DELDAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

620. B T DODAMANI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

621. DANGE VIJAYAKUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

622. MALLIKARJUN M S FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

623. RAJASEKHAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 195

624. H SATHYAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

625. SAYAD IBRAHIM FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

626. G V VENKATESHALU FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

627. B N BILAGUNDI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

628. RAJENDRA S WALIKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

629. RAMESH GOPY RATHOD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 196

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

630. C RAVINDRANATH S/O VAMANAPPA C ASST. ENGINEER, O/O SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DAM CIRCLE, ALMATI

631. DEVIDAS CHAVAN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

632. DASAVANTA L GAJARE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

633. RANGANATH BHAKRI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

634. T DEVADAS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 197

635. K N MASUTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

636. A R ALABAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

637. BARIKAR CHANDRAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

638. J S GADDIMATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

639. D S INGALE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

640. ZAKIR HUSAIN KADRI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 198

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

641. CHIDANAND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

642. SAMBHAJI SUBASCHANDRA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

643. S M MURNAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

644. AMARNATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

645. MOHD. HUSAIN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 199

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

646. P HEMANTA RAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

647. VISWANATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

648. MOHAN DAS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

649. TYAGI TUKARAM FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

650. S B BAGI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 200

651. SUREGOUDA NEELANAGOUDA PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

652. MALAPPA S DIVATAR, S/O S M DEVATON, ASST. ENGINEER,O/O M D , KBJNL ALMATTI

653. M M HUJARATTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

654. VINODKUMAR GUPTA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

655. G B DIDIMANI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

656. B C KATTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 201

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

657. V M SURESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT ASST. ENGINEER O/O A E E REHABILITATION DIVISION NO.5, BILGI

658. SHIVARAJ PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

659. SATYAPRAKASH MULGE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

660. P B HIREMATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

661. PANDURANGH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 202

662. SHANTAVEERESH A MATH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

663. G N ANIL RAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

664. SHARMA L SURESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

665. G S KANNUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

666. VAIJANTH ALUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

667. NAGARAJ R DODWAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN 203

TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

668. RAMAPPA MAHANTAPPA JUMANAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

669. AYYAPPA HANAMAPPA BILAWAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

670. ASHOK REDDY PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

671. P GHAJERI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

672. SHRVANKUMAR M RONAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 204

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

673. M REVANASIDDAIAH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

674. T VENKATAREDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

675. A C CHOORI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

676. NABILAL MEERSA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

677. B S KANDAGAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 205

678. MURLIDHAR SADANANDRAO FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

679. A S METI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

680. P MADHUSUDHAN BABU FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

681. KRISHNA K M S/O MALLESH K M ASST. ENGINEER, O/O AEE, KBJNL REHABILITATION SUB-DIV.NO.3,ALMATTI

682. AZIZ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

683. PRABHAKAR A FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF 206

CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

684. A N MASALI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

685. NITIN V PATIL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

686. RAMESH KOLARE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

687. S S DOLLI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

688. MANOJ KUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST 207

689. A M KOKARE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

690. L M NAIK FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

691. R D BIRADAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

692. W AZIT KUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

693. M THAMBI DURAI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR ASST ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DIST

694. S S TUMBARMATTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT 208

MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

695. CHANDRAKANTH MAHADAYYA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

696. GUNDAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

697. K BHAKTA PRALHAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

698. V PARAMESHSWARAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

699. A POLI REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA 209

PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

700. SHARANABASAVARAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

701. SHRIHARI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT AGED 30 YEARS JR. ENGINEER, O/O AEE, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING SUB-DVN 1, BAGALKKOT

702. S S UPPALADINNI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

703. RAMESH B FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

704. S M KARAJAGI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT 210

705. RAVINDRA NAGAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT JR. ENGINEER O/O A.E.E. REHABILITATION DIVISION NO.7, BAGALKOT

706. A L PATROTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

707. SHEKARAPPA GADIGER FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

708. M J NADUGADDI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

709. SATYANARAYAN RAO P FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

710. Y ABIJAR GAFARI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE 211

OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

711. Y B NAGARAJ ACHARI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

712. PRALHAD FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

713. SHANTAPPA S KOLLI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

714. JAYAGOPAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

715. S R TEGGI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA 212

PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

716. R D JADHAV FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

717. S H MUDHOL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

718. SHIVARAJ HANUMAREDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

719. D VIJAYALAXMI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

720. S S BELAGAL FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT 213

721. SIDHARUDH SHANKARAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

722. MUDDURAJ R FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

723. VISHNU THEERTHA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

724. M R BAGAWAN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

725. S NAGARAJ GOUDA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

726. RAJAKUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT 214

MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

727. L K MAHESH S/O.LEPAJI KALAL AGE: 34 YEARS, JR. ENGINEER O/O AEE S P NO.8 R & R UKP, JAMAKHANDI

728. B SWAMY KOTRESH FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

729. ISHWAR S KUMBAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

730. L KUBENDRA NAIK FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

731. M M KENDHULI S/O.MAHADEVAPPA KENDHUI AGE: 31 YEARS, JR. ENGINEER O/O.AEE PHE (UKP) SUB DIVISION NO.2 HUNAGUND, CAMP ALMATTI 215

732. PRAKASH ALUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

733. BASAVARAJ L M FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

734. B D BANDIWADDAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

735. K NIJALINGAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

736. GOPAL REDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

737. K GURULINGAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT 216

MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

738. GOUSUDDIN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

739. S M DYAMANNAVAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

740. MALLAPPA NAGAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

741. PREMASAGAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

742. ERANNA NARASAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA 217

PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

743. MUSA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

744. SITARAM RAO BHEEMSEN RAO FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

745. M S BHAJANTRI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

746. K A GOPALAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

747. BANNAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT 218

748. KATANNAVARA JAYNNA S/O.K HANUMANTHAPPA JR. ENGINEER O/O AEE KBJNL SUB DIVN 2, ALMATTI

749. L D GLUNTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

750. MURALIDHAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

751. Z A MAMADAPUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

752. S B SULIVHAVI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

753. B TAKAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE 219

OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

754. V L KAMBAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

755. MANAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

756. AMARAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

757. BASAVARAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

758. SANJEEV MANIK RAO HIROLI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA 220

PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

759. A HONNURAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

760. BASAVARAJ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

761. RAVIRAJ DEVID FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

762. A K NAIK FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

763. N PARAMESH NAIK S/O.NAGAPPA NAIK MR. ENGINEER O/O AEE REHABILITATION DVN. NO.5 BILGI 221

764. MALLIKARJUN HAMPAYYA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

765. SURYAKANT SADHURAO WAIDA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

766. MALLIKARJUN HIREMANI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

767. S T MADAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

768. S M PUJAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

769. G RAMAREDDY FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT 222

MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT.

770. TIMMANNA RATNAGIRI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT.

771. B H BARKER FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

772. RAJKUMAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

773. SHANTAPPA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

774. D Y KOLKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA 223

PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

775. S I SHIRUR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

776. U DEVANNA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

777. RAGHAVENDR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

778. V V CHAVAN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

779. G T JATADHAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT 224

780. DASTAGIR CHOUDARI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

781. S R CHALAWADI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

782. B Y HUNDEKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

783. R N JOSHI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

784. SHANKAR MUTTAPPA BANDIWADDAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

785. G M GOPAL KRISHNA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT 225

MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

786. JAGADISH B FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

787. S R DESHPANDE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

788. V SURESH BABU FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

789. SMT I S DALALI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

790. AMRUIT FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA 226

PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

791. R S MALAGATTI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

792. K N WADIYAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

793. P S DADDI MAJOR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT

794. V M NYAMAGOND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.VIJAYSHANKAR - ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI.RAGHAVENDRA GAYATHRI - GOVT. ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS) 227

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2010 SO FAR IT RELATES TO APPLICATION NOS.1469/2003, 1487/2003, 1495/2003 AND 1243/2006 AND 1244/2006 OF KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND ETC.,.

WRIT PETITION NO. 21232/2012 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI.H.M.SHIVARAJ, S/O LATE H.M.JAYADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT. NO.12/1, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, PARVATHINAGAR, BELLARY - 583 102. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.K.KEMPEGOWDA - ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA , REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001

3. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION BY ITS ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, 228

ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009

4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI, GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 101....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA GAYATHRI, GOVT. ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09/04/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KAT IN APPL. NO.2650/2006 AND OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS (VIDE ANNEXURES-A, AND DIRECTION TO THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO SELECT AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF JUNIOR/ASSISTANT ENGINEERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C & R RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT CALLED THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS (IRRIGATION SERVICES) (RECRUITMENT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS AND JUNIOR ENGINEERS) (SPECIAL RULES, 1998) PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 11/02/1999 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 229

ORDER

In these batch of writ petitions the petitioners have

challenged the order passed by the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore dt.9.4.2010

dismissing the applications filed by the applicants

challenging the constitutional validity of Karnataka State

Civil Services (Absorption of Asst. Engineers and Junior

Engineers appointed on contract basis and on ad-hoc basis

in the water resource services) (Special) Rules, 2002 (for

short Absorption Rules).

BACKGROUND

2. The Upper Krishna Project was started by the

Government of Karnataka during the year 1964. The

project was envisaged to provide irrigation facilities to the

lands in the basis area covering the then Bijapur,

Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur and Bellary Districts which are

chronic deficit rain fall areas. To utilise its share of river 230

water, the State was required to complete the project within

a definite time frame and any delay would have endangered

the project itself with the lower riparian States insisting

that actual utilisation should be taken as the basis for

inter-State sharing of river waters. Even after 30 years of

commencement of the project, there was absolutely dismal

progress and completion of the project was nowhere in site.

Faced with the problems arising out of lack of progress in

the project consequent failure to provide irrigation facilities

in the proposed project area, the State Govt. had to find a

way out to see that work on the project is speeded up. On

the ground that the delay in recruitment of Asst. Engineers

and Junior Engineers was impeding the progress of UKP

and there was need for accelerating the work in UKP, the

State Government took a decision to fill up the vacant posts

locally for a temporary period. During the year 1991 the

Government decided to appoint Assistant Engineers and

Junior Engineers on contract basis by appointing persons

hailing from the 5 districts situated in the project area. 231

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The Chief Engineers of Water Resource

Development Organisation Committee, issued notification

dated 15.6.91 inviting applications from eligible candidates

for the post of Asst. Engineers for UKP under Karnataka

State Civil Services (Recruitment Committee) 1982 in

consonance with recruitment Rules 1973 and Irrigation

Cadre and Recruitment) rules published in 1989 and

amended from time to time. The total number of vacancies

to be filled up is 300. The notification stated that it was

issued in pursuance of the Government order dated

1.6.1991 and letter dated 6.6.1991 and 14.6.1991. Some

of the applicants before the tribunal applied in pursuance

of the said notification. However, on the pretext that there

is the urgent need for filling up the large number of

vacancies in the Engineering Cadres in Upper Krishna

Project, the Government decided to recruit 300 Assistant

Engineers and 150 Junior Engineers on Contract basis.

Therefore, they decided to cancel the process of recruitment 232

of 300 Assistant Engineers already initiated by the Chief

Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation

through its Notification dated 18th June 1992. The said

proposal was approved by the Cabinet in its Meeting held

on 15th October, 1992. Thereafter, the Government

constituted a Recruitment Committee consisting of

Engineer-in-Chief cum Project Co-Ordinator, UKP, Almati,

Engineer-in-Chief cum Project Co-ordinator, Cauvery Basin

Projects, Mysore, Chief Engineer, Water Resources

Development Organisation, Bangalore. It was made clear

that regarding the appointment of Assistant Engineers, the

Recruitment Committee shall consider the applications

already received by the Chief Engineers Water Resources

Development Organisation for recruitment of Assistant

Engineers through his Notification dated 19th October

1992, and also receive fresh applications from the eligible

candidates by obtaining the list of candidates from the

concerned Employment Exchange. As regards the

appointment of Junior Engineers, the Recruitment 233

Committee shall receive applications from the eligible

candidates by obtaining the list of such candidates from the

concerned Employment Exchange. 5% of the posts should

be filled by the candidates from the displaced families. 20%

of the post should be filled from the candidates from

outside the Upper Krishna Basin Area. 75% of the posts

should be filled by candidates from Upper Krishna Project

Basin Area covering Bijapur, Gulbarga, Raichur, Bidar and

Bellary Districts only. The appointment of Assistant

Engineers and Junior Engineers shall be for a period of 3

years in the first instance. The Assistant Engineers and

Junior Engineers so appointed on contract basis shall be

paid a consolidated salary of Rs.3,500/- and Rs.2,600/- per

month respectively. The said Government order also

contained conditions to be incorporated in the undertaking

obtained from the Asst. Engineers and Junior Engineers

appointed on contract basis. The first condition was a

maximum period of this appointment on contract basis is

fixed as three years. Clause 10 made it clear that the Asst. 234

Engineers and Junior Engineers appointed on contract

basis shall not be entitled for permanent appointment,

absorption, pension, DCRG, Annual increment or

promotion. Clause 11 stipulated that the Assistant

Engineers and Junior Engineers so appointed should give

an undertaking to higher officers in a stamped paper of

Rs.10/- giving their consent to all the above terms and

conditions, at the time of reporting for duty. By

subsequent Govt. Order dated 29.10.1992 rural candidates

were given weightage of 15 marks at the time of selection.

4. In pursuance of it, the State Govt. by letter

dated 22.7.1993 directed the Engineer in chief cum

Ex.officio Special Secretary, Irrigation Department to

exercise the power under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Civil

Service (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 which provides

for contract appointment in certain contingencies, to make

contract appointments of 320 Asst. Engineers and 120

Junior Engineers in UKP and that the process of such 235

recruitment be commenced by obtaining the list of

candidates locally from the employment exchanges. The

guidelines to be followed for the above recruitment to be

made from UKP area, was approved by the Deputy Chief

Minister on 2.8.1993 and 20.8.1993. Accordingly, the

Project Co-ordinator for UKP, addressed letters dated

11.8.1993, 25.8.1993 and 18.9.1993 to the Employment

Exchanges to send the names in August, September and

October 1993. Engineer In-Chief and Ex-Officio Special

Secretary to the Government, Irrigation Department issued

a notification dated 23.11.1993 calling for applications to

fill up 320 Assistant Engineers in terms of the Rule 15 of

the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules enclosing the

statement showing the details of appointment of Asst.

Engineers for a period of one year.

5. The said selection was challenged in

Application Nos.22-23 of 1994 before the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal. In the said application the 236

selected candidates were not arrayed as parties. Only the

State and the concerned officials were made parties. After

hearing the parties the Tribunal set aside the said

Government Order and the appointments made in

pursuance of the said Government Order by its order dated

20.10.1994. The State preferred a special leave petition in

SLP Nos.3841-3880/1995 challenging the said order. The

engineers who were appointed in pursuance of the

Government Order preferred a review petition in R.P.Nos.

91 - 378/1995 and connected matters challenging the

aforesaid order on the ground that they were not heard. The

Special Leave Petition preferred by the State against the

said order came to be withdrawn in view of the selected

candidates filing a review petition before the Tribunal. After

hearing the review petitioners, the Tribunal declined to set

aside the order quashing the Government Orders and the

notifications issued and the appointments made. The

reason given is by setting aside those appointments no

right of the appointees is affected. All of them were 237

appointed for a period of one year, renewed for a similar

period thereafter. None has the right to demand renewal.

Therefore, even now the State Government can take steps

to recruit eligible candidates by affording opportunity to all

the appointees for being considered for

recruitment/appointment. Though the appointment in

question contravenes Article 16 of the Constitution and it is

imperative for the Tribunal to strike down the appointments

being violative of the fundamental rights, however the

Tribunal in its discretion permitted the continuance of the

appointees till the State Government acts to erase the

unconstitutionality and make proper appointments. They

clarified that these appointees shall continue in the services

till the State takes steps to make proper recruitment or

appoint in terms of this order. It is thereafter the

Government of Karnataka made the Karnataka Public

Works (Irrigation Service) (Recruitment of Assistant

Engineers and Junior Engineers)(Special) Rules, 1998.

Rule 7 (2)(b) of the said Rules provided for weightage of 5% 238

for each year of service subject to maximum of 30% to

candidates who have served on contract basis. That Rule

was challenged by filing a Writ Petition before this Court in

W.P. Nos. 9602-40/1999. In the alternative they also

sought for a direction to make recruitment within a

reasonable time in accordance with the Rules. This Court

allowed the Writ Petition in part restricting the weightage to

be given for the services between 25.7.1995 and 8.12.1997

or part thereof. Challenging the said order a Writ Appeal

came to be filed. It is during the subsistence of the Writ

Appeal, the impugned Rules came to be passed. As the

impugned Rules were challenged before the Tribunal, the

Writ Appeal was disposed of as infructuous, reserving

liberty to the parties to put forth their contentions before

the Tribunal in the application filed challenging the

impugned Rules. The Tribunal has declined to set aside

the Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants are before

this Court in these Writ Petitions.

239

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

6. Sri S V Narasimhan, the learned Advocate

appearing for some of the petitioners contends that the

petitioners who were also registered in employment

exchange were denied the benefit of employment, as it was

confined only to persons who are appointed on contract

basis or on ad-hoc basis in the Upper Krishna Project.

Secondly, it was contended that in the earlier proceedings

the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal had held, the

Government order in pursuance to which these

appointments were made on contract basis or on ad-hoc

basis is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India and therefore, per se the appointment is illegal. An

illegal appointment could not be regularised by way of

absorption. Absorption is not a mode of recruitment and

therefore, by way of absorption the respondents could not

have absorbed persons whose initial appointment was

illegal. He further contended the reasons given by the

Tribunal to negative the contentions urged are found at 240

page 454, 480, 499, 507 and 514 which runs counter to

the law declared by the Apex Court in the aforesaid

judgment. Therefore, it is unsustainable and it is liable to

be set aside. One of the reasons which made the Tribunal

to reject the claim of the petitioners is that they were over

aged and therefore, they are not entitled to any relief.

Consequently, they have no locus standi to file the

applications. In fact, what the Tribunal meant was, even if

the petitioners were to succeed in the application they

would not get employment. Therefore, it is a futile exercise.

