BBMP Engineer-BJP leader tiff: Karnataka HC refuses to intervene in service matters

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Pradeep Singh Yerur disposed of the writ petition (WP 15780/2020) filed by Ramesh on September 7 in which he had challenged Prahallad’s promotion order of August 28, 2019, and another order of May 3, 2020, in which Prahallad was made in-charge of another two departments.

Supreme Court cited

The judges’ order, uploaded on September 25 and made available to media houses by Ramesh, reads: “It requires to be noticed that in service matters as such, the authoritative pronouncement of the apex court referred herein supra clearly mandates that in such matters the court should not entertain a PIL. it is no doubt true that the petitioner has made a valid attempt to highlight the illegality and irregularity committed by respondent No. 5 (Prahallad) and has sought action to be taken against him by submitting representations to respondents No.1 (Chief Secretary) and 2 (Additional Chief Secretary, UDD). So also, based on several attendant factors, the petitioner is seeking prayer in the writ petition, which would be outside the purview of the PIL. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and it stands rejected.”

The judges’ order continues: “Insofar, it would clearly indicate that petitioner has submitted representations dated 06.06.2020, pointing out illegalities committed by Prahallad as noted in the TVCC report and has requested the said authorities to withdraw the order of promotion and placing respondent No. 5 as in-charge of three departments, that too as Chief Engineer, and further in representation dated 15.06.2020, which is a reminder to respondents No. 1 and 2, under which the petitioner has sought rejection of the letter of the Commissioner, under which the Commissioner is said to have sought post-facto approval from the government to place respondent No. 5 as in-charge Chief Engineer of the Roads & Infrastructure Division, and the same will have to be exercised by the said authorities.”

However, the court has given another chance for the state government to consider Ramesh’s representations in which various allegations have been made.

“It is needless to state that if such a representation has been submitted by the petitioner to respondents No. 1 & 2, it requires to be considered by them in the manner known to law and expeditiously, at any rate within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, and subject to these observations and making it explicitly clear that the prayer related to service matters is not maintainable. But it is directed to respondents No 1 & 2 to consider the representation/complaint submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove and the same shall be considered and examined independently,” the order maintains.