S.G. Koragar vs The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner was officiating as a Traffic Controller. The same has been discontinued under impugned order at Annexure-K dated 12.1.1995. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the same and is seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent to consider his case for regular promotion to the post of Traffic Controller and other reliefs.

Petitioner was working as a Conductor in Bangalore Division of Respondents-Corporation. He was transferred to Hubli Division. In the provisional seniority list the name of the Petitioner was omitted. At his instance, the name was included at Sl. No. 1265. On the basis of the said seniority, the 2nd Respondent promoted him temporarily as Traffic Controller under Annexure-G dated 4.5.1994. He was discharging the duties as such until the same was discontinued under Annexure-K.

Counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents justifying the impugned order and reliance is placed on Circular No. 643, dated 3.3.1986 to contend that Petitioner has foregone his seniority in Bangalore Division since his transfer to Hubli Division was made at his request.

This Court granted interim order directing continuance of the Petitioner in the post of Traffic Controller and later the same was confirmed. The same was again confirmed in Writ Appeal. As a result of this, the Petitioner has been continuing in the same post.

The stand taken by the Respondents is that since the Petitioner has forgone his seniority in Bangalore Division consequent upon his transfer to Hubli Division on his request, he was not entitled to hold the post of Traffic Controller. The short point for consideration is, whether the Circular can be construed as part of Regulations applicable to the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation?

It is an admitted fact that there is no Regulation framed u/s 45 of the Road Transportation Corporation Act similar to Circular No. 643 upon which the Respondents have placed reliance to contend that the seniority of the Petitioner has gone on account of his transfer to other division at his request. The Circular cannot be construed as Regulation governing the service conditions of the Petitioner. There is no prior approval of the Government to the Circular. The Circular has no statutory force. Hence, the same cannot be used to affect the service conditions of the Petitioner.

The seniority of the Petitioner and the present post held by him is sought to be deprived relying upon the Circular in question. The same is arbitrary and unreasonable. Any clause forcing or compelling an employee to forego his seniority merely because of the transfer at his request, is bad in law. The service conditions of an employee cannot be altered automatically detrimental to his interest without imposing a penalty after conducting an enquiry. Viewed from this angle, the stand taken by the Respondents in the counter statement cannot be accepted.

The Petitioner has been continuing in the post. Reverting him to the lower post amounts to imposition of penalty. Such a thing is impermissible in the service jurisprudence without complying with the principles of natural justice as held by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1255 of 1991 dated 3.6.1991. Since the seniority of the Petitioner has been fixed after taking into consideration all relevant factors, the Respondents are estopped from contending that by inadvertance or over-sight or mistake his seniority was continued even after his transfer. As long as his seniority remains in the seniority list, he cannot be denied the present post. Respondents have not taken any steps or action to rectify the seniority of the Petitioner so far. In the circumstances, since the Petitioner has been continuing in the post of Traffic Controller, he cannot be disturbed at this juncture.

Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-K is hereby quashed.