They would not get employment because they are over aged.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits it

proceeds on a misconception all the petitioners were over

aged. Majority of them were within the prescribed age limit.

On that score also the finding recorded by the Tribunal is

liable to be set aside.

7. Sri Vigneshwar S Shastri, learned counsel

appearing for some of the petitioners contended the 241

Tribunal after declaring the Government order as

unconstitutional and consequently the appointment made

are illegal per se, permitted continuance of the contract

employees (whose appointments were set aside) till the

State Govt. acted to erase the unconstitutionality and

makes proper appointments. The said permission was

granted for continuance in public interest to ensure that

the work was not hampered and not with an intention to

enable such illegal appointees to continue in service for

long period so as to enable them to claim absorption or

regularisation on the basis of such long service.

8. The Tribunal in the said order directed the

Govt. to frame relevant Rules and complete the regular

recruitment within 12 months i.e. on or before 18.12.1997.

In fact, it categorised 440 contract engineers who were

appointed in three categories. However, in utter disregard

to the order of the Tribunal which has attained finality,

though the Government framed Rules, without giving effect 242

to the Rules they passed the impugned rules for absorption

virtually regularising the appointment of all illegal

appointees by way of absorption. It is a fraud on power. It

is a case of colourable exercise of power and fraud on

constitution.

9. He further submitted as their initial

appointment was declared as illegal, question of

regularising them by way of absorption is also illegal. The

very rules framed for such absorption is also illegal. The

very Rules framed for such absorption is arbitrary and

within the mischief of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of

India.

10. Sri V Lakshminarayan, learned counsel

appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that in the

instant case the initial appointment of contract engineers

was hit by Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the Tribunal declared the Government Orders, 243

the notification issued as unconstitutional. Consequently,

appointments made in pursuance of the same also became

unconstitutional. The said order was challenged in the Apex

Court and the special leave petition was rejected. When a

review petition was filed, the Tribunal declined to set aside

the said finding. It only passed an order enabling the

persons so appointed to continue in service till regular

recruitment according to Rules took place. Those persons

who continued in service by virtue of the interim order of

stay granted in the review petition or by virtue of the

observations made in the final order in the review petiton

continued in service by virtue of those Court orders which

cannot be taken into consideration to give any legitimacy.

Therefore, the impugned Rules of absorption sought to

recruit the very same persons whose appointments was

held to be unconstitutional by the Tribunal. Whether the

said Rules have to be construed as Rules regularising

appointments or new recruitment, in either event, the said

Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 244

of India. Therefore, not only the Rules which are

unconstitutional but the appointments made in pursuance

of that rules are also illegal.

11. These Absorption Rules are violative of Clause

(3) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The legislative

power to create residential qualification for employment is

exclusively conferred on parliament and the said power is

denied to the legislatures of the State. Therefore, neither

the Government order providing for contract employment

nor the impugned rules providing opportunity to engineers

residing in only five districts of the State of Karnataka is

violative of Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India and on

that short ground the said rules have to be annulled.

12. Sri S. Vijayashankar, the learned Advocate

General submitted the law makes a very clear distinction

between an illegal appointment and an irregular

appointment. If it is an illegal appointment, it cannot be 245

saved. Whereas an irregular appointment would not ipso

facto void ab initio and it can be saved by way of

regularisation. In support of his contention he pointed out

that the Tribunal declared that the Government orders

under which appointments were made are violative of

Article 16 (1) (2) and (3) of the Constitution and the

appointments made were all quashed. When the review

petition was filed the said order came to be modified and

Tribunal read out the rigour of the earlier order. When

once the Tribunal directed the continuation of the

appointees till the said Government acts to erase the

unconstitutionality and make proper appointments, it took

note of the circumstances under which and the

compulsion under which these appointments were made.

In fact, it also observed whether appointment should be

made permanently or temporarily it is a matter of policy. In

case appointments are to be made only for the purpose of

the project in question, it is not difficult to form a special

cadre of engineers with a life span of 5 or 7 years to which 246

the special procedure of recruitment could be evolved to

suit the situation. Therefore, he submitted as all the

persons who are appointed in pursuance of the aforesaid

order had the requisite qualification to hold the said post

and after declaring that the Government orders are illegal

when the Tribunal permitted them to continue till the

unconstitutionality is erased in those appointments, it

cannot be said that it is an illegal appointment which is

void ab initio. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is clear

the appointments in question are at best irregular

appointments.

13. He further submitted the persons who are

absorbed are all duly qualified, they were eligible to be

appointed to the post to which they are absorbed.

Therefore, when all these persons are working from 1994

till today, nearly for more than 18 years, it will be cruel to

set aside their appointments. The Supreme Court in more

than one case has upheld the absorption of the employees 247

who have put in more than 10 years of continuous service.

While dealing with such cases, apart from looking into the

legality of their appointment, the circumstance under which

they were employed and the services rendered by them to

the State cannot be forgotten. He further contended the

impugned rules are framed by the State Govt. by virtue of

the power conferred under Section 3(1) (b) of the Act.

Though the Rules are styled as 'Absorption Rules',

absorption is also one of the mode of recruitment and

therefore, it cannot be said it is without the authority such

Rules have been made.

14. The learned Advocate General further

submitted that these Engineers were employed to complete

the project. They have rendered service to the State.

Without their assistance the project would not have been

completed. Taking into consideration the services rendered

by them, the fact that they are over-aged and if they are

called upon to participate in the regular recruitment 248

process, they may not be eligible at all. The State classified

these persons as class by themselves. The applicants

before the Tribunal constitute different class. There is no

similarity between these two classes. It is well settled law

that the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules

of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian

Territory or that the same remedies should be made

available to them irrespective of difference of

circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly

circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges

conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws will have to

be applied to all in the same situation and there should be

no discrimination between one person and another if as

regards the subject matter of legislation, their position is

substantially the same.

15. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, the learned senior counsel

appearing for the private respondents contended that, these

engineers appointed on contract basis form a class by 249

themselves. In the earlier proceedings it has been held

their appointment is invalid from the day, in the review

petition the Tribunal permitted their continuance as

contract engineers. The circumstances under which these

contract employment came to be made is to be taken note

of in deciding the validity of the impugned Rules. The

persons who are now challenging these Rules are not

similarly placed as that of these contract engineers. In

such circumstances, what the Court should bear in mind

while deciding the validity of such Rules when its validity is

attacked on the ground of violative of Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution is clearly set down in the judgment of the

Apex Court. He brought to our notice the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Prabodh Verma and others

etc. V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - AIR 1985 SC 167

to contend that the classification made by the State for the

purpose of absorbing them in service is concerned is

reasonable and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 as held

by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. 250

16. He further submitted that in the first round of

litigations the applicants who challenged the order of the

Government and the notification issued to fill-up those

vacancies, are not the applicants in the present round of

litigation. They do not possess the requisite qualification to

apply for the said post. No other applicants in the earlier

round of litigation have challenged the contract of

employment. In those circumstances, they have no locus

standi to maintain the application as well as this writ

petition. He submitted in view of the law laid down by the

Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment as the petitioners do

not possess the requisite qualification, even if they succeed

in the writ petition they would not get any benefit and

therefore, at the instance of such persons the Rules cannot

be quashed as it is not a public interest litigation. Further,

he submitted if these writ petitions are allowed with a

direction to recruit persons in accordance with law, by the

relevant rules the applicants who are in these applications

would be ineligible. Therefore, they would not get any 251

employment. It is settled law that the court could not issue

a futile writ. He further submitted absorption is a method

of recruitment which is permissible under Section 3(1) of

the Act r/w.309 of the Constitution of India.

17. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, the learned senior

counsel, submitted that these persons who are appointed

are innocent. They have not committed any mistake. They

made no mis-representation. After they were appointed as

contract engineers, by virtue of the order passed in review

petition, their services is continued till the regular Rules

are framed for recruitment and they are recruited. When

the Rules were framed that became the subject matter of

litigation and that Rules was not given effect to. Under

these circumstances, from 1992 to 2003 these persons

were working uninterruptedly. The Government as a policy

decision enacted these Rules to absorb them into the

regular service. Now, they have acquired experience. The

persons who are before this Court are age barred. Even if 252

those persons are removed from services, these persons

cannot be recruited. In such circumstances it would be a

futile to issue any writ. He relied on several judgments of

the Apex Court, where, in exercise of equitable discretion,

the Apex Court has declined to set aside such appointment

on the ground that they are working continuously, they

have acquired experience and they cannot be sent home at

the belated stage.

18. He contended the constitutional validity of a

Rule or an Act cannot be decided without a proper lis

between parties properly ranged on either side and a

crossing of the swords Court should decline to issue such

writ. In the instant case all the petitioners are not entitled

to any relief at all. As on today the question of the Court

going into the question of validity of the Rules which is of

no use to the applicants would be a case of exercise in

futile, which the Court should avoid. For the aforesaid

reasons he submitted that this is not a fit case where the 253

Court should interfere with the well considered order

passed by the Tribunal which has upheld the constitutional

validity of the absorption Rules. He submitted that during

the pendency of this case, 61 Assistant Engineers have

been promoted, another 14 Junior Engineers have been

promoted and this factor has to be kept in mind before the

Court pronounces its judgment on merits.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION

19. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival

contentions, the point that arise for our consideration in

these batch of Writ Petitions is,

Whether the Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers appointed on contract basis and on ad-hoc basis in the Water Resources Services) (Special) Rules, 2002 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and therefore is liable to be set aside?

254

GOVERNMENT ORDER

20. The challenge to these Rules is on the ground

the persons who were also registered in employment

exchange were denied the opportunity to secure

employment in the State as it was confined only to persons

who are appointed on contract basis or on ad-hoc basis in

the Upper Krishna Project. Similarly though all of them

possess the requisite qualification, they are denied the

opportunity to secure employment. These impugned Rules

are made to perpetuate the illegality in as much as when

the Tribunal declared that the Government Orders,

notifications issued in pursuance of the Government Order

and the appointments made in pursuance of the

notification are all void as being contrary to Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution by the impugned Rules instead of

erasing unconstitutionality in the said appointment, it is

perpetuated. Though it is called Absorption Rules, what is

intended to be done by the impugned Rules is to regularize

the services of persons whose initial appointment was 255

declared to be unconstitutional and illegal which is totally

impermissible in law. The illegal appointment cannot be

regularized by way of absorption. The persons who are now

absorbed into service are those persons whose appointment

is hit by Article 16(3) of the Constitution and therefore it is

contended the Tribunal committed a serious error in not

striking down the impugned Rules. Therefore, it is

necessary to look into the nature of initial appointment.

The initial appointment was made in pursuance of the

Government Order dated 19-10-1992. The said

Government Order was issued by virtue of the power

conferred on the Government under Article 162 of the

Constitution of India to recruit 300 Assistant Engineers

and 150 Junior Engineers for Upper Krishna Project on

contract basis. The said Government order reads as under:-

ORDER

"1. Government are pleased to constitute a Recruitment Committed consisting of the following Members for Recruitment of 300 256

Assistant Engineers and 150 Junior Engineers for Upper Krishna Project on contract basis:-

(i) Engineer-in-Chief cum Project Co-Ordinator, UKP, Almati ..CHAIRMAN

(ii) Engineer-in-Chief cum Project Co-ordinator,Cauvery Basin Projects, Mysore. .. MEMBER

(iii) Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation, Bangalore. ..MEMBER SECRETARY

2. Regarding the appointment of Assistant Engineers, the Recruitment

Committee shall consider the applications already received by the Chief Engineers Water Resources Development Organisation for recruitment of Assistant Engineers through his Notification dated 18th June 1991, and also receive fresh applications from the eligible candidates by obtaining the list of such candidates from the concerned Employment Exchange.

257 3. As regards the appointment of Junior Engineers, the Recruitment Committee shall receive applications from the eligible candidates by obtaining the list of such candidates from the concerned Employment Exchange.

4. 5% of the posts should be filled by the candidates from the displaced families.

5. 20% of the posts should be filled by the candidates from Outside the Upper Krishna Basin Area.

6. 75% of the posts should be filled by candidates from Upper Krishna Project Basin Area covering Bijapur, Gulbarga, Raichur, Bidar and Bellary Districts only.

7. The appointments shall be made purely on merit, without conducting interviews, by scrupulously following the prevailing roster system and reservation policy of the Government.

258 8. The appointment of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers shall be for a period of 3 years in the first instance. The Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers so appointed on contract basis shall be paid a consolidated salary of Rs.3,500/- and Rs.2,600/- per month respectively.

9. The Engineer-in-Chief - cum - Project Co-

ordinator, UKP, Almatti is authorised to issue appointment orders and also re-posting orders within UKP, for the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers so selected by the Recruitment Committee.

10. A suitable undertaking should be obtained on a stamped paper of Rs.10/- from the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers appointed on contract basis incorporating all the conditions mentioned in the annexure to this order.

11. The process of recruitment already initiated by the Chief Engineer, WRDO through 259

his notification dated 18th June 1991, is hereby cancelled.

By order and in the name of Governor of Karnataka Sd/-

(M.K.VENKATARAM) 19.10.92 Under Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department (World Bank Projects)

21. The Annexure thereto reads

thus:

"CONDITIONS TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE UNDER-TAKING TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE ASSISTANT ENGINEERS AND JUNIOR ENGINEERS APPOINTED ON CONTRACT BASIS".

1. The maximum period of this appointment on contract basis is fixed as three years.

2. Since this appointment is exclusively for Upper Krishna Project, there will be no provision for transfer or deputation to other places.

260

3. The Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers so appointed shall discharge the duties and responsibilities assigned to them from time to time by higher officers.

4. The Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers ineers appointed on contract basis will be paid a consolidated salary of Rs.35//- and Rs.2600/- per month subject to satisfactory discharging of their duties. Other benefits given to their equivalent Government Servants will also be extended to them.

5. This appointment can be cancelled at any time without any reason by giving one months notice by either party or by paying one months salary instead of such notice.

6. The Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers so appointed should produce all the required certificates at the time of reporting for duty.

7. The Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers so appointed will be eligible for 261

all leaves as applicable to temporary/Government servants.

8. The Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers so appointed will be eligible for medical facilities as applicable to their equivalent Government servants.

9. If there is any loss to Government due to the lapses/undisciplined by the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers so appointed on contract basis, they should make good such losses.

10. The Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers appointed on contract basis shall not be entitled for permanent appointment, absorption, Pension, DGRG, Annual Increment or promotion.

11. The Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers so appointed should give an undertaking to higher officers in a stamped paper of Rs.10/- giving their cosent to all the above terms and 262

conditions, at the time of reporting for duty.

Sd/-

(M.K.VENKATARAM) 19.10.92 Under Secretary to Government Irrigation Department (World Bank Projects).

22. By G.O. dated 29.10.1992 certain modifications

were made to that G.O. dated 19.10.1992. That G.O. reads

thus:

"GOVERNMENT ORDER ID 251 WBM 92, BANGALORE, DATED 29.10.1992.

PREAMBLE:

In Government Order dated 19.10.1992 read above approval has been accorded for Recruitment of 300 Assistant Engineers and 150 Junior Engineers for upper Krishna Project on contract basis. In the same Government Order a Recruitment Committee has been constituted and the reservation of posts, modalities of selection etc., have also been spelt 263

out. It is now decided to give a weightage of 15 marks for the Rural Candidates at the time of selection vide decision of the Cabinet in Subject No.DCA(c) 115/92 dated 28.10.1992.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the Rural Candidates shall be given a weightage of 15 marks at he time of selection of the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers for appointment on Contract Basis in Upper Krishna Project for which orders have already been issue in G.O.No.ID 251 WBM 92 dated 19.10.1992.

Sd/-

(M.K.VENKATARAM) 19.10.92 Under Secretary to Government Irrigation Department (World Bank Projects).

264 23. Thus the designation of the Chairman of the

recruitment committee by G.C. dated 19.10.1992 was

modified by notification dated 15.7.1993 which reads thus:

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

No. DPAR 15 SLC 93

Karnataka government Secretariat Vidhana Soudha Bangalore, dated 15.07.1993.

NOTIFICATION

The Engineer - in - Chief, Upper Krishna Project, Almatti, is designated as "Engineer-in- Chief and Ex-officio Special Secretary to Government", Irrigation Department with immediate effect and until further orders.

His Head Quarters shall continue to be at Almatti.

By order and in the name of Governor of Karnataka Sd/-

(RIN SANGA) Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms.

265 24. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government

Order Engineer - in - Chief and Ex-Officio Special Secretary

to the Government, Irrigation Department issued a

notification dated 23.11.1993 calling for applications to fill

up 320 Assistant Engineers in terms of the Rule 15 of the

KCSRS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1976 which reads as

under:-

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Office of the Engineer - in -Chief and Ex-Officio Special Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, UKP, ALMATTI - 586 201 (Bijapur Dist.)

No.BCSS.RECRUIT/AES/93-94 DATE:23.11.1993

NOTIFICATION

Sub: Recruitment of 320 Assistant Engineers in terms of Rule 15 of K.C.S. (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 for UKP-

Approval for select list - regarding.

Ref: 1) Govt. letter No. ID.169 SPN 93, DT.27.7.1993 266

2) Govt. Noftn. No.DPAR.5.SCL 93, DT.15.7.93.

3) Guidelines Note approved by Dy.C.M.on dated 2.8.1993 4) - do - dated 21.8.1993 5) Govt. Ltr. No. ID 169 SPN 93 dt.22.11.1993 ---

Government in its letter dated 27.7.1993 cited under reference (1) authorised Engineer- in

-Chief cum Project Co-ordinator, UKP, Almatti to recruit 320 Assistant Engineers in terms of Rule 15 KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 on contract basis and for this purpose redesigned the post of Engineer-in-Chief cum Project Co-

ordinator as Engineer-in -Chief and Ex-Officio Special Secretary to Government in the letter cited under reference (2) above. The guidelines to be followed for the above recruitment is approved by the Honourable Deputy Chief Minister on 2.8.1993 and 20.8.1993. Based on the above guidelines and directions of the Government, names from the Employment Exchange was obtained and processed keeping the prevailing roster and merit in view, 10% of the seats are kept reserved for mechanical 267

graduates and 10% of seats are kept reserved for the children of families who have lost lands and property under projects coming in Krishna and Godavari basin of Karnataka State. Out of 320 posts of Assistant Engineers to be filled on contract basis, 288 are for Civil and 32 are fore Mechanical Engineer degree holders.

