AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The above matter comes up for preliminary hearing in ''B'' Group after notice to respondents. The Counsel for parties have been heard.
The petitioner''s case is that he joined the Corporation of the City of Bangalore on 13-2-1946 as Second Division Clerk and thereafter he was promoted to the next higher cadre of First Division Clerks belatedly in the month of December, 1961. It is necessary at this stage to pause, and to state on what date between 13-2-1946 and December, 1961, he was entitled to be promoted to the higher cadre of First Division Clerks has not been disclosed by the petitioner.
It is his complaint that before his promotion to the cadre of First Division Clerks in December 1961, many of his juniors in the cadre of Second Division Clerks had been promoted unjustly ignoring his superior claims on the ostensible ground that he had not passed the Departmental Tests prescribed for promotion.
It is contended for the petitioner that according to the Government Order No. GAD 38 SRR 61 dated 9th June, 1961, it was necessary for the respondent-Corporation to ignore the failure on the part of the petitioner to pass any tests for promotion to higher cadre. The said Government Order referred to above has been produced at Exhibit-A to the petition. On a perusal of the said order, it is clear that it does not extend to employees of the Corporation ipso facto. But, however, it is submitted from the Bar that the said order was adopted by the 1st respondent-Corporation.
Assuming for a moment that the said order conferred right upon the petitioner to claim promotions in spite of his not having passed the required Examination, such right accrued to him in the year 1961 and he ought to have enforced that right in appropriate proceedings before this Court within a reasonable time when the same had been ignored by the respondent-Corporation As enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR. 1974 SC. 2271, laches of this kind which has resulted in delay of nearly 14 years cannot now be set right or condoned. More so, when the Second Division Clerks who are said to have been promoted overlooking the superior claims of the petitioner, have enjoyed the promotional benefits for such a long period and they are not even parties to this writ petition.
It was next contended for the petitioner that the Corporation is bound to review all promotions made on 10-1-1974 by virtue of the Karnataka Services Examination Act, 1976, (Karnataka Act No. 40 of 1976). This contention has to be noticed only to be rejected. This Act is applicable to Government servants whose promotions have been sought to be reviewed on account of various conflicting decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court and has no application to Corporation servants who are not allottees within the meaning of that term as defined under the States Re-organisation Act, 1956.
For the above reasons, it is unnecessary to issue rule in this ease and the petition is dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.