Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Marthandappa S/o Ukkundappa Naikal, an Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), filed a writ petition challenging the seniority list of Executive Engineers (E1) published by the respondents. The petitioner contended that the seniority should be maintained on a state-wide basis rather than on a zonal basis, as the recruitment was done by the corporation at the state level. He argued that the adoption of zonal seniority was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, including the Director (Adm & HRD) of KPTCL and various other officers, defended the zonal seniority list, stating that recruitment was done zone-wise and seniority was always maintained zone-wise as per the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1997. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioner was recruited in the Gulbarga zone and his seniority was determined within that zone. The court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the recruitment process or the regulations, and had not demonstrated any mala fides or arbitrariness in the adoption of zonal seniority. The court held that the classification of employees into zones for seniority is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, and does not violate the right to equality. The writ petition was dismissed, and the seniority list was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Zonal Seniority - Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged the seniority list prepared on zonal basis, arguing that it should be state-wide. The court held that the adoption of zonal seniority is not arbitrary as it is based on the recruitment pattern and administrative convenience, and no fundamental right is violated. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Recruitment - Zonal Recruitment - Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1997 - The court noted that recruitment was done zone-wise and the seniority was maintained zone-wise, which is consistent with the regulations. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fides or arbitrariness. (Paras 5-8) C) Constitutional Law - Equality - Articles 14 and 16 - The court held that the classification of employees into zones for seniority is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, and does not violate the right to equality. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the adoption of zonal seniority instead of state-wide seniority for Executive Engineers in KPTCL is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The seniority list prepared on zonal basis is upheld.
Law Points
- Zonal seniority
- Service law
- Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
- Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations
- 1997