The recruitment on contract basis is purely temporary and subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Annexure attached to this notification. The selected Assistant Engineers should given an undertaking to the officer to whom they will be reporting for duty; on a stamp paper of value of Rs.10/- , agreeing to work as per the said terms and conditions. Period of appointment on contract basis will be one year from the date of reporting at the place of posting to begin with. The Assistant Engineer will be paid a consolidated salary of Rs.3,500/- per month subject to satisfactory discharging of the duties.

The selection made is subject to the verification and confirmation by the competent 268

authority of the particulars furnished by the candidates in respect of the caste, group income period of study in the identified districts and the land lost status in respect of those who are selected under that category. The appointment orders will be communicated by Registered post with Acknowledgement Due to the selected candidates after the receipt of the verification and confirmation from the concerned authority which will take about 3 to 4 weeks time. The candidates selected for recruitment on contract basis in terms of Rule 15 of the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 against 320 posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil and Mechanical) are notified herewith for the information of all concerned.

Sd/-

(CAPT. S.RAJA RAO) Engineer-in-Chief & Ex-Officio Special Secretary to Government Irrigation Department, ALMATTI.

269

APPOINTMENT WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT

25. From the aforesaid material it is clear that, the

reason given for by-passing the regular mode of recruitment

and resorting to short-cut method is, UKP project had to be

completed within the period fixed by the World Bank.

There was delay in completion of the project. Engineers

appointed from the other parts of the State on being posted

to UKP either they were refusing to go, or if they went to

duty, they applied for leave and they were not giving their

best to implement the project. Therefore, it became

necessary to recruit engineers from these 5 Districts.

Restricting the choice of persons to those hailing from the

project area became necessary having regard to the

experience of the State Government right from 1964 which

showed that engineers from other parts of the State were

either unwilling to work in the said project area and even

when they are forcibly sent there, such engineers would not

devote their wholehearted attention and devotion to the

work of the project and always finding way and means to 270

remain away from the project work. Efforts of the

Government to make the Engineers of other parts of the

state to work at the project having failed to yield desired

results, it became necessary for the State Government in

public interest to appoint engineers hailing from local area

only.

26. In fact in the statement of objection filed by the

State they have not given this reason. It is the persons who

are appointed who are putting forth this reason. However,

the material on record shows the same finds a place as the

cause for not completing the UKP project in time as

recorded by the officials who represented the World Bank.

To the pointed question by us at the time of hearing, the

learned Advocate General fairly submitted that there is no

material on record to substantiate the said conduct, except

an affidavit of the Chief Secretary filed before the Tribunal.

Even if the said contention is to be accepted as true, what

follows is the engineers who are earlier appointed to work in 271

projects in the old Mysore part were not willing to go to

UKP. Therefore, there was a need to recruit engineers. It is

nobody's case that, in pursuance of the notification issued

under the relevant Rules, the engineers from other parts of

the State were not willing to apply and work in UKP. If a

notification had been issued calling for applications from all

eligible candidates throughout the State, if what the State

states is true, if no one from the other part of the State filed

applications and engineers from these 5 districts applied,

the Government was well within its jurisdiction to employ

all these engineers. But, the procedure adopted is, they

have confined the recruitment to engineers only from these

5 districts and that too by taking the information from the

employment exchange. Therefore, on the face of it, the

explanation offered by the Government and by the contract

engineers who are absorbed in service is without any

substance.

272

27. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF

ORISSA AND ANOTHER Vs. MAMATHA MOHANTY

reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436. dealing with the question of

appointment/employment without advertisement observed

as under:-

"35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.

Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having 273

wide circulation or by announcement in Radio and Television as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the Constitution.

36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made 274

by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit."

28. Dealing with the question what is the legal

position if an order is bad in its inception, it is held as

under:-

"37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be nonest and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin.

The concept of adverse possession of lien on post or holding over are not applicable in 275

service jurisprudence. Therefore, continuation of a person wrongly appointed on post does not create any right in his favour."

29. Dealing with Article 14 it is held as

under:-

"56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief.

57. This principle also applies to judicial pronouncements. Once the court comes to the conclusion that a wrong order has been passed, it becomes the solemn duty of the court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same."

276 30. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court

in Hotel Balaji Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1993

SC 1048 at para 12 it is observed that, to perpetuate an

error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of

judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength

from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in

Pierce v. Delameter 52 at p.18.

"A Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to lean:

great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead: and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors".

31. Then dealing with 'arbitrariness' it held as

under:-

"59. The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It 277

should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary action where statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion on an authority. If the procedure adopted by an authority offends the fundamental fairness or established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated. The decision making process remains bad."

32. Therefore, it is clear that the procedure

followed in recruiting these contract Engineers is not legal.

Applications are not invited from all eligible candidates.

Merely, inviting names from the employment exchange will

not meet the requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. Even in adopting the said procedure, the

persons who have registered their names though out the

State were not considered. Selection is confined to only five

districts. Such a course violates the mandate of Articles 14 278

and 16 of the Constitution of India and deprived the

candidates who are eligible for the post, from being

considered. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16

requires that every such appointment be made by an open

advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete

on merit. Therefore, the initial appointment of all these

contract Engineers is bad in its inception and

unconstitutional.

DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND OF RESIDENCE

33. Article 16 of the Constitution on which reliance

is placed reads as under: -

"16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or 279

discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law

prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointment or posts in favour of any backward class of citizen which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not 280

adequately represented in the services under the State.

(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.

(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination."

281 34. What follows is Article 14 mandates that the

State shall not deny to any person equality before law.

Article 15 mandates that the State shall not discriminate

against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste,

sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 16 mandates

there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any

office under the State. No citizen shall, on grounds only of

religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence

or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in

respect of, any employment or office under the State.

Therefore, on the ground of descent, residence or place of

birth, a citizen of this country cannot be discriminated.

The only exception is found in Article 16(3). Parliament has

been given the power to make a law prescribing in regard to

a class or classes of employment, any requirement as to

residence within that State prior to such employment or

appointment.

282

35. While under clause (2), residence in a State

cannot be a ground for discrimination in the matter of

employment under the state, an exception is made under

clause (3), by which Parliament (not any State Legislature)

is empowered to make any law prescribing residence in a

particular State to be a requirement for employment within

that State. The power to make such exception belongs

exclusively to the Parliament. Hence, in the absence of any

such legislation by the Parliament, the condition imposed

by any State Government or local authority that a person

shall not be employed unless he is a 'local' candidate,

would be violative of Article 16(1). The words 'within that

State' refer to the State as a unit and not any part of it. In

other words, residence in a particular district or sub-

division or city or village cannot be made the requirement

for employment in a State in the law made by the

Parliament under clause (3). The law would be ultra vires

Article 16(3) if and in so for as such law seeks to do so. 283

36. The Supreme Court had an occasion to

consider this clause in the case of A.V.S. NARASIMHARAO

vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [1970 SC 422] wherein

it was held as under : -

"6. The clause thus enables Parliament to make a law in a special case prescribing any requirement as to residence within a State or Union Territory prior to appointment, as a condition of employment in the State or Union territory. Under Art. 35(a) this power is conferred upon Parliament but is denied to the Legislatures of the States, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, and under (b) any law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution in respect to the matter shall subject to the terms thereof and subject to such adaptations that may be made under Art. 372 is to continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament.

7. The legislative power to create residential qualification for employment is thus exclusively conferred on Parliament. Parliament can make any law which prescribes any requirement as to 284

residence within the State or Union territory prior to employment or appointment to an office in that State or Union territory. Two questions arise here. Firstly, whether Parliament, while prescribing the requirement, may prescribe the requirement of residence in a particular part of the State; and, secondly, whether Parliament can delegate this function by making a declaration and leaving the details to be filled in by the rule making power of the Central or State Governments.

8. Mr. S. V. Gupte, for the petitioners, points out that the Constitution is speaking of State and Union Territory. It has already made a declaration that no person shall be disqualified for any office in the territory of India because of his residence in any particular part of India. The exception, therefore, must be viewed narrowly and not carried to excess by interpretation. The article speaks of residence in a State and means only that. If it chose to speak of residence in parts of State such as Districts, Taluqas, cities, towns etc. more appropriate and specific language could have been used such as 'any 285

requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory or part of that State or Union territory'. Having used the word State, the unit State is only meant and not any part thereof. Reference is made to the history of the drafting of the Article and the debates in the Constituent Assembly which bear out this contention.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Setalvad bases his argument on two things. He contends that the power is given to Parliament to make any law and, therefore, Parliament is supreme and can make any law on the subject as the article says. He very ingeniously shifts the emphasis to the words 'any requirement' and contends that the requirement may be also as to residence in the State or any particular part of state.

10. The claim for supremacy of Parliament is misconceived. Parliament in this, as in other matters, is supreme only in so far as the Constitution makes it. Where the Constitution does not concede supremacy, Parliament must act within its appointed functions and not transgress them. What the Constitution says is 286

a matter for construction of the language of the Constitution. Which is the proper construction of the two suggested? By the first clause equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to an office is guaranteed. By the second clause, there can be no discrimination, among other things, on the ground of residence. Realising, however, that sometimes local sentiments may have to be respected or sometimes an inroad from more advance States into less developed States may have to be prevented, and a residential qualification may, therefore, have to be prescribed, the exception in Clause (3) was made. Even so, that clause spoke of residence within the State. The claim of Mr. Setalvad that Parliament can make a provision regarding residence in any particular part of a State would render the general prohibition lose all its meaning. The words 'any requirement' cannot be read to warrant something which could have been said more specifically. These words bear upon the kind of residence or its duration rather than its location within the State. We accept the argument of Mr. Gupte that the Constitution, as it stands, speaks of a whole State as the venue 287

for residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Taluqas, cities, towns or villages. The fact that this clause is an exception and came as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should be placed as indeed the debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to indicate. We accordingly reject the contention of Mr. Setalvad seeking to put a very wide and liberal construction upon the words 'any law' and 'any requirement'. These words are obviously controlled by the words 'residence within the State or Union territory' which words mean what they say, neither more nor less. It follows, therefore, that Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, in so far as it relates to Telangana (and we say nothing about the other parts) and Rule 3 of the Rules under it are ultra vires the Constitution."

37. Therefore, the legislative power to create

residential qualification for employment is exclusively 288

conferred on Parliament. The State legislature has no power

to prescribe the qualification of residence in the matter of

public employment. If the State legislature has no such

power, the Government by virtue of this power under Article

162 of the Constitution cannot prescribe a condition which

the State legislature is prohibited from prescribing.

Therefore, providing an opportunity to the engineers of

Bijapur, Gulbarga, Raichur, Bidar and Bellary Districts is

violative of Article 16(3) of the Constitution. The Tribunal in

the earlier proceedings had struck down the Government

Order, the notification and the appointments made in

pursuance of the said notification. The Tribunal while

doing so, held that under Article 16(3) of the Constitution,

the power to prescribe residential qualification for

recruitment to State Civil Services vests exclusively in the

parliament by Legislative enactment and it is permissible to

prescribe by law only residence in a State and not in a part

of the State as done in this case. The import of that

decision is that a residential qualification cannot be 289

prescribed by the State even by legislative enactment. In

this case it has been done by executive order and it is

clearly without competence. Article 16 does not make any

exception between a temporary or tenure appointments on

contract basis. Rule 15 of the General Recruitment Rules

1977 does not contemplate mass appointment to mass

recruitment and appointing after obtaining names from the

employment exchange and after making reservations for

different categories of candidates would not fall within

scope of Rule 15 of General Recruitment Rules and

therefore, it cannot be sustained. Therefore, the said

appointments are per se illegal and unconstitutional. They

are violative of Article 16(3) of the Constitution.

GOVERNMENT ORDER CONTRARY TO RULES

38. The Tribunal further held there is considerable

difference between the Government order dated 19.10.1992

which was issued in pursuance of the decision of the

Cabinet and the notification of the Engineer in Chief dated 290

23.11.1993 and the letter of the Government dated

27.7.1993. The terms of appointment according to the

Government order dated 19.10.1992 is 3 years and it is

mentioned as one year in the notification dated 23.11.1993.

The percentage of the vacancies set apart for different

categories mentioned in Government order dated

19.10.1992 is not mentioned in the notification dated

23.11.1993 or in the letter dated 27.7.1993. According to

the Government order dated 19.10.1992 selection is to be

made by a committee on the basis of merit, but something

else is stated in the notification dated 23.11.1993. The

letter of the Government dated 27.7.1993 is said to have

been issued in pursuance of a cabinet decision dated

8.7.1993. However, the order issued subsequent thereto is

the order modifying the designation of Engineer-in-Chief.

No other government order modifying the Government

Order dated 19.10.1992 has been issued in pursuance to

the decision of the Cabinet on 8.7.1993. There is nothing

in the file made available to show that the scheme indicated 291

in the Government order dated 19.10.1992 has been

modified in regard to the mode of selection of candidates

and authority to make selection. According to the

Government order dated 19.10.1992, selection is to be

made on the basis of merit by a committee. In the

notification of the Engineer-in-Chief it is stated that the

selection was made by him on the basis of guidelines

approved by the Deputy Chief Minister. Those guidelines

are not found in the file made available. The Deputy Chief

Minister cannot modify the decision taken by the Cabinet

since he has not been authorised for the purpose.

Therefore, the selection made cannot be sustained as it is

not in accordance with the decision of the Government

order dated 19.10.1992. Further, it was held there are

rules of recruitment made under the proviso to Article 309

of the Constitution in respect of the cadres of Asst.

Engineers and Engineers and those rules are now deemed

to have been made under the Karnataka Civil Services Act

1978. Recruitment if any will have to be made under those 292

or any valid rules. The Government order dated

19.10.1992 as well as the notification of the Engineer-in-

Chief dated 23.11.1993 and the Government letter

dt.27.7.1993 are repugnant to those rules. Hence, the

Executive order dated 19.10.1992 or the above said

notification of the Engineer-in-Chief dated 23.11.1993 or

the Government letter dated 27.7.1993 cannot prevail over

the Rules made under the 1978 Act. The executive order

cannot over-ride is a well established principle of law. For

the aforesaid reasons, the Tribunal held it is difficult to

sustain the scheme for recruitment of Asst. Engineers and

Junior Engineers as provided either by the Government

order dated 19.10.1992 or the letter of the Government dt.

27.7.1993 read with the notification dt.23.11.1993 issued

by the Engineer in Chief since they were violative of Article

16(1) (2)(3) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the

applications were allowed and the Government order dated

19.10.1992, letter of the Government dt.27.7.1993 and the

notification issued by the Engineer-in-Chief and the 293

selection of the candidates for appointment as Asst.

Engineers and Junior Engineers as per Annexure-A2 to the

Government order dated 23.11.1993 and another list and

the appointment if any of those selected candidates as Asst.

Engineers and Junior Engineers were quashed by the order

dt.20.10.1994.

39. Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred

special leave petitions in SLP Nos.3841-3880/1995 before

the Apex Court. Some of the engineers who were appointed

in pursuance of the said notification also filed special leave

petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the

meanwhile, other engineers who were appointed in

pursuance of the said notification filed a review petition

before the Tribunal in Review Petition Nos.91 - 378/1995

and connected matters. There was an interim order of stay

in the said review petition. The said fact was brought to the

notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Apex

Court observed that in view of stay granted by the 294

Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Review Petitions,

SLPs' of the State Government is dismissed as premature.

ORDER IN REVIEW

40. The review petition was heard and by an order

dated 25th July 1995 it was disposed of with the following

observations:-

"48. By setting aside these appointments, no right of the appointees is affected. All of them were appointed for a period of one year, renewed for a similar period at a time thereafter. They should be perfectly aware of the slippery path followed by them. None has a right to demand renewal of the appointment under the terms of the contract of employment. Therefore, even now, the State Government can take steps to recruit eligible candidates by affording opportunity to all the aspirants for being considered for recruitment/appointment.

Whether appointments should be made permanently or temporarily is a matter of policy. In case, appointments are to be made only for the purpose of the Project in question, it is not 295

difficult to form a special cadre of Engineers with a life span of 5 or 7 years, to which special procedure of recruitment could be evolved to suit the situation. Actually, it is the will and the intention behind it that would inspire a proper decision.

49. We do not find any merit in the contentions of the Review Applicants (whose appointments are under challenge). The order made in the original applications does not require any substantial modification. The original applications stand allowed subject to the observations made herein. We are of the view that when the appointment in question contravenes the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution, it is imperative for this Tribunal to strike down the said appointments. Any State action violative of the fundamental rights, is void,. However, this Tribunal, in its discretion, may permit the continuance of the appointees till the State Government acts to erase the unconstitutionality and make proper appointments. We clarify that these appointees shall continue in service till the State takes steps to make a proper recruitment or appoints in terms 296

of this order. We further clarify that notwithstanding what we have said above, the appointments of the candidates against the 10% or 5% as the case may be of the total posts reserved for the displaced families are challenged before us and, therefore, their appointments are not to be considered as irregular or unconstitutional.

50. All Review applications are dismissed. The original applications challenging the appointment and the recruitment process are allowed in terms of this order."

41. Some of the review petitioners preferred a

special leave petition in SLP Nos.109-142/1996 challenging

the aforesaid orders. However, the special leave petitions

came to be dismissed by an order dated 15.4.1996 leaving

open to the review petitioners to move the authorities

concerned or also the Tribunal for any further directions.

Thus the order passed by the Tribunal both on the

applications as well as on the review petitions have attained

finality. The effect of the aforesaid orders is the initial 297

appointment of these contract engineers is violative of the

fundamental rights. It is void ab initio. Government had

no authority to make such appointments. Therefore, the

appointment made is without the authority of law. The

order of the Tribunal declaring such appointment as void

and without of law has attained finality. It is binding on

the Government.

42. From the aforesaid order of the Tribunal

passed in review it is clear the Tribunal after declaring their

appointment as void, permitted their continuance till the

State Government acts to erase the unconstitutionality and

make proper appointments. It was clarified that these

appointees shall continue in service till the State take steps

to make a proper recruitment or appointment in terms of

their order. It is litigious employment. It confers no right

on such employees in law. The litigious employment come

to an end, on the day the regular appointment is made in

accordance with law.

298

RECRUITMENT RULES

43. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction issued

by the Tribunal, the Government of Karnataka made the

Karnataka Public Works (Irrigation Service) (Recruitment of

Asst. Engineers and Junior Engineers) (Special Rules)

1998. The said Rules came into effect from 11.2.1999, the

date of publication. Rule 7 of the said Rules prescribe the

method of selection of the candidates. It reads a under:-

"Rule - 7. Method of selection of candidates: - (1) The selection Authority shall on the basis of the aggregate of the percentage of marks secured in the qualifying examination and taking into consideration the weightage allowed under these rules, and subject to orders in force providing for reservation for posts for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes, prepare in the order of merit, lists of candidates eligible for appointment under these rules to the posts of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers. If the marks obtained by two or more applicants in equal, the order or merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the 299

basis of their age of order in age being placed above the younger.

44. Some of the eligible engineers preferred

W.P.No.9602-40/1999 and other connected matters

challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 7(2)(b) of the

said Rules which provides for 5% of each year of service

(subject to maximum of 30%) to candidates who have

served on contract basis as Asst. Engineers and Junior

Engineers in the State Irrigation Department. They also

sought a declaration that the said Rule is void.

Alternatively, they sought a direction to the respondents to

extend them also a similar weightage, even though they

have not worked in the Irrigation Department. Alternatively,

they sought a direction to respondents to make recruitment

to the post of Asst. Engineers and Junior Engineers by

considering their case, within a reasonable time frame to be

fixed by the court under any reasonable method, keeping in

view the seniority from the date on which they have

registered themselves with employment exchanges. 300

45. This Court after considering the contentions

advanced on behalf of all the parties held as under:-

"47. In view of above, these petitions are allowed in part, reading down Rule 7(2) (b) of the special Rules as follows, in regard to the 320 Assistant Engineers and 120 Junior Engineers appointed on contract basis, whose appointments were quashed by the order dated 20-10-1994 of the Tribunal:-.

"A weightage of five percent for each year of service shall be added to the percentage of total marks secured by the candidates in the qualifying examination, if such candidate has served on contract basis, an Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer, as the case may be in the irrigation department of the State, in regard to such service between 25-7-1995 an 8-12-1997 or part thereof"

46. Aggrieved by the said order a writ appeal came

to be filed in W.A.No.6418/2000 and connected cases. 301

During the pendency of the said writ appeal, on 18-10-2002

the State Govt. passed Karnataka State Civil Services

(Absorption of Asst. Engineers and Junior Engineers)

appointed on contract basis and on ad-hoc basis in the

Water Resources Services (Special) Rules 2002, hereinafter

referred to as the "Absorption Rules".

47. The said Rules were challenged before the

Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the

appellants in the writ appeal submitted that in view of the

aforesaid Rules having been made, the said appeal may be

disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty

reserved to the parties to put forth their contentions before

the Tribunal in the matters where the validity of the Rules

referred to above is under challenge with observations that

the Tribunal shall consider the validity of the Rules without

being influenced by the observations made by the learned

Single Judge in the course of the order impugned in the

appeals. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the writ 302

appeals were disposed of as having become infructuous

with liberty reserved to the parties to putforth such pleas as

may be available to them with regard to the contention

already raised or to be raised before the Tribunal with

regard to the validity of the Rules referred to above. It was

further observed that the tribunal shall consider the Rules

without being influenced by the observations made by the

learned Single Judge in the course of the order impugned in

the appeals. The said order came to be passed on

16.11.2004.

ABSORPTION RULES

48. The Absorption Rules reads as

under:-

2. Definitions :- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires :-

(a) Contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers and adhoc Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers means the Assistants Engineers 303

and Junior Engineers appointed in notification No.

1. ECSS/RECRUIT/AES/93-94/dated 2311.1993

2. ECSS/EFA/RECRUIT/93-94dated 05.02.1994

3. ECSS/ESA/Nemaskati/AE/93-

94dt.16.08.1994;

4. ECSS/ESA/NEMAKATHI/CONTRACT/ A.E /97-98/3507 DATED 02.03.1998

5. ECSS/ESA/NEMAKATHI/AE-97-98/1119 dated 14.7.1998

6. MD/KBJ.N.L/ESA/RECRUIT/ADHOC/ A.E./99-2000/3175 DATED 3.2.1998 AND 2139 DT.1.9.1999

7. ECSS/RECRUIT/JE'S/93-94/DATED:

23.11.1993

8. ECSS/EFA/RECRUIT/93-94/DATED:

05.02.1994

9. ECSS/ESA/NEMAKATHI/JE'S/94-95 DATED:16.08.1994

10. ECSS/ESA/RECRUIT/CONTRACT/ JE'S/97-98/3508 DATED:02.03.1998

11. ECSS/ESA/RECRUIT/CONTRACT/JE'S/97- 304

98/3855 DATED:25.03.1998

12. ECSS/ESA/RECRUIT/CONTRACT/JE'S/ 97-98/3895 DATED:27.03.1998

13. ECSS/ESA/RECRUIT/ADHOC/JE'S/97- 98/3176 DATED:03.02.1998

appointed on contract basis and on ad hoc basis in the upper Krishna Project through Employment Exchange.

b) 'Schedule' means the schedule appended to these rules.

(2) Other words and expressions used in these rules but not defined shall have the same meaning respectively assigned to them in the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.

3. Absorption of Contract, Adhoc Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers :-

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 or in the Karnataka Public Works 305

(Irrigation Services) Recruitment of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers (Special) Rules, 1998 or in any other rules governing the recruitment made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990), the contract Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer and adhoc Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer mentioned in coloumn (2) of the Schedule and who are working a such in the Water Resources department on the date of commencement of these rules, shall be absorbed in the corresponding category of post carrying the scale of pay specified in coloumn (5) and (6) thereof in the Water Resources Services.

Provided that no such persons shall be absorbed.

(i) if he was disqualified for appointment under the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 on the date of his appointment as Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer, on contract basis or on adhoc basis as the case may be.

(ii) If he does not possess the minimum 306

academic qualification specified in the rules of recruitment applicable for the recruitment to the said post.

(iii) In any post reserved for the persons belonging to the scheduled castes, schedule tribes or other backward classes to which he was appointed as contract Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer, or adhoc Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer as the case may be, if he is found to be not belonging to such castes, tribes or classes, as the case may be .

4. Pay, pension, leave and seniority of persons absorbed under these rules :-

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Civil Service rules:-

i) the initial basic pay of the Contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers and Adhoc Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers absorbed under these rules shall be fixed at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the category of post in which he is absorbed under rule 3.

307 ii) the service rendered by a person as contract Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer, or adhoc Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer, as the case may be, prior to the date of absorption shall not count for the purpose of leave, pay, pension, seniority and grant of selection time scale of pay or senior scale of pay under the Karnataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983 or the Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic Grant of Special promotion to the senior scale of pay) Rule, 1991.

49. A perusal of the aforementioned Rules makes it

clear, it is case of regularisation. As is clear from clauses (i)

and (ii) of Rule 4 the contract engineers are appointed with

effect from the date of his absorption under the Absorption

Rules. They were fixed a minimum scale of pay from the

date of absorption. Their service rendered during the period

of contract employment is not counted for the purpose of

leave, pay, pension, seniority and grant of selection time

scale of pay or senior scale of pay. Therefore, it is not a case 308

of absorption. By the aforesaid process they were recruited

to service by granting permanence to their service, which

otherwise was purely contractual, which was coming to an

end at the expiry of the period of contract. This is because

though they were recruited directly as contract engineers

under Rule 15 of Rules 1977, it is not a direct recruitment

under the Rules 1977, because of the definition of direct

recruitment contained in Rules 2(5) of the Rules, which

expressly did not include within its ambit recruitment of

employees on contract basis. It is to get over these legal

hurdle, the device of Absorption Rules is thought off.

TRIBUNAL ORDER NULLIFIED

50. One of the ground urged before the Tribunal

was the Absorption Rules has the effect of nullifying the

orders of the Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme

Court in the earlier proceedings. Dealing with the said

ground the Tribunal held that the Absorption Rules were

made by virtue of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of 309 Section 3 read with Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil

Services Act, 1978. Therefore the legislature possess the

competence over the subject matter. The observations

made by the Tribunal earlier would not come in the way of

the State Government absorbing the services of the private

respondents in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case. A binding judicial pronouncement between the parties

cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any legislative

power by enacting the provision, which in substance over-

rules the said judgments and is not in the realm of

legislative enactment which displaces the basis or

foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to

classes of persons concerned with the entire subject sought

to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective

effect. Though it is well settled legal position that legislative

power cannot be pressed in service to undo the binding

effects of decisions of Courts, in the case on hand, there

was no direction either by the Tribunal or High Court or the

Supreme Court to the State not to absorb the services of 310

the private respondents. The Tribunal earlier in fact

permitted appointment and continuance of ad hoc

Engineers in the administrative exigencies till the State

Government frames a scheme for regular recruitment. The

earlier decision of the Tribunal is not binding on the private

respondents as they were not impleaded as parties.

Secondly as the said appointments were not in accordance

with the Rules, the question of absorption had to be

considered by the Government. If the initial appointments

had been made in accordance with the Rules, there was no

need for the impugned Absorption Rules. The services of

persons who have served the Government continuously for

nearly a decade had to be absorbed as denial of the benefit

of absorption to such persons would be unfair,

unreasonable and unjust. In none of the earlier decisions,

there is any direction prohibiting the State Government

from making the Rules of Absorption of Contract

Engineers who had put in long years of service. Absorption

was never an issue in the earlier litigation. The matter in 311

issue was only validity of the initial appointment in the

context of the Rules of Recruitment. It is unreasonable to

hold that the Absorption Rules have the effect of nullifying

the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The Absorption Rules

do not seek to bypass or over-ride binding effect of the

judgments. The State by absorbing the services of the

contract engineers has not sought to nullify or abrogate the

binding decisions of this Tribunal, High Court and Supreme

Court nor has it encroached upon the judicial power

entrusted to the various authorities functioning under the

relevant statutes and the Constitution. It is well settled

that even where initial appointments were not made in

accordance with the Rules of recruitment, if the appointees

had continued in service for over years, then it is the duty

of the Government to formulate scheme for the absorption,

provided, they possess the qualification prescribed and

were within the age limit prescribed in the Rules of

Recruitment on the respective dates of appointment. They

proceeded to hold that the action of the Government in 312

absorbing the services of the private respondents by the

impugned Absorption Rules is legal and in accordance with

the law laid down by the Supreme Court in similar case. It

also held that the impugned Rules of Absorption do not

provide for regularisation of past irregular appointments.

They provide for absorption prospectively without giving

any benefit of past service for the purpose of pay, pension,

leave, seniority and grant of selection and senior scale of

pay to the private respondents. It is not as though the

private respondents have been granted seniority from the

date of their initial appointment on contract basis so as to

affect the seniority of Engineers who are already working in

the Department on permanent basis. In view of the

affidavit filed by the Secretary to Government in the instant

case, pointing out the circumstances under which it

became necessary to confine the recruitment on contract

basis to five districts, it cannot be said that there was any

violation of Article 14 or Article 16(1) of the Constitution of

India.

313

51. Therefore the question that arise for

consideration is whether those appointments which were

unconstitutional at the inception and thereafter continued

by the cover of the order as a stop gap arrangement, till the

regular recruitment is made under the Special Rules, could

be regularised by way of absorption. Before answering the

said question it is necessary to have clear picture of these

words "Absorption" and "Regularisation" and the law which

holds the field today.

ABSORPTION

52. Though the word 'absorption' is used freely by

the legislature while making rules, or by the Courts, the

word 'absorption' as such has not been defined in any of

the Acts or Rules. Therefore, to understand the meaning

of the word 'absorption' as understood in the context of

service jurisprudence, we have to look to the decisions

where the said word has been freely used. The earliest

judgment in this regard is the judgment of this Court in the 314

case of A.G.HASABNIS Vs. STATE OF MYSORE reported in

1967(1) Mys.L.J. 118 where the word 'absorption' has

been explained which reads as under:

"We think that we should not give the word "absorbed" occurring in the clause any sharp definition. We should give that word a meaning, which promotes the legislative intent and fits into the context. The purpose of this clause is to continue in service of an employee under the abolished District Board, so that employee may have an uninterrupted employment either in the Taluk Board or under Government. The restricted power created in Government by that clause is the power to determine whether such absorption should be made by the Taluk Board or by Government.

The consequence emanating from such absorption is continuity in service without a break. The abolished District Local Board was established and functioning under the Bombay Local Boards Act, 1923 and its place was taken by the Taluk Board which now functions under the repealing Act. The clear legislative intent which manifests itself in the relevant provisions 315

of the repealing Act to which we have referred was to bring about an assimilation between service under the District Local Board and service under the Taluk Board or under Government as the case may be, by the process of absorption. By such assimilation there is a coalescence and fusion of the two services, and such union makes the service in the absorbing unit a continuation of the service in the other.

In the Dictionary on English Law by Earl Jowitt, it is stated that the word absorption should be given the meaning, which the word "amalgamation" should receive.

"Amalgamation" as explained in that book involves a process by which two things become united. We think that that is how also we should understand the process of absorption of which the repealing Act speaks. The true position, therefore, is that the service under the District Board becomes united with the Service under the Taluk Board or under Government as the case may be, and that union excludes the concept of the termination of one and the commencement of the other. On the contrary, 316

such absorption ensures continuity without intermission.

So, the petitioner became statutorily entitled to the inclusion of every part of the service rendered by him in the Local Board in the period of service to be rendered by him under Government. It was not within the competence of Government, even if they were so advised by the high power committee, which they appointed, to exclude from such service a moiety thereof.

53. The word 'absorption' fell for consideration by

the Apex Court in the case of DEVDUTTA AND OTHERS

Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS reported in 1991

Supp(2) SCC 553. At para-8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held as under:-

"8. Now coming to the question of seniority, the term "absorbed" in Service Jurisprudence with reference to a post in the very nature of things implies that an employee 317

who has not been holding a particular post in his own right by virtue of either recruitment or promotion to that post but is holding a different post in a different department is brought to that post either on deputation or by transfer and is subsequently absorbed in that post whereafter he becomes a holder of that post in his own right and loses his lien on his parent post. No one asserts that the instant one was a case of the absorbed Sales Tax Inspectors being initially sent on deputation from the post of Block Level extension Officer to the post of Sales Tax Inspector and being subsequently absorbed in that post. Consequently, when as pointed out by the High Court, it was not disputed that the surplus Block Level Extension Officers had been absorbed in the post of Sales Tax Inspectors it is obvious that it was a case of absorption by transfer. In this connection it would be useful to recapitulate that the minutes of the meeting referred to above held on September 30, 1965 laying down the principles of procedure for absorbing the surplus personnel specifically stated that the surplus staff which was to be "absorbed" should be treated as having been 318

transferred from one post to another so that there may be no break in their service."

54. The Apex Court in the case of RAMAKANT

SHRIPAD SINAI ADVALPALKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND

OTHERS reported in 1991 SUPP (2) SCC 733 has dealt with

the difference between an absorbed post and an absorbed

employee. In that connection at para-7, it has been held as

under:

"7. The second contention is that the definition of expressions "absorbed post" and "absorbed employee" in section 2 of the act are wide enough to take in their sweep not only a person holding an "absorbed post" before December 20, 1961, but also one who has been merely serving in a higher post and that, accordingly, such higher post is also rendered, in relation to that person " an absorbed post".

We are afraid, this construction is clearly unsupportable.

319

55. Then they set out the definitions contained in

the Act regarding 'absorbed employee' and 'absorbed post'

and held as under :-

"These provisions in the interpretation clause merely indicate that an "absorbed employee" should have held the "absorbed post"

immediately before the December 20, 1961 and that it did not detract from that position if subsequently he was serving in any other post in connection with the administration of the Union of Territory of Goa. It is erroneous to construe that in such circumstances the 'other' post would also become an "absorbed post" in relation to such person. He would continue to be "absorbed employee" only in relation to the post he held immediately prior to December 20, 1961..."

56. In the Dictionary on English Law by Earl

Jowitt, it is stated that the word absorption should be given

the meaning, which the word "amalgamation" should

receive. "Amalgamation" as explained in that book involves 320

a process by which two things become united. Union

excludes the concept of the termination of one and the

commencement of the other. On the contrary, such

absorption ensures continuity without intermission. The

consequence emanating from such absorption is continuity

in service without a break. An assimilation of services

rendered in two posts. By such assimilation, there is

coalescence and person of the two services and such union

makes the service in the absorbing unit a continuation of

the service in the other.

57. The term "absorb" in service jurisprudence with

reference to a post in the very nature of things implies that,

an employee who has not been holding a particular post in

his own right by virtue of either recruitment or promotion

to that post but is holding a different post in a different

department is brought to that post either on deputation or

by transfer and is subsequently absorbed in that post

whereafter he becomes a holder of that post in his own 321

right and loses his lien on his parent post. The surplus staff

which was to be "absorbed" should be treated as having

been transferred from one post to another so that there

may be no break in their service. On several occasions on

account of the taking over of the establishments or

institutions belonging to local or other authorities or even

private organizations along with the members of the staff,

the employees of such non-governmental bodies are

absorbed in the Government service. For a permanent

absorption, a formal order of the absorbing body is

necessary. Similarly, where employees of a sick

Government company are deployed in the Government

service pursuant to a scheme settled by the BIFR, it would

amount to absorption of such employees and the scheme

would be as good as statute and cannot be defeated by the

State Legislation. Where a private educational institution is

taken over by the State Government subject to the

condition that the services rendered by the members to the

staff in such institution will be treated as public service, an 322

officer who absorbed by that process in Government service

is entitled to count his previous service in the equivalent

cadre for purposes of seniority. In such a case, it is not

competent for the Government to treat him as a fresh

recruit in the service. Similarly, where an enactment

provides that servants of the erstwhile district boards

should be absorbed in Government service, the clear

meaning of the word 'absorption' is continuation of service

of an employee without interruption. The consequence

emanating from such absorption is continuity in service

without any break. The true position in such a case is that

services under the erstwhile district board becomes united

with the services under the Government and such an

absorption excludes the concept of termination of previous

service and the commencement of service in the

Government. In such a case, it is not competent for the

Government to exclude the whole or part of the previous

service for purpose of seniority in the State service. Similar

is the effect where a private organization is taken over by a 323

Government order. The antecedent service has to be taken

into account for consideration of seniority under the

Government. Such taking over excludes the concept of

fresh appointment. A deputationist has no enforceable right

to absorption in deputed department. The employer always

has a right to repatriate the deputationist to the parent

organization. That means consent of the parent authority

as well as the authority under which deputation takes place

is necessary.

58. Therefore, the absorption pre-supposes that

the person absorbed is recruited to service in a legal

manner. When he is absorbed it is not a fresh

appointment. Absorption ensures continuity without

intermission. The person absorbed must be holding a

permanent post in service in his own right by virtue of

either recruitment or promotion to the post. The

consequence emanating from such absorption is continuity

in service without any break. Service rendered under the 324

old post unites with the service under the new post, which

excludes the concept of termination of previous service and

the commencement of service under the new post. The

thread which connects the old employment from new

employment is the legality of employment. If this link is

missing there cannot be absorption. Normally the

absorption is resorted to after a transfer or deputation. The

absorbed should be treated as having been transferred or

deputed from one post to another, so that there may be no

break in their service.

ABSORPTION AS A MODE OF RECRUITMENT

59. An employee is recruited to service to hold a

post or office, in terms of the law applicable to such

recruitment. Therefore, his appointment is legal and valid.

Thereafter he is transferred or deputed to a different

department, or a different establishment to an equivalent

post. His tenure in the post to which he is transferred or

deputed is only temporary. After the expiry of the period, he 325

is liable to be repatriated to his parent organization. But if

his services are very much required in the transferred post

on a permanent basis, it is possible to 'absorb' him in the

transferred post. From the date of absorption, he becomes a

holder of the said post in his own right, and loses his lien in

the parent post. In other words it amounts to his

recruitment to the new post. After he is recruited to the new

post, he will enjoy all the benefits attached to the new post

as if he is appointed to the said post and also the benefit of

continuity of service without any break, rendered by him in

his parent organisation.

60. Therefore, the person who is absorbed should

be holding an equivalent valid post in service. By

absorption his appointment to the post cannot be validated

for the first time. A person illegally appointed cannot be

absorbed into service. Absorption cannot be resorted to

regularize an illegal appointment. Absorption is not a mode

of recruitment to issue fresh appointment to persons who 326

are appointed for a temporary period on daily wages or on

contract basis.

REGULARISATION

61. The next word, which is of utmost important in

deciding the issue in this case, is the meaning of the word

'regularisation'. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court

in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI AND OTHERS reported in 2006 (4)

1 SCC has approved the judgment in (1) S.V.Narayanappa's

case, (2) R.N.Nanjundappa's and (3) B.N.Nagarajan's case,

where this word has been explained. To understand the

concept of regularisation, it is necessary to look into these

decisions.

62. In the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. S.V.

NARAYANAPPA reported in AIR 1967 SC 1071, the Apex

Court dealing with the regularisation of services of the local

candidates at para-10 has held as under:

327

" It is clear from the express words used in this sub-clause that continuity of service from January 1, 1960 until the date of the order is a condition prescribed for regularisation. In other words, a candidate claiming the benefit of this order has to satisfy that he was initially appointed prior to December 31, 1959, that he was in service on January 1, 1960 and continued in that service till the date of the order, i.e., September, 22, 1961. This construction finds support from sub-clause (iii) which provides that local service prior to regularisation would be counted for the purpose of leave, pension and increments though not for seniority as seniority was to be fixed from the length of service calculated from the date of regularisation. It is manifest that unless the local service was continuous such service could not be taken into account for the purposes, in particular of pension and increments. How would increments, for example, be granted unless the service prior to such increments was continuous? The same consideration would also apply in the case of pension. It had, therefore, to be provided as has been done in Sub-Clause 328

(iv) that a break in service would not be condoned for a period howsoever short.

Continuity of service is thus a condition for both Sub-clauses 2 and 3. The High Court was, therefore, in error when it said that Sub-Clause

(iv) did not relate to considerations under Sub- Clause (ii) or that it had reference only to a break in service before December 31, 1959. The High Court was also in error when it construed Sub-Clause (ii) to mean that the only thing it required was that the candidate had to be appointed initially prior to December 31, 1959 and that he had to be in service on the two dates, viz., January 1, 1960 and September 22, 1961 and that the service during the interval need not be continuos. If that construction were to be upheld it would result in injustice, for local candidates, not recruited regularly and not in continuous service provided they were in service on the two relevant dates viz., January 1, 1960 and September 22, 1961, would get seniority over candidates regularly appointed after December 31, 1959 and whose service is continuos. Such a result would manifestly be both unjust and improper and could hardly have 329

been contemplated. Therefore, the proper interpretation would be that in order that the regularisation order may apply to a particular case the local candidate must be initially appointed prior to December 31, 1959, he must be in service on January 1, 1960 and continue to be in service without any break till the date of the said order. If his service is regularised, his service from the date of such regularisation would be counted for seniority as against others who were recruited properly under the Rules of Recruitment. Under Sub-Clause (iii), however, if the service is continuous from January 1, 1960 to September 22, 1961, such service is to be taken into account for purposes of leave, pension and increments but not for purposes of seniority. The construction which we are inclined to adopt thus harmonises all the provisions of the Order and besides results in fairness to all the local candidates appointed by direct recruitment whether regularly or otherwise. For the reasons aforesaid the construction placed by the High Court cannot be sustained."

330

63. The next judgment is the case of R.N.

NANJUNDAPPA Vs. T. THIMMAIAH reported in (1972) 1

SCC 409. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering

the rules providing for methods of recruitment by

promotion, selection or competitive examination, held as

under:

"23. It was contended on behalf of the State that under Article 309 of the Constitution the State has power to make a rule regularising the appointment. Shelter was taken behind Article 162 of the Constitution and the power of the Government to appoint. No one can deny the power of the Government to appoint. If it were a case of direct appointment or if it were a case of appointment of a candidate by competitive examination or if it were a case of appointment by selection recourse to rule under Article 309 for regularisation would not be necessary. Assume that rules under Article 309 could be made in respect of appointment of one man but there are two limitations. Article 309 speaks of rules for appointment and general conditions of service. Regularisation of appointment by 331

stating that notwithstanding any rules the appointment is regularised strikes at the root of the rules and if the effect of the regularisation is to nullify the operation and effectiveness of the rules, the rule itself is open to criticism on the ground that it is in violation of current rules. Therefore the relevant rules at the material time as to promotion and appointment are infringed and the impeached rule cannot be permitted to stand to operate as a regularisation of appointment of one person in utter defiance of rules requiring consideration of seniority and merit in the case of promotion and consideration of appointment by selection or by competitive examination.

24. It was contended on behalf of the State that Rule 3 of the Mysore State Civil Services Rules, 1957 spoke of method of recruitment to be by competitive examination, or by selection, or by promotion. The method of recruitment and qualifications for each State Civil Service were to be set forth in the rules of recruitment but there were no rules until the year 1964. In 1964 the rule spoke of the Principal of School of Mines to be Class-I and the 332

method of recruitment for the Principal of School of Mines was to fill up the post by promotion from the cadre of Heads of Sections or by direct recruitment. It was said on behalf of the respondent that he was the only eligible candidate in 1964, and, therefore, his appointment was valid. This is opposed to facts. It is not a case of direct recruitment in the year 1958 or at any time. The State made rules in the year 1967 to regularise the appointment from the month of February, 1958. Again, if it were a case of direct recruitment one would expect proper materials for the direct recruitment. There should be advertisements for the post. Candidates have to be selected. Their respective merits would have to be considered. To say that the appellant was the only eligible candidate is to deny the rights of others to apply for such eligibility tests.

26. The contention on behalf of the State that a rule under Article 309 for regularisation of the appointment of a person would be a form of recruitment read with reference to power under Article 162 is unsound and unacceptable. The executive has the power to appoint. That power 333

may have its source in Article 162. In the present case, the rule, which regularised the appointment of the respondent with effect from February 15th , 1958 notwithstanding any rules cannot be said to be in exercise of the power under Article 162. First, Article 162 does not speak of rules whereas Article 309 speaks of the rules. Therefore, the present case touches the power of the State to make rules under Article 309 of the nature impeached here. Secondly, when the Government acted under Article 309 the Government cannot be said to have acted also under Article 162 in the same breath. The two articles operate in different areas. Regularisation cannot be said to be a form of appointment. Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that regularisation would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment whereas Counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularisation did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularisation of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the 334

Constitution, illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act, which is within the power and province of the authority, but there has been some non- compliance with procedure or manner, which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules.

64. Then they proceeded to hold that regularisation

is bad for the following reasons:

"33. ..... First, regularisation is not itself a mode of appointment. Secondly, the modes of appointments are direct recruitment or selection or promotion or appointing for reasons to be recorded in writing an officer holding a post of an equivalent grade, by transfer, from any other service of the State. The Government did not contend it to be a case of promotion. If it were a case of promotion it would not be valid because it 335

would be a promotion not on the basis of seniority-cum-merit but a promotion of some one who was in Class III to Class I. Even with regard to appointment under Rule 16 by transfer of a person holding an equivalent grade the appointment would be offending the rules because it would not be transfer from an equivalent grade. Again, merit and seniority could not be disregarded because the respondent was not in the same class as the Principal of the School of Mines."

Then they concluded by saying,

"34. ....... Article 162 does not confer power of regularisation. Article 162 does not empower on the Government to make rules for the recruitment or conditions of service. There can be rule for one person or one post but rules are made for recruitment and conditions of service. Rules are not for the purpose of validating an illegal appointment or for making an appointments or promotions or approval. Rules under Article 309 are for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment. Therefore, the regularisation by way of Rules 336

under Article 309 in the present case by stating that notwithstanding anything in the rules the appointment of the respondent was being regularised was in itself violation of the rules as to appointment and as to cadre and also as to the proper selection. If the respondent were to be appointed by direct recruitment, there should have been advertisements. Then others would have got the opportunity of applying. That would be proper selection."

65. Again the Apex Court in the case of

B.N. NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in

AIR 1979 SC 1681 explaining the meaning of the word

'regular' and 'regularisation' has held as under:

"Firstly, the words "regular" or "regularisation" do not connote permanence. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to the methodology followed in making the appointments. They cannot be construed so as 337

to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of the appointments.

When rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularisation is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Art. 162 thereof in contravention of the rules. The regularisation order was made long after the Probation Rules, the Seniority Rules and the Recruitment Rules were promulgated and could not therefore direct something which would do violence to any of the provisions thereof. Regularisation in the present case, if it meant permanence operative from the 1st of November., 1956 would have the effect of giving seniority to promotees over the direct recruits who, in the absence of such regularisation, would rank senior to the former because of the Seniority Rules read with the Probation Rules and may in consequence also confer on the promotees a right of priority in the matter of sharing the quota under the Recruitment Rules. In other words, the regularisation order, in colouring the appointments of promotees as Assistant 338

Engineers with permanence would run counter to the rules framed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India. What could not be done under the three sets of Rules as they stood, would thus be achieved by an executive flat. And such a course is not permissible because an act done in the exercise of the executive power of the Government, as already stated, cannot override rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution."

66. A three judge of the Apex Court in A. UMARANI

Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND

OTHERS reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112 dealing with

regularisation has held as under:

"Regularisation, in our considered opinion, is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is also now well settled that an appointment made in violation of 339

the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation.

40. It is equally well settled that those who come by back door should go through that door.

41. Regularisation furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are accused hoc in nature.

45. No regularisation is, thus, permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution if the appointment have been made in contravention of the statutory rules.

67. The Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's case

dealing with regularisation has held as under:-

"15. Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between regularization and conferment of permanence in 340

service jurisprudence. In STATE OF MYSORE Vs. S.V. NARAYANAPPA [1967 (1) S.C.R. 128], this Court stated that it was a mis-conception to consider that regularization meant permanence. In R.N. NANJUNDAPPA Vs T. THIMMIAH & ANR. [(1972) 2 S.C.R. 799], this Court dealt with an argument that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment. This Court stated:-

"Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment, whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularization did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularization of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority, but 341

there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules.

16. In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937], this court clearly held that the words "regular" or "regularization" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. This court emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of 342

the rules. These decisions and the principles recognized therein have not been dissented to by this Court and on principle, we see no reason not to accept the proposition as enunciated in the above decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization.

17. We have already indicated the constitutional scheme of public employment in this country, and the executive, or for that matter the Court, in appropriate cases, would have only the right to regularize an appointment made after following the due procedure, even though a non-fundamental element of that process or procedure has not been followed. This right of the executive and that of the court, would not extend to the executive or the court 343

being in a position to direct that an appointment made in clear violation of the constitutional scheme, and the statutory rules made in that behalf, can be treated as permanent or can be directed to be treated as permanent.

19. One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is also controlled by economic considerations and financial implications of any public employment.

The viability of the department or the instrumentality of the project is also of equal

concern for the State. The State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. Can the court impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization or permanence in employment, when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly? As an example, we can envisage a direction to give permanent employment to all those who are being temporarily or casually employed in a public sector undertaking. The burden may become so heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may collapse under its own weight. It is 344

not as if this had not happened. So, the court ought not to impose a financial burden on the State by such directions, as such directions may turn counter- productive."

68. The expression "regularisation" has a definite

connotation. The concept of regularisation pre-supposes

irregular appointment at the first instance so as to enable

the employer to regularise the same. There is a vital

distinction between "regularisation" and "conferment of

permanence" in service jurisprudence. The words "regular"

or "regularisation" do not connote permanence. They

cannot be construed to convey an idea of the nature of

tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to

condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to

cure the defects in the method of appointments. It is a

misconception to equate regularisation with permanence.

Regularisation is not a mode of appointment.

Regularisation is not and cannot be the mode of

recruitment by any "State" within the meaning of Article 12 345

of the Constitution of India or any body or authority

governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed

thereunder. To accede to such a proposition would be to

introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or

it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules. If the

appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in

violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality

cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is

possible of an act, which is within the power and province

of the authority, where there has been some non-

compliance with procedure or manner, of recruitment

which does not go to the root of the appointment. In case of

a direct recruitment there should be an advertisement for

the post. Everyone who is duly qualified should have an

opportunity of applying. The respective merits would have

to be considered. Candidates have to be selected.

Then only it could be called a proper selection. If in

the process of such selection, if any irregularity is crept in,

the said irregularity could be corrected by way of 346

regularization. Rules under Article 309 are for the purpose

of laying down the conditions for service and recruitment.

Therefore, regularisation by way of Rules under Article 309

by stating that notwithstanding anything in the rules, the

appointment is being regularised is itself in violation of the

rules as to appointment as to cadre and also as to the

proper selection. Regularisation of appointment by stating

that notwithstanding any rules the appointment is

regularised strikes at the root of the rules and if the effect

of the regularisation is to nullify the operation and

effectiveness of the rules, the rule itself is liable to be struck

down on the ground that it is in violation of current rules.

By regularization, an illegal appointment cannot be

regularized. Similarly, regularization cannot be resorted to,

to give permanence to an employment. If the appointment

is a contractual one it should come to an end with the

expiry of the terms for which they were appointed. If it is

an employment on daily basis it comes to an end when it is

discontinued. If it is a temporary employment it comes to 347

an end after the expiry of the period for which he was

appointed. In all these cases regularization cannot be

adopted to confer permanence on such employment. The

aforesaid persons cannot be recruited into service

permanently by way of regularization. If the appointment is

in infraction of the Rules or if it is in violation of the

Constitution, then it is a case of illegal appointment and

illegality cannot be regularised.

ABSORPTION BY WAY OF REGULARISATION

69. Regularisation is not a mode of recruitment/

appointment. Regularisation cannot give permanence to an

employee who is appointed on contract basis or temporarily

or as daily wages. By regularisation an illegal appointment

cannot be regularised. If in the process of recruitment,

there is some non-compliance of the procedure, which does

not go to the root of the appointment, such an irregularity

could be condoned by way of regularisation. By way of

absorption such an irregularity cannot be condoned. The 348

condition precedent for absorption, is, the person to be

absorbed should have been recruited into service validly. A

valid appointment is a sine quo non for absorption. Such

an appointment does not require regularisation. Therefore

absorption by way of regularisation is a misnomer. If an

illegal or irregular appointment is sought to be regularised

by way of absorption, the absorption becomes bad, and the

absorption confers no right to the person in the post to

which he is absorbed.

LAW WHICH HOLDS THE FIELD TODAY

70. Now let us see what is the law laid down by the

Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the judgment in

Uma Devi's case. At paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 43 and 45 it is held

as under:-

"2. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme 349

envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.

3. A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted, The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage 350

or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule.

4. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to and the Constitutional scheme of public employment is by-passed. The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure through the Public Service Commission or otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post. It has also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching Courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the concerned posts. Courts have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and 351

have occasionally even stayed the regular process of employment being set in motion and in some cases, even directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants be absorbed into service. A class of employment which can only be called 'litigious employment', has risen like a phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme. Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is intended to be used for a purpose certain to defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public employment as recognized by our Constitution, has to be seriously pondered over. It is time, that Courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per procedure established. The passing of orders for continuance, tends to defeat the very Constitutional scheme of public employment. It 352

has to be emphasized that this is not the role envisaged for High Courts in the scheme of things and their wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public employment. Its role as the sentinel and as the guardian of equal rights protection should not be forgotten.

5. This Court has also on occasions issued directions which could not be said to be consistent with the Constitutional scheme of public employment. Such directions are issued presumably on the basis of equitable considerations or individualization of justice. The question arises, equity to whom? Equity for the handful of people who have approached the Court with a claim, or equity for the teeming millions of this country seeking employment and seeking a fair opportunity for competing for employment? When one side of the coin is considered, the other side of the coin, has also to be considered and the way open to any court of 353

law or justice, is to adhere to the law as laid down by the Constitution and not to make directions, which at times, even if do not run counter to the Constitutional scheme, certainly tend to water down the Constitutional requirements. It is this conflict that is reflected in these cases referred to the Constitution Bench.

43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of 354

the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely 355

because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.

45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that 356

the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arms length since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, 357

would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to 358

discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution."

71. Subsequently, the ratio of the Constitution

Bench judgment has been followed by two judges bench for

declining to entertain the claim of regularisation of service

made by adhoc/temporary/daily wage/casual employment

or for reversing the orders of the high court granting relief

to such employees in the case Indian Drugs and

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - vs - Workmen (2007) 1 SCC 408;

Gangadhar Pillai - vs - Siemens Ltd. (2007)1 SCC 533;

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan - vs -

L.V.Subramanyeshwara and another reported (2007)5 SCC

326; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. - vs - Dan Bahadur Singh

and Others reported in (2007)6 SCC 207.

359

72. However, in UP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Vs. POORAN CHANDRA PANDEY reported in (2007) 11

Supreme Court Cases 92, the two judges Bench attempted

to dilute the Constitution Bench judgment by suggesting

that the said decision cannot be applied to a case where

regularisation has been sought for in pursuance of Article

14 of the Constitution and that the Judgment in UMA

DEVI's case is in conflict with the judgment of the seven

judges bench in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978) 1

SCC 248. When this was brought to the notice of a three

judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of OFFICIAL

LIQUIDATOR vs DAYANAND AND OTHERS [(2008) 10

SCC] after carefully analysing the judgment in Pooran's

case they were of the view that the observations were not

called for.

73. After pointing out how to the facts of the case

in Pooran's case, the said judgment has no application,

they observed that the two Judge Bench had no occasion to 360

make any adverse comment on the binding character of the

Constitution Bench judgment in the State of Karnataka Vs.

Umadevi. Then referring to various judgments of the Apex

Court dealing with role of judicial discipline which is a

Sine-quo-non for sustaining system they held as under :-

"90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in the last six decades 361

and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgements of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgements lay down the correct law and which one should be followed.

91. We may add that in our constitutional set- up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its deals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient 362

functioning of the judicial system. If the courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law.

92. In the light of what has been stated above, we deem it proper to clarify that the comments and observations made by the two- Judge bench in U.P.SEB v.Pooran Chandra Pandey 12 should be read as obiter and the same should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, tribunals and other judicial foras nor they should be relied upon or made basis for bypassing the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench."

74. Therefore, the comments and observations

made by the two Judges Bench in Pooran Chandra's case at

best is only a obiter and the same is not binding on this

Court and the said judgment cannot be relied upon or

made basis for by passing principles laid down by the 363

Constitution Bench. In other words, the law laid down by

the Constitution Bench in Umadevi's case is reiterated.

75. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion it is

clear the law regarding regularisation is now settled by the

decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in

Umadevi's case. When an attempt was made to dilute the

said law, the larger bench found fault with such an attempt

and declared the said judgment as only a obiter and not a

binding decision on the High Court. A series of judgments

of the Apex Court have reiterated the said legal position.

Therefore, the said judgment holds the field.

76. What could be deduced from the aforesaid

judgment is as under:-

1. Any public employment has to be in terms of the

Constitutional scheme.

364 2. Adherence to the rule of equality in public

employment is a basic feature of our Constitution.

3. Regular appointment must be the rule.

4. A regular process of recruitment or appointment

has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in

posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled

up.

5. The appointment should be in terms of relevant

rules and after a proper competition among the

qualified persons. Otherwise, such appointment

would not confer any right on the appointee.

6. If a contractual appointment is made, the

appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract. The Government or the instrumentality

of the State cannot confer any permanency of 365

such employment either by way of regularisation

or by way of absorption.

7. If it were an engagement or appointment on daily

wages or casual basis, the same would come to an

end when it is discontinued.

8. A temporary employee could not claim to be made

permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment.

9. Merely because a temporary employee or a casual

wage worker is continued for a time being beyond

the term of his appointment, he would not be

entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made

permanent, merely on the strength on such

continuance, if the original appointment was not

made by following a due process of selection as

envisaged by the relevant rules.

366 10. Regularisation is not a mode of appointment.

11. Regularisation can be only of irregular

appointment.

12. Regularisation of an illegal appointment is not

permissible in law. It is not permissible in law, to

confer permanence on the employee, whose

appointment is illegal.

13. The Government or the instrumentality of the

State cannot regularise the appointment made

contrary to the course of selection as envisaged

by the relevant rules.

14. The High Court acting under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India should not ordinarily issue

directions for absorption, regularisation or

permanent continuance unless the recruitment 367

itself was made regularly and in terms of the

constitutional scheme.

15. There should be no further by-passing of the

constitutional requirement and regularisation or

making permanent those not duly appointed as

per the constitutional scheme.

EXCEPTION TO UMA DEVI'S CASE

77. However, in Umadevi's case, the Apex Court

was conscious of the fact that because of divergent opinion

of the Apex Court itself, directions had been issued from

time to time for regularisation which was given effect to and

persons who are irregularly appointed were regularised in

service. Therefore, they carved out an exception to the law

laid down by them regarding regularisation. It finds a place

in para 53 of the said judgment which reads as under :-

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified.

There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as 368

explained in S.V.Narayanappa (Supra),

R.N.Nanjundappa (Supra) and B.N.Nagarajan (Supra) and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also 369

clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

78. In fact, subsequently, the two judge Bench of

the Apex Court had an occasion to explain this para 53 in

the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Vs. M.L.

KESARI & ORS reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587, as

under:-

5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi (AIR 2006 SC 1806 : 2006 AIR SCW 1991), if the following conditions are fulfilled :

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the 370

interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more 371

than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006).

6. The term `one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily- wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

Again at para 8 it is held as under :-

8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that 372

those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be 373

considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure."

79. The explanation carved out by the Apex Court

in Umadevi's case is applicable only to cases where the

following conditions are fulfilled.

i) A person should have been appointed temporarily to work against a sanctioned post;

ii) Such a person should possess the required qualification prescribed under law to hold the said post;

iii) Such a person should have continued to hold the said post uninterruptedly for a period of 10 years or more;

iv) Such a continuous service should have been rendered without the aid of or under the 374

cover of order of the courts or the Tribunals;

v) Conditions stipulated in (i) to (iv) should have been fulfilled anterior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Umadevi's case i.e., 10th April 2006.

vi) It has no prospective application.

vii) The appointment should be only irregular and not illegal.

80. Only in cases where the aforesaid conditions

are fulfilled, as "one time" measure the Government or the

instrumentalities of the State could regularise such

irregular appointments. It is manifestly made clear the

regularisation can be only of irregular appointments and

not illegal appointments. If the appointment is illegal at the

inception, even if a person is in continuous service for more

than 10 years, possess the prescribed qualification and

working against a sanctioned post, regularisation is not 375

permissible. The said benefit is extended only to irregular

appointments.

81. Two other aspects which is settled by the

aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court are:-

(1) It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.

(vide para 54)

(2) We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. (vide para 53) 376

82. In fact, the judgment on which strong reliance

was placed in support of such regularisation by absorption

is the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of

Karnataka and another Vs. Suvarna Malini reported in

2001(1) SCC 728 wherein reliance is placed on paras 8

and 9.

"8. From time to time, the Government has also been issuing instructions for canalising the method of appointment and directing that even Part-time Lecturers could be appointed through the Directorate of Collegiate Education and not otherwise. The Directorate of Collegiate Education also has been issuing circulars indicating the guidelines. The reasons which weighed with the High Court to sustain striking down of the Absorption Rules are that the so- called Part-time Lecturers had not been appointed after a process of selection in accordance with the prescribed rules but on the other hand, their appointment is dehors the rules. Further such candidates are not scrutinised by the Public Service Commission 377

and they do not possess the NET test, as provided by the University Grants Commission, which is one of the essential requisites for recruitment under the statutory Recruitment Rules of 1993.

9. From the materials on record, it appears that the State Government has been regulating the mode of appointment of Part-time Lecturers and it is not Correct that there has been no process of selection before such appointment of Part-time Lecturers. Even though the selection had not been made by the Public Service Commission, yet there was a process of selection and it further appears that unqualified people were not being appointed as Part-time Lecturers. Part-time Lecturers having formed a class by themselves and for some reason are the other, they having been deprived of the benefits of the earlier directions of this court on account of inaction of the part of the State Government, the matter was re-examined by a Committee of experts as to how best, the services of these Part-time Lecturers can be utilised and at the same time, there will be no dilution in the quality of teaching nor can there be any infraction in the 378

minimum qualification necessary for appointment as a lecturer. The concept of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment contradistinguished from identical treatment. Equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though, they are the same. It of course means denial of any special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like. The legislature as well as the executive Government, while dealing with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must of necessity have the power of making special laws, to attain any particular object and to achieve that object, it must have the power of selection or classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination. When the 379

absorption rules are examined from the aforesaid stand point and when we consider the circumstances under which the said Rules were made to solve a human problem and that the Rules made were put to objection to the general public and even the Public Service Commission was consulted and finally was (sic were laid) before the State Legislature to have their concurrence, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed an error in striking down the Rules on the ground that they were discriminatory. When this Court deprecates the regularisation and absorption when it comes to the conclusion that such regularisation and absorption has become a common method of allowing back-door entries and then regularising such entries, it is not that in every case, the court would be justified in striking down the process of absorption or regularisation, more so when such absorption has been made as a legislative measure and that also as a one time measure, and at the same time insisting upon the essential qualifications to be duly complied with, by the persons intended to be absorbed on regular 380

basis. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed serious error in striking down the impugned absorption rules. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court and allow these appeals. While we hold the absorption rules to be valid, we would further direct that the State government must insist upon the candidates to pass the NET test, as required by the University Grants Commission within the period three years and it is only on passing of such test, the absorbed employees will be entitled to the scale of pay, available for the regular qualified lecturers. Failure on their part to pass the NET test would debar them from being absorbed and regularised.

83. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of

M.S. GANESH AND OTHERS vs SUBRAMANYA AND

OTHERS [ILR 2002 KAR 4123] had an occasion to

consider this argument as well as this judgment and the

said argument was answered in the following manner : - 381

15. ......... The petitioners point out that even the two Absorption Rules with which we are concerned, require possessing of minimum academic qualifications and also require that the candidates should not be disqualified under the General Recruitment Rules and also provide that the absorption is a one time measure. They contend that the Absorption Rules should be upheld on the basis of the ratio laid down in Suvarna Malini's case. But the distinguishing feature in Suvarna Malini's case is that it dealt with the absorption of part-time lecturers who had served for periods varying from 10 years to 20 years. The Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that the case involved not only a question of law, but also a human problem and that if they were not regularised and treated as regular service, they will not be able to get themselves engaged anywhere else and at the same time, their experience in teaching would be lost to the student community. The significant aspect is that the Rules provided for absorption of lecturers who had put in 10 to 20 years of service. It is now recognised by a series of decisions that there is need to make an 382

exception to the general rule (requiring the notifying or advertising posts, inviting applications from all eligible candidates) where persons have served continuously either temporarily or on ad hoc basis or on contract basis for long periods (say 10 years) by framing a scheme for regularizing their service.

Therefore, if the Absorption Rules with which we are concerned had provided for absorption on completion of any 10 years service as contract employees, it would have been possible to hold the rules as valid with reference to the decision in Suvarna Malini's case, and the series of other decisions which have permitted regularisation on completion of a long period of temporary service. But where appointed a day earlier, without undergoing the process of selection and thereby denies opportunity to other eligible candidates to compete, it would be nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is this aspect that persuaded the Tribunal to hold that the impugned rules were unconstitutional.

383

18. The petitioners plead hardship. The question is whether petitioners in these cases and others whose names are found in the Schedules to Groups 'C' and 'D' Absorption Rules, are entitled to any relief? We are informed that some of them are still working as contractual employees in the establishment of Ministers. The services of many were discontinued either as a result of the modification of the interim order granted in these cases and on account of Ministers under whom they were working, ceasing to be Ministers. Some of them have obtained regular employment by undergoing recruitment process. Exact number of the persons who have entered regular service is not valuable.

19. The decisions of the Supreme Court have made it clear that human angle is something that cannot be ignored. We have already referred to the decision in Suvarna Malini's case. We may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in H. C. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and Ors., . In that case, it was found that certain appointments made violated 384

constitutional protection of equality of opportunity guaranteed to the candidates under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The High Court quashed the appointments so made. The said decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, affected employees filed review petitions. While allowing the said review petitions, the Supreme Court held thus:

"The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated in allowing the review petitions. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years.... One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the midstream. Indeed, it would be an act of cruelty at this stage to ask them to appear for written test and viva- voce to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for fresh selection".

The Supreme Court directed that such employees shall be treated as regularly appointed with all benefits of past service. Here again, the fact that the employees had been in 385

service for more than 10 years persuaded the Supreme Court to give relief.

20. In pursuance of the decision in Dharwad District Public Works Department Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., , the State had formulated the scheme for regularizing the services of persons who were employed on daily wage before 1-7-1984 and who had served for 10 years. This Court in several decisions had recognised the need for regularizing the services of those who have served for 10 years by formulation of some scheme, even if their initial appointment was not as per Rules.

21. The Absorption Rules relate to a group of people who were appointed, not on daily wage basis but on contract basis to serve the Ministers. If such employees had served Ministers for only one term and had left, obviously, they will not be entitled to claim any benefit. But, several of them have been continuously re-employed except for small breaks which shows that they have been found 386

to be efficient and their services are found to be necessary. In the circumstances the quashing of the Rules by the Tribunal will not come in the way of any Rules or scheme being made by the Government enabling absorption in the case of those who have served either for 10 years or as special case for those who have worked not less than 2,400 days in a block period of 10 years. Even those who have not completed 10 years of contract service but who are continued in contract employment may be considered for absorption on completion of that period. We make it clear that ultimately, it is for the State Government to prescribe the minimum period required for absorption, while framing the scheme, provided such period is not arbitrary and is in consonance with the period that is prescribed for absorption/regularization by the Government in other cases."

84. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Suvarnamalini and another and

held that action of the Government in absorbing the 387

services is legal and in accordance with law laid down by

the Supreme Court in similar case.

85. In the instant case the employees had not put

in ten years of service, on the day the Absorption Rules

came into force under which they were absorbed.

Therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

Suvarna Malini's case has no application. However, even

otherwise in view of what has been laid down by the Apex

Court in Umadevi's case at para 54 that those decisions

which run counter to the principle settled in Umadevi's

case or in which directions running counter to what they

have held herein are given, will stand denuded of their

status as precedents. Directions issued in the said decision

runs counter to the law laid down and declared by the

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. Therefore, they

ceased to enjoy the status as a precedents and therefore,

that judgment cannot be relied on as a precedent. Therefore the Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the 388

Apex Court which ceases to be binding precedent

notwithstanding such a declaration by the Constitution

Bench in Uma Devi's case. Therefore that reasoning is

patently illegal.

86. Though all these persons possessed requisite

qualification and were appointed against sanctioned post,

their recruitment and appointment is not in accordance

with law. Their case would not fall under para 53 in Uma

Devi's case because, to have the benefit of that exception

carved out by the Apex Court, not only the person must

have the requisite qualification and be posted against the

sanction post, but he must be in continuous service in that

post for a period of ten years and more than that without

the aid or cover of the order of the Court. In the instant

case notification for appointment on contract basis was

issued on 23-11-1993. It is in pursuance of the said

notification appointment was made on the contract basis.

The appointment was for a period of 12 months only. The 389

said contractual appointment has to come to an end on the

expiry of 12 months period, unless extended. According to

Rule 15, the maximum period for which the contract

employment could be made is 5 years, at the end of which

it cannot exist nor it can be extended. However, the

Government order, notification, and the appointments were

challenged before the Tribunal in Application No.22-23 of

1994 and other connected matters before the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal. The Government order,

notification and the appointment were quashed/ set aside

by an order dated 20-10-1994. Review petition RP Nos.91 -

378 of 1995 came to be dismissed on 25-7-1995, permitting

continuance of the contract engineers till recruitment is

made according to Rules. The Special Leave Petition filed

against the said order was dismissed on 15-04-1996. The

Special Rules were framed and it came into force on 14-1-

1999. The said Rules were challenged and the Writ Petition

was dismissed. Writ Appeal was filed. Thus, no recruitment

took place in pursuance of the said Rules. By passing the 390

said Rules, without erasing the unconstitutionality in the

appointment of contract engineers, the said

unconstitutional appointment was regularized by way of

absorption, by enacting the Absorption Rules. Therefore the

initial appointment is illegal from the inception. It is void

ab initio. After holding that the order made in the original

application does not require any substantial modification,

as the appointment in question contravenes the provisions

of Article 16 of the Constitution, the Tribunal held the said

action is violative of the fundamental rights and is void.

However, in its discretion it permitted the continuance of

the appointees till the State Government act to erase the

unconstitutionality and make proper appointments. They

made it clear that the appointees are permitted to continue

in service till the State takes steps to make a proper

recruitment or appoint in terms of this order. Therefore,

the intention of the Tribunal was not to regularize the

appointments which were unconstitutional by permitting

their continuance. The Tribunal had no such power. The 391

Tribunal did not exercise its power to regularize these

unconstitutional recruitment. It was in the nature of stop-

gap arrangement. To enable these persons to apply in

pursuance of the notification to be issued according to

Special Rules and participate in the recruitment

proceedings, during the interregnum period as the

Government needs their service they were permitted to

continue, as all of them possessed the requisite

qualification and had been appointed against a sanctioned

post. Therefore no rights accrued to them in law by the

Tribunal permitting their continuance till the regular

recruitment took place. That period is described as

litigious employment, which does not confer any right on

the employees. Regularisation is permissible only if the

appointment is irregular and not illegal and the employee

has continued in that irregular employment for a period of

10 years continuously without the aid or cover of the order

of the Court. None of those conditions are fulfilled in this

case. The Tribunal directed the Government to erase the 392

unconstitutionality. The Government framed the Rules with

the intention of erasing unconstitutionality. But, strangely

in the midstream they changed the course. After framing

the Rules they decided to regularize the services of these

employees by the impugned Rules by absorption.

87. When once the appointment of the persons who

are absorbed under the impugned Rules was declared as

unconstitutional by a judicial authority, which finding has

attained finality, when an opportunity was given to the

State to erase unconstitutionality in the said appointment,

by the impugned Absorption Rules, persons whose

appointment was declared as unconstitutional, illegal, by

the Court, could not have been regularised. It amounts to

regularising an unconstitutional appointment in

disobedience to the constitutional mandate contained in

Article 16(3) of the Constitution. Therefore the said

impugned Rules instead of erasing the unconstitutionality,

perpetuated the unconstitutionality and is also hit by 393 Article 16(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, the Absorption

Rules are unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down.

SUB JUDICE

88. The Tribunal dealing with the question whether

the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Apex

Court in Umadevi's case is applicable to the case on hand

or not, was of the view that it is not applicable, because the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case, was

rendered on 10.04.2006, whereas, the Absorption Rules

were issued by the Government on 18.10.2002. The

absorption of the applicants was also not sub-judice. Therefore as held by the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case,

regularization made prior to 10.04.2006 need not be

opened. Even after Umadevi's case, the Supreme Court in

several cases has approved similar schemes of Absorption

of ad-hoc or temporary employees. Therefore it was held

that absorption of the applicants is not contrary to the

decision of the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case. 394

89. It is clear the Tribunal has not noticed correctly

what has been laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi's

case. In Umadevi's case in para 53 it is specifically held as

under: -

"We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

90. If on the day Umadevi's case was decided, if

any regularisation is made and if the same is not

challenged, they need not be reopened based on the said

judgment. Therefore, it follows, if the regularisations made

prior to Umadevi'' case was the subject matter of litigation

or it is challenged in any forum, then the questions

involved in the said litigation has to be decided in

accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in 395 Umadevi's case. The facts set out above clearly

demonstrate that, when a Government Order was passed

providing for recruitment of these engineers restricting the

eligibility to engineers belonging to only 5 Districts of

Karnataka, it was challenged immediately thereafter by

filing an application before the Karnataka Administrative

Tribunal. After contest the applications were allowed.

Government Order was set aside and the appointments

made under the Government Order were also set aside as

unconstitutional and illegal. When a review petition was

filed by persons who are affected by the said order, review

petition was dismissed holding that no case is made out for

setting aside the earlier order. The said orders have

attained finality, as the Apex Court did not entertain

challenge to the said order. In pursuance of the direction

issued by the Tribunal in the said proceedings, the Special

Rules were framed for recruitment of the very same persons

giving weightage for the past service. The provision

providing for weightage was challenged. It is during the 396

pendency of the said Writ Petition challenging the Special

Rules, Absorption Rules came to be passed. Immediately

the Absorption Rules were challenged on the ground that

the persons whose appointment was unconstitutional from

the inception, whose appointment was set aside by the

Tribunal on that ground are sought to be absorbed and

regularised in the service by the Absorption Rules. Therefore, the appointment of all these engineers is

subjudice on the day the Constitutional Bench delivered

the judgment in Umadevi's case. As is clear from the

aforesaid observations it is not a case of reopening of illegal

or irregular appointments which are regularised by way of

absorption which had attained finality. They are not

sought to be reopened by virtue of Umadevi's case. It is a

case where these appointments, regularisation and

absorption were under attack from the first day of their

appointment which was pending on the day Umadevi's case

was decided. Therefore, the law laid down in Umadevi's

case is applicable in deciding the legality of the 397

appointment of these engineers who are absorbed under

the Absorption Rules. Hence, the observation of the

Tribunal that Umadevi's case has no application to the

facts of the case is not correct.

REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

91. The Tribunal dealing with the question whether

the impugned Absorption Rules are violative of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution, held that to invoke the right of

equality guaranteed by Article 14 and 16(1), the applicants

and the private respondents should belong to the same

class, as held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions.

The impugned Absorption Rules apply to Assistant

Engineers and Junior Engineers who are appointed on

contract basis pursuant to the scheme framed by the

Government. In the case on hand, the applicants on one

hand and the private respondents on the other hand belong

to different classes. Consequently, they cannot claim right

to equality vis-à-vis the Assistant Engineers and Junior 398

Engineers who have put in long years of service. The

private respondents have put in about 17 years of service

now. The State Government in its wisdom has absorbed

their services by denying all substantial benefits to them

like seniority and pay. Therefore the Absorption Rules are

not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The

only right which is applicable to the present case is the

right of equality. The equality guaranteed by Article 16(1) is

only an equality between the members of the same class of

employees. The applicants and the private respondents

stand on a different footing. Therefore the right of equality

cannot be enforced in the present case.

92. The learned Advocate General as well as Sri

P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel, contended that, the

persons who are sought to be absorbed into service

constitute a class by themselves and therefore Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution is not offended. All of them have

been working continuously, they have acquired experience, 399

now they are over aged and if they have to be uprooted from

the post it would cause great loss to the Government and

they will not be able to take any major developmental

activities. Reliance is placed on the following judgment.

93. The Apex Court in the case of PRABODH

VERMA AND OTHERS ETC. V. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1985 SC 167

held as under:

"40. Article 14 of the Constitution forbids the State to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. While Article 14 applies to all persons within the territory of India, Article 16 applies only to citizens of India. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

Thus, Article 16 is an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14, with special reference to the opportunity for appointment and 400

employment under the Government (see Banarsi Dass and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others). Today, the Government is the largest employer in the country and employment or appointment to an office under it is a valuable right possessed by citizens.

Article 14, however, does not forbid classification. The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the territory of India irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced should be treated alike and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation, their position substantially the same. By the process of classification, the State has the power to determine who should be regarded as a class for the purposes of legislation and in relation to a law enacted on a particular subject. The classification to be valid, however, must not be arbitrary but must be rational. It must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be 401

found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable nexus or relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test,: two conditions have to be fulfilled, namely (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (2) the differentia must have a rational nexus or relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation (see In re The Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 2 SCR 476, 535: AIR 1979 SC 478 at P. 509).

41. If Ordinance No.22 of 1978 satisfies these two conditions it cannot be said to infringe the provisions of Article 14 nor would it then be violative of Article 16(1) for it is only when citizens are similarly circumstanced that they can claim equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or to any office under the State. To afford equal opportunity in these matters to those not similarly circumstanced 402

would be to treat unequals as equal and would violate Article 14.

42. The first question which, therefore, arises is "Whether there is any intelligible differentia which distinguishes teachers put in the reserve pool by Ordinance No.22 of 1978 from other applicants for posts of teachers in recognized institutions?" The reserve pool teachers were those who had come forward at a time when the teachers employed or a large majority of such teachers, in the recognized institutions, had gone on an indefinite strike and had continued the strike even after it had been declared illegal. Had the strike continued almost all the recognized institutions in the State would have had to close down putting the students to great hardship and suffering and causing a break in their education. It was in these difficult and trying times that the reserve pool teachers came forward to man the recognized institutions. Presumably, it was this that brought about a settlement of the strike, It must be borne in mind that the reserve pool teachers joined the recognized 403

institutions during the period of the strike in circumstances in which they exposed themselves to great hostility from the striking teachers. They, therefore, did so running a certain amount of risk for there is always a possibility of a strike turning violent. Yet another hazard they faced was that, were some of the reserve pool teachers to apply later for the posts of teachers in a recognized institution which had fallen vacant and were to be selected under section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act, they would have had to work together with those teachers who had gone on strike and had been taken back and they would then have to face their hostility. The assumption made by the High Court that the appointment of reserve pool teachers to the vacancies which had occurred blocked the chances of promotion of those working in the Licentiate Teacher's Grade was actually not correct. Sub-section (2) of section 4 of U.P. Ordinance No.10 of 1978 as also of U.P. Ordinance No.22 of 1978 expressly provided that the reserve pool teachers were to be appointed only to those vacancies in 404

recognized institutions which were to be filled by direct recruitment. There was thus no question of a vacancy to be filled by promotion being filled by any teacher in the reserve pool or of such reserve pool teachers blocking the chances of promotion of other teachers working in the Licentiate Teacher's Grade in recognized institutions. The reserve pool teachers were originally appointed during the period of the strike under U.P. Ordinance No.25 of 1977 and it should be borne in mind that this Ordinance expressly required appointment of persons possessing requisite qualification. All the reserve pool teachers thus possessed the requisite qualifications and this fact is not disputed before us. In the course of its judgment the High Court has also proceeded upon the basis that educational institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh did not constitute an essential service but had been declared so by the notification dated December 24, 1977, issued under the U.P. Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1966. This assumption was also not correct. As pointed out earlier, sub- clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 2 of the U.P. 405 Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1966, made service under an educational institution recognized inter alia by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh an essential service. The said notification dated December 24, 1977, issued under section 3(1) of that Act was to prohibit strikes in service under educational institutions. An important factor in considering whether the reserve pool teachers could constitute a separate class having an intelligible differentia distinguishing them from other applicants for the posts of teachers in recognized institutions is that usually every year the number of vacancies which occur in recognized institutions is more than the number of reserve pool teachers. Admittedly, the vacancies which were sought to be filled by U.P. Ordinance No, 10 of 1978 and thereafter by U.P. Ordinance No.22 of 1978 were more than the number of reserve pool teachers. These vacancies had occurred within a few months of the strike being settled. Almost all who applied for these posts and were not in the reserve pool must have been 406

qualified to be appointed to posts in recognized institutions during the pendency of the strike. None of these applicants, however, came forward to join a recognized institution during that period as the reserve pool teachers did. The other applicants for the posts of teachers, therefore, stood in a different class from the reserve pool teachers and it would be wrong to equate these two classes together as forming just one class.

44. The reserve pool teachers thus formed a separate and distinct class from others applicants for the posts of teachers in recognized institutions. The differentia which distinguished the class of a reserve pool teachers from the class of other applicants for the posts of teachers in recognized institutions is the service rendered by the reserve pool teachers to the State and its educational system in a time of crises and this differentia bears a reasonable and rational nexus or relation to the object sought to be achieved by Ordinance Nos. 10 and 22 of 1978 read with the Intermediate Education Act, namely, to 407

keep the system of High School and Intermediate Education in the State functioning smoothly without interruption so that the students may not suffer a detriment. Those two classes of persons, namely, the class of reserve pool teachers and the class of other applicants for the posts of teachers in the recognized institutions, are not similarly circumstanced and, therefore, there cannot be any question of giving these two classes of persons equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment guaranteed by Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Thus, neither Article 14 nor Article 16(1) of the Constitution was violated by the provisions of either U.P. Ordinance No.10 of 1978. or U.P. Ordinance No.22 of 1978."

94. The Apex Court in the case of KATHI RANING

RAWAT Vs. STATE OF SAURASHTRA reported in AIR

1952 SC 123 at paras 8, 46 and 47 has held as under:-

"8. In the present case, the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State by one of 408

its responsible officers states facts and figures relating to an increasing number of incidents of looting, robbery, dacoity, nose-cutting and murder by marauding gangs of dacoits in certain areas of the State, and these details support the claim that "the security of the State and public peace were jeopardised and that it became impossible to deal with the offences that were committed in different places in separate courts of law expeditiously." The statement concludes by pointing out that the areas specified in the notification were the "main zones of the activities of the dacoits as mentioned above." The impugned Ordinance having thus been passed to combat the increasing tempo of certain types of regional crime, the two-fold classification on the lines of type and territory adopted in the impugned Ordinance, read with the notification issued thereunder, is, in my view, reasonable and valid, and the degree of disparity of treatment involved is in no way in excess of what the situation demanded.

46. It will be noticed that section 11 of the Saurashtra Ordinance, like section 5 (1), 409

West Bengal Special Courts Act, refers to four distinct categories, namely, "offences", "classes of offences", "cases" and "classes of cases" and empowers the State Government to direct any one or more of these categories to be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act. The expressions "offences", "classes of offences" and "classes of cases" clearly indicate and obviously imply a process of classification of offences or cases. Prima facie those words do not contemplate any particular offender or any particular accused in any particular case. The emphasis is on "offences", "classes of offences"

or "classes of cases." The classification of "offences" by itself is not calculated to touch any individual as such, although it may, after the classification is made, affect all individuals who may commit the particular offences. In short, the classification implied in this part of the sub- section has no reference to, and is not directed towards, the singling out of any particular person as an object of hostile State action but is concerned only with the grouping of "offences", "classes of offences" and "classes of cases" for 410

the purpose of the particular legislation as recited in the preamble.

47. ......... I have no doubt in my mind that the surrounding circumstances and the special features mentioned in the affidavit referred to above furnish a very cogent and reasonable basis of classification, for they do clearly distinguish these offences from similar or even same species of offences committed elsewhere and under ordinary circumstances. This differentia quite clearly has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, namely, the maintenance of public order, the preservation of public safety, the peace and tranquillity of the State. Such a classification will not be repugnant to the equal protection clause of our Constitution, for there will be no discrimination, for whoever may commit the specified offence in the specified area in the specified circumstances will be treated alike and sent up before a Special Court for trial under the special procedure. Persons thus sent up for trial by a Special Court according to the special procedure cannot point their fingers to the other persons who may be 411

charged before an ordinary Court with similar offences alleged to have been committed by them in a different place and in different circumstances and complain of unequal treatment, for those other persons are of a different category and are not their equals.

95. Article 14 of the Constitution forbids the State

to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal

protection of the laws within the territory of India. Thus,

Article 16 is an instance of the application of the general

rule of equality laid down in Article 14, with special

reference to the opportunity for appointment and

employment under the Government. Today, the

Government is the largest employer in the country and

employment or appointment to an office under it is a

valuable right possessed by citizens. Article 14, however,

does not forbid classification. The principle underlying the

guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law

should be applicable to all persons within the territory of 412

India irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only

means that all persons similarly circumstanced should be

treated alike and there should be no discrimination

between one person and another if as regards the subject-

matter of the legislation, their position is substantially the

same. By the process of classification, the State has the

power to determine who should be regarded as a class for

the purposes of legislation and in relation to a law enacted

on a particular subject. The classification to be valid,

however, must not be arbitrary but must be rational. It

must not only be based on some qualities or

characteristics which are to be found in all the persons

grouped together and not in others who are left out but

those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable

nexus or relation to the object of the legislation. In order to

pass the test,: two conditions have to be fulfilled, namely

(1) that the classification must be founded on an

intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are

grouped together from others, and (2) the differentia must 413

have a rational nexus or relation to the object sought to be

achieved by the legislation.

96. In the instant case, the question is, whether

the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and

does it have any rational nexus or relation to the object

sought to be achieved?

EQUALITY

97. The effect of impugned rules is, that all the

persons who are working on contract basis whose names

find place in the list appended to the said rules were

recruited to the services of the Government and posted as

Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers in the vacancies

which was prevailing on that date. The mode of

recruitment adopted is absorption/regularisation. It is

settled legal position that no person could be appointed

even on temporary or adoc basis without inviting

applications from all eligible candidates. The equality 414

clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such

appointment be made by an open advertisement as to

enable all eligible persons to compete on merit. However,

the said appointment, as is clear from the Government

Order as well as from the notification was only for a period

of 12 months. After expiry of the said 12 months period or

after the expiry of any extended period, the same would

come to an end. A contractual appointment comes to an

end at the end of the contract. It is also a term of the

contract as well as the law recruiting persons on contract

basis. Therefore, when such persons are recruited into

service on a permanent basis, again, the law should be

followed, i.e., all persons who are eligible for being

considered for appointment to the said post should be given

an opportunity by inviting applications. That is the

mandatory requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. If that procedure is not followed, such a

course violates the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the 415

Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are

eligible for the post, from being considered.

DISCRIMINATION

98. Now by virtue of the impugned rules, whether it

is called as a new appointment by way of absorption or

regularization, a class of engineers are excluded from

consideration. They are discriminated. Now by resorting to

the impugned Rules virtually recruitment/appointment is

made by way of absorption. It is per se illegal and

discriminatory as far as those engineers who had the

requisite merit and also experience. There is no intelligible

differentia to treat these contract engineers as a class by

themselves so as to exclude the other engineers who

possess requisite qualification from being appointed as

engineers in the State service. The condition stipulated in

the Government Order made it clear that the employment

on contract basis is for a period of one year. It is purely

temporary. The same may be cancelled or terminated at 416

any time without issuing any notice. The persons who are

appointed on contract basis are not entitled for permanent

appointment, absorption in service, retirement benefits,

yearly increments. They were required to give consent and

execute indemnity bond mentioning the aforesaid

conditions, which all of them have done. These contract

engineers, no doubt, form a class by themselves, a class of

unconstitutional appointees, persons who are recruited

contrary to law, a class of persons whose appointment is

illegal from the inception, a class of persons whose

appointment was declared as unconstitutional by

competent judicial forum, like the Tribunal. A class of

persons whose appointment was set aside by the Tribunal,

which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. A class of

persons whose appointment came to an end and to be

removed. Thus they form a class of persons whose

appointments were struck down on the ground that the

appointment contravenes the provisions of Article 16 of the

Constitution of India. They also form a class of persons 417

whose continuance was permitted by the Tribunal till the

State Government acts to erase unconstitutionality and

make proper appointments. They are in litigious

employment, which does not confer any right on them.

Therefore, when no right is conferred on them, when it is

expressly stated in the Government Order that they are not

entitled for absorption in service and also not entitled for

permanent appointment and the said appointment may be

cancelled or terminated at any time without hearing, notice,

they could not have been absorbed in service contrary to

the terms of their appointment. The State at the first

instance cannot create an artificial class, bypassing the law

and then contend that they form a class by themselves and

thereafter contend that equality clause contained in Article

14 of the Constitution is not applicable to them and they

have to be treated separately. If this modus operendi is

permitted, then Article 14 of the Constitution would be

rendered illusory. Then it would encourage the State to

nullify the constitutional scheme by flagrant violation of 418 Articles 14, 15 and 16, in the matter of public employment.

Then regularisation and absorption would become common

method of allowing back-door entries to be regularised. If

the initial appointment is bad, it cannot get sanctified at a

later stage by regularisation or absorption. A subsequent

action/development cannot validate an action which was

not lawful at its inception. The illegality strikes at the root

of the order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely

upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the

benefits. A right in law exists only when it has a lawful

origin. There is no nexus between classification and the

object sought to be achieved.

99. The object sought to be achieved by the

Absorption Rules is two fold. Firstly, to nullify the effect of

the order of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, which

had declared that the appointment of these engineers as

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

and consequent striking down of their appointment. 419

Secondly, to appoint the same engineers in the same post

in which they were working, thus perpetuating the

unconstitutionality in their appointment instead of erasing

the unconstitutionality in their appointment as directed by

the Tribunal in its earlier order. It is a legislative device

adopted to absorb into service who were appointed illegally.

A mode adopted to regularise the services of those persons

whose appointment from the inception is illegal. It is a

fraud on power. It is a case of colourable exercise of power

and fraud on Constitution.

100. Therefore, the classification is not founded on

an intelligible differentia. On the contrary it is arbitrary and

unconstitutional. Similarly, the object sought to be

achieved is to over come a binding decision of the Tribunal

and the Supreme Court. Rule making power is abused by

the State Government to achieve the aforesaid object. There

is no rational nexus or relation between the classification

and the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, these 420

impugned rules are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. The absorption is illegal and does not confer

any right on the persons absorbed to hold the post to which

they are absorbed.

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

101. A subordinate legislation does not carry the

same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute

passed by a competent legislature. In addition to the

grounds on which a statute could be challenged, a

subordinate legislation could be challenged on the ground

that it does not conform to the statute under which it is

made. It could also be challenged on the grounds that it is

arbitrary to some other statute, manifestly arbitrary and

also that the legislature never intended to make such

Rules. It is because the subordinate legislation must yield

to plenary legislation. If the subordinate legislation fails to

take into account the very vital facts which either expressly

or by necessary implication are required to be taken into 421

consideration by the statute or the Constitution then it can

be struck down on the ground that it does not conform to

the statutory or constitutional requirements or that it

offends Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is because

the power vested in the Government to make subordinate

legislation is a power which has got to be exercised in

public interest in a reasonable way in accordance with the

spirit of the Constitution.

102. The Chief Engineers of Water Resource

Development Organisation Committee, Asst. Engineers of

Irrigation Department issued notification dated 15.6.1991

inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of

Asst. Engineers for UKP under Karnataka State Civil

Services (Recruitment Committee) 1982 in consonance with

recruitment Rules 1973 and Irrigation Cadre and

Recruitment) rules published in 1989 and amended from

time to time. However, on the pretext that there is the

urgent need for filling up the large number of vacancies in 422

the Engineering Cadres in Upper Krishna Project, they

decided to cancel the process of recruitment of 300

Assistant Engineers already initiated by the Chief Assistant

Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation

through its Notification dated 18th June 1992. Thereafter,

the Government constituted a Recruitment Committee

through its Notification dated 19th October 1992. In

pursuance of it, the State Govt. by letter dated 22.7.1993

directed the Engineer in chief cum Ex.officio Special

Secretary, Irrigation Department to exercise the power

under Section 15 of the Karnataka Civil Service (General

Recruitment) Rules 1977 which provides for contract

appointment in certain contingencies, to make contract

appointments of 320 Asst. Engineers and 120 Junior

Engineers in UKP and that the process of such recruitment

be commenced by obtaining the list of candidates locally

from the employment exchanges. Engineer In-Chief and Ex-

Officio Special Secretary to the Government, Irrigation

Department issued a notification dated 23.11.1993 calling 423

for applications to fill up 320 Assistant Engineers in terms

of the Rule 15 of the KCSRs (General Recruitment) Rules

enclosing the statement showing the details of appointment

of Asst. Engineers for a period of one year.

103. The Government Order, the notification and the

appointments were challenged before the Tribunal. All of

them were set aside. A review petition filed to review the

said order came to be dismissed. The reason for setting

aside the said proceedings are, that it is contrary to the

existing Rules, it is unconstitutional and violative of Article

14 and 16 of the Constitution. All these order attained

finality.

104. The Tribunal in its discretion permitted the

continuance of the appointees till the State Government

acts to erase the unconstitutionality and make proper

appointments. They clarified that these appointees shall

continue the services till the State takes steps to make 424

proper recruitment or appoint in terms of this order. It is

thereafter the Government of Karnataka made the

Karnataka Public Works (Irrigation Service) (Recruitment of

Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers)(Special) Rules,

1998.

105. The said Rules were also challenged. It is

during the period of challenge to the said Rules, the

impugned Absorption Rules came to be passed, to absorb

into service the very same persons whose appointment was

struck down on the ground of the appointment being

unconstitutional and against the existing Rules. The State

has taken recourse to this sub-ordinate legislation with a

non obstante clause, to regularise the services of an

artificial class created by them, thus excluding again

persons who are eligible and similarly placed as that of the

absorbed employees from public employment. These

impugned rules run counter to the existing earlier rules as

well as Special Rules framed for the specific purpose. 425

NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE

106. The Government seems to think that by

invoking a non-obstante clause, their action would be

beyond judicial review. In so far as the use of non-obstante

clause to by-pass the existing law is concerned, the law on

the point is well settled. A clause beginning with a non-

obstante clause is sometimes appended to a section in the

beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the

section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the

provision or Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It

is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision or Act

mentioned in the non-obstante clause, the enactment

following it will have its full operation or that the provisions

embraced in the non-obstante clause will not be an

impediment for the operation of the enactment. Thus a

non-obstante clause may be used as a legislative device to

modify the ambit of the provision or law mentioned in the

non-obstante clause or to override it in specified 426

circumstances. Even though the non-obstante clause is a

very widely worded, its scope may be restricted by

construction having regard to the intention of the

Legislature gathered from the enacting clause or other

related provisions in the Act. This may be particularly so

when the non-obstante clause does not refer to any

particular provision which it intends to override but refers

to the provisions of the statute generally. But the wide

meaning of the non-obstante clause cannot be curtailed

when the use of wide language accords with the object of

the Act. However, the adoption of a non-obstante clause

would not give freedom to the legislature or to the rule

making authority to enact a law which is contrary to the

constitutional scheme and the statute governing the field.

If there is a law already governing the field, if that law is

inadequate or if that is causing any inconvenience in its

implementation, at the same time if the legislature do not

want to repeal the said law and they want to enact a law to

meet a particular situation to which the law in force is not 427

suitable, without repealing the law in force by invoking a

non-obstante clause they could enact a law which meets

the situation. But, the enacting law also should be in

accordance with the constitutional scheme. The said law

also could be attacked on all the grounds on which the

earlier law could be attacked. The only ground on which

the said law cannot be attacked is on the ground that the

said law is not inconsistent with the earlier law. If the

earlier law is constitutionally valid and if the law enacted

with a non-obstante clause is constitutionally invalid, the

very mode of invoking the non-obstante clause to over-ride

a law which is constitutionally valid would render that law

arbitrary and without any further proof the same is liable to

be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Viewed from that angle the law which govern the field was

in tune with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The

Absorption Rules are in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution. A non-obstante clause would not save

the impugned Rules from the vice of unconstitutionality. 428

Therefore, the impugned Rules are liable to be struck down

on that score.

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

107. Yet another reason given is, the circumstances

under which these appointments came to be made. When

the selection was made after obtaining names from

jurisdictional Employment Exchange and after following

reservation policy, the public interest warranted absorption

of these respondents as they had to complete the time

bound project. No regular employee was willing to work in

the project area. We have already pointed out that in the

statement of objections filed, the Government did not put

forth that case. It is the appointees who put forth the case.

It is from the material we find some observations that the

Engineers appointed in the Mysore State, were not willing

to work in UKP and therefore it necessitated this

recruitment. As pointed out earlier, absolutely there is no

material on record to substantiate this contention. We 429

repeat, if that was the reason, by issuing a paper

advertisement calling for applications through out the

Country, if persons from other areas were not willing to

work, they could have recruited very same persons in which

event, they would have complied with the Constitutional

requirement prescribed for satisfying the requirement of

Article 16. Therefore in our view, it is only a lame excuse

given to exclude other eligible candidates from competing

for the said posts. This aspect has been completely missed

by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took judicial notice of the

fact that due to hard summer and lack of basic amenities in

North Karnataka Districts like Gulbarga, Bidar, Bijapur,

Bellary and Raichur, a person staying in South Karnataka

would not be inclined to stay and work in those areas.

Either he would go on leave or get transferred and

ultimately the work would suffer. We do not understand

the basis for the Tribunal to take judicial notice as

aforesaid. It is only the imagination of the Tribunal.

Absolutely no material is placed on record in support of the 430

said plea. In fact, no such plea is taken in the statement of

objections filed by the State.

108. Yet another reason given by the Tribunal is,

under the impugned rules they have not regularised the

irregular appointment. They provide for absorption without

giving any benefit of past service for the purpose of pay,

seniority, selection and scale of pay. It is the case of

emergency recruitment and therefore it stands totally on a

different footing as compared to regular recruitment. They

have relied on the averments in the affidavit of the

Secretary to the Government pointing out the urgency.

Merely because the persons who are absorbed were not

given the past benefit, that would not take away the

unconstitutionality in their appointment. The appointment

which is illegal from the inception cannot be validated

retrospectively, is the law declared by the Apex Court and

the said finding recorded by the Tribunal runs counter to

the law declared by the Apex Court. Therefore, we are 431

afraid, on the said grounds, the unconstitutional

appointment cannot be upheld. If it is done, that is the end

of rule of law.

FUTILE WRITS

109. The last reason given by the Tribunal is, if the

Absorption Rules were held to be unconstitutional, the

applicants have sought for a writ of mandamus to consider

their case. Taking into consideration the age they have

mentioned in the causetitle to the application, with the

passage of time, all of them have become age barred.

Therefore no effective relief could be granted to them and

the Court will be issuing futile writ. If a litigant approaches

the Court, on the date he approaches the Court, he has

enforceable right. Merely because, the Courts take their

own time to decide the dispute and in the mean while they

get aged, in the end of the day, they cannot be told that

they are age barred, though they had made out a good case,

the Court is not extending any relief. If the applicants are 432

not to be blamed for this unfortunate situation, if they

possess requisite qualification, if they were eligible for being

selected to the post on the date they filed applications, the

proper course would be to grant them relief and direct the

Government to extend the benefit of age relaxation as even

the persons appointed would also be age barred. But the

Court is not powerless in this aspect. In the facts of this

case, to do complete justice between the parties, if the age

is coming in the way, as the Government has ample power

to relax the age, appropriate direction could be issued to

relax the age both to the applicants and to the respondents

who were party to the litigation, so that their claims could

be considered on merits and relief to which they are

legitimately entitled to is not denied to them on this

technical ground of age bar. Therefore, we do not see any

justification in the said reasoning of the Tribunal. 433

HUMAN PROBLEM

110. The Tribunal has held that in the present case,

not only a question of law but also a human problem

arises, inasmuch as the private respondents have served

the Department for nearly 17 years and if they are not

regularised and treated as regular servants, then they will

not be able to get themselves engaged anywhere else and at

the same time, their experience in implementation of

project works will be a great loss to the Government. In the

present case, selection was made after obtaining names

from the jurisdictional Employment Exchange and after

following the reservation policy. Public interest warranted

absorption of the private respondents as they had toiled

hard to complete the time bound and World Bank aided

project. If their appointment is to be set aside at this

juncture, they and their family would come to the street.

Therefore, their appointment should be not be disturbed.

This argument is also considered by the Apex Court in the

Constitution Bench judgment and they categorically 434

declared that, that cannot be aground for regularising

illegal appointment.

111. While dealing with the question of human problem

which the Court shall take note of, the Apex Court in the

aforesaid Umadevi's judgment held as under: -

"44. ..... the courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain -not at arm's length -since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be 435

creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible......

47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets employment as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees."

112. Further repelling the argument that the State

action in not regularising the employees was not fair/within

the framework of the rule of law compels the State to make 436

appointments as envisaged by the Constitution and in the

manner stipulated under the statutory provisions. In most

of these cases, no doubt, the employees had worked for

some length of time but this has also been brought about

the pendency of proceedings in tribunals and Courts

initiated at the instance of the employees. Moreover,

accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the

State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the

matter of public employment and that would be a negation

of the constitutional scheme adopted by us, the people of

India. It was further held, in a country like India where

there is so much poverty and unemployment and there is

no equality of bargaining power, the action of the State in

not making the employees permanent, would be violative of

Article 21 of the Constitution. But the very argument

indicates that there are so many waiting for employment

and an equal opportunity for competing for employment

and it is in that context that the Constitution as one of its

basic features, has included Articles 14, 16 and 309 so as 437

to ensure that public employment is given only in a fair and

equitable manner by giving all those who are qualified, an

opportunity to seek employment. In the guise of upholding

rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, a set of persons

cannot be preferred over a vast majority of people waiting

for an opportunity to compete for State employment. The

acceptance of the argument on behalf of the respondents

would really negate the rights of the others conferred by

Article 21 of the Constitution, assuming that we are in a

position to hold that the right to employment is also a right

coming within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution.

113. It is in this background, the argument of

human problem canvassed in this case requires to be

considered. The human problem is a creature of the State

by not following the very Rules which are framed by them

for the same persons. When the State bypasses the Rule

made by it and creates unwarranted human problem, they

cannot pass one more set of Rules which are arbitrary, 438

unconstitutional for the purpose of solving such human

problem. It is only a lame excuse, well thought of, to

perpetuate an illegality. By doing so the State wants to

create another mode of public employment which is not

provided for under our constitutional scheme and which in

fact is contrary to the constitutional scheme. In this regard

the State is ill advised. The State cannot be permitted to

indulge in such illegal acts under the cover of a legislative

device which is nothing but a colourable exercise of such

rule making power conferred. It runs counter to Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution. It is unconstitutional,

arbitrary. The human problem which is put forth is only a

shield to protect the said unconstitutional law from being

attacked. The Court can pierce through the curtains and if

the said argument is upheld, it only encourages the State to

bypass all constitutional requirement and the statutes

governing recruitment to the Government service. Such

conduct on the part of the Government cannot be

countenanced by the Courts.

439

FINAL CONCLUSION

114. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear the way the

Government of the day made appointments for the U.K.P

Project demonstrate that they have no respect for the

Constitution, the laws passed by the legislature and the

Special Rules passed by them. The Government has abused

its constitutional power conferred under Article 162 of the

Constitution of India to deprive meritorious and similarly

placed engineers in the State of Karnataka from seeking

public employment. They have also abused the rule making

power to deny equal opportunities in spite of the Special

Rules were framed to meet the contingency. The impugned

Rules are framed to set at naught a binding judicial

pronouncement which had the seal of the Apex Court. This

only shows the Government of the day thinks that they are

supreme. What they say is the law, Constitution and the

laws passed by the legislature are all sub-servient to their

whims and fancies. With impunity the order of the Tribunal

is breached. This is not what is expected of a Government 440

which is wedded to the rule of law, and which has to work

under the constitutional scheme. They have exercised their

power in contravention of the constitutional provisions in

an arbitrary, unreasonable, whimsical manner. This is not

what is expected of a responsible Government in a

democratic set up which is expected to treat all its subjects

alike.

115. In so far as the impugned order passed by the

Tribunal, it is devoid of any merit. It has extracted all the

judgments of the Supreme Court, which the parties have

relied on, without proper appreciation and application of

mind, has refused relief to the applicants. The Apex Court

in UMA DEVI's case, after declaring the law has

categorically held that the judgment of the Supreme Court

which are inconsistent with the said judgment ceases to be

binding precedent. This observation has not been noticed

by the Tribunal. If only it had noticed, it would not have

taken trouble of citing those decisions which have lost the 441

precedential value because of the Constitution Bench

judgment. The impugned Rules framed not only offends

Article 16(3) of the Constitution, it also offends Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution and offends the law declared by

the Apex Court. The impugned judgment runs counter to

its earlier judgment. The earlier judgment was not

interfered with by the Supreme Court and it has attained

finality. The said judgment is equally binding on the

Tribunal. The Absorption Rules were challenged on the

same grounds as the earlier Government order was

challenged. The Absorption Rules suffered from the same

vice as the Government Order also suffered. Unfortunately,

the Tribunal did not comprehend properly the real issues

involved in the case. In spite of the law declared by a

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court directly covering the

issues involved in the case, it chose to ignore the same on

the ground it is not applicable, which is not proper.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Hence, the Absorption Rules as well as the impugned order 442

of the Tribunal are set aside. Hence, we pass the

following:-

ORDER

1. All the writ petitions challenging the Karnataka State

Civil Services (Absorption of Assistant Engineers and

Junior Engineers appointed on contract basis and ad

hoc basis in the Water Resources Services) (Special)

Rules 2002, are allowed, setting aside the order

passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal

dated 9th April 2010 in Application No.3005/2003

and other connected matters.

2. The Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption of

Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers appointed

on contract basis and ad hoc basis in the Water

Resources Services ) (Special) Rules 2002, are

contrary to Article 16(3) as well as Article 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India as void ab initio, and

accordingly it is struck down.

443 3. The respondent shall initiate recruitment process to

the posts which were absorbed under the impugned

Absorption Rules forthwith and complete the same

within a period of six months from today and the

outer limit being one year from today. All the persons

absorbed/ appointed/regularised under the

impugned Rules are permitted to continue in service

till the appointments are made in pursuance of the

recruitment in terms of Karnataka Public Works

(Irrigation Services (Recruitment of Assistant

Engineers and Junior Engineers) (Special) Rules,

1998, within a period of one year, whichever is

earlier.

4. The eligibility for applying as against these vacancies

would be that all persons who possess the requisite

educational qualification as well as age as on

11.2.1999, the day on which the aforesaid special

rules came into force. Only those persons who 444

possess the requisite qualification as on 11.2.1999

shall be considered for filling up those vacancies

which have been filled up under the impugned

Absorption Rules.

Parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

rs/ckl/ksp/alb/sa/ujk/br

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free