- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3989 OF 2013 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 38413 OF 2013 (S-RES) IN WP No. 3989/2013: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ASHOK B. HUGAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI. BASAPPA B. HUGAR JUNIOR ENGINEER (M) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MSP)K KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED KADRA, KARWAR TALUK UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581396 2. SRI. SHRIDHAR N. BHAT AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O SRI M.N. BHAT JUNIOR ENGINEER (E) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-3 SE(E)K KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, KADRA, KARWAR TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581396 3. SRI. C.S. MANOHAR RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE B. SRINIVASA RAO JUNIOR ENGINEER (E) OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER D.G. PLANT KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 4. SRI. MAHADEVACHANDRA P. PANDARPUR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O SRI. PANDURANGA PANDARPUR Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 JUNIOR ENGINEER (M) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E)LPH KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED LINGANAMAKKI KARGAL POST, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST-577421 5. SRI. ANANTHA KRISHNA M.M. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O M. CHANDRASHEKAR MITHYANTHA JUNIOR ENGINEER (E) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E)V-1 KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED HOSANGADI, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576282. 6. SRI. MANJUNATHA P.K. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI. K. RAMA RADITHAYA JUNIOR ENGINEER (M) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E)V-1 KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED HOSANGADI, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DIST-576282. 7. SRI. GANGOOR SATHYAGNANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O SRI G. SREEPATHIACHARYA JUNIOR ENGINEER (E) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-BTPS PROJECT KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, KUDATHINI, BELLARY DIST-582152 8. SRI. SHANKAR MALLAPPA GADAGALI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI MALLAPPA B. GADAGALI JUNIOR ENGINEER (E) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, RAICHUR THERMAL POWER STATION, SHAKTHINAGAR, RAICHUR DIST-584170. 9. SRI. SHIVANANDA S.J AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI. S. JANARDHANAIAH, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 JUNIOR ENGINEER (M), OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (LT-2) KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, RAICHUR THERMAL POWER STATION, SHAKTINAGAR, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584170 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.M. BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NO.82, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR V. SAMBRANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION AS PER ANNEXURE-F DATED 24.02.2012 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 38413/2013 BETWEEN: SRI. MAHANTAGOWDA BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O SRI MADAVALAPPA BIRADAR JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, NO. 66/11, K.V. MUSS, ATTUR, YELANKHA, BANGALORE-560106. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.M. BABU, ADVOCATE) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 AND: THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION & H.R.D.) CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERI BHAVAN BANGALORE-560009 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SYED SHAHRUKH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER HIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEXURE-Q, COMMUNICATION DATED 26.05.1977, IN NO.F 18-19/75/T-2, FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECT.) (CIVIL), AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL AND MONETARY BENEFITS. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER W.P.No.3989-97/2013 is filed seeking for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the communication bearing No.A1.P1 C/6871, dated 24.02.2012 issued by the respondent, by which, it was held that the qualification possessed by petitioners was not equivalent to a Bachelors degree in Engineering. The petitioners have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to reconsider - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 their cases for the post of Assistant Engineers in accordance with the communication bearing No. F 18-19/75/T-2, dated 26.05.1977 issued by the Department of Technical Education, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare and grant all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.38413/2013 has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent therein to consider his case for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Civil) in accordance with communication bearing No. F 18-19/75/T-2, dated 26.05.1977 and grant all consequential benefits. 3. (i). In both these writ petitions, the petitioners were employed in the Indian Air Force in various activities such as tradesmen/instrument fitter/Engine Fitter/Electrical Fitter/Mechanical transport fitter/Missile Fitter/ MSFIT(E)/PMF(M). After they retired from the force, the Indian Air force granted them a diploma in Mechanical/ Electrical Engineering. The certificate of Diploma also mentioned that the Indian Air Force Trade is recognized as diploma in Mechanical Engineering/Electrical Engineering for recruitment to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 subordinate posts and services under the Central/State Government. It also stated that the Diploma with 10 years of technical experience in the appropriate field is recognized as equivalent to Degree in Engineering vide O.M. No.F-18- 19/75/T-2 dated 26.05.1977 by Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Department of Education) and is considered valid for the purpose of selection to gazetted posts and services under the Central/State Government. (ii). Later, after they retired from the post, they applied against a notification issued by the respondent for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineers and were accordingly recruited as either Junior Engineer (Mechanical) or Junior Engineer (Electrical). The petitioners contend that after they had worked as Junior Engineer Electrical/Mechanical for 10 years, they were deemed to possess an engineering degree as per the O.M. No.F-18-19/75/T-2 dated 26.05.1977 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare. (iii). The petitioners contend that as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the respondent Corporation, the qualification required for promotion by transfer to the post of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 Assistant Engineers, was a Degree in Engineering. Therefore, the petitioners contend that they were all entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineers. However, the respondent issued a communication stating that the petitioners in W.P.No.3989-97/2013 had failed to produce any documents from the Department of Technical Education, Government of Karnataka or Karnataka Public Service Commission that the Diploma that they possessed with 10 years experience is equivalent to a Bachelors Degree in Engineering. It was also stated that they failed to produce any document that they had worked for 10 or more years in the Indian Air Force and therefore, the Diploma qualification possessed by them cannot be treated as equivalent to a bachelors degree in Engineering and hence, were not entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in W.P.No.3989-97/2013 have filed the writ petition. 5. The petitioner in W.P.No.38413/2013 has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his case for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 transfer to the post of Assistant Engineer by applying the notification dated 26.05.1977 referred supra. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions invited the attention of the Court to the certificate/s issued by Indian Air Force, which indicates that the petitioners, were all employed in the Indian Air Force as Tradesmen. Since, the petitioners had completed the work of Tradesmen satisfactorily, the Indian Air Force granted them a certificate of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The certificate also stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare had issued O.M.No.F-18-19/75/T-2, dated 26.05.1977, recognizing such Diploma holders with 10 years of technical experience in the appropriate fields as equivalent to Degree in Engineering and that the said certificate was valid for the purpose of selection to Gazetted posts and services under the Central Government or the State Government. He therefore contends that the petitioners had all worked for more than 10 years after they were appointed as Junior Engineers and hence, they were deemed to possess an Engineering Degree and hence were entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineers. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 Therefore, he contends that the impugned order holding that the petitioners had failed to produce the documents to establish that they had put in 10 years of service in the Indian Air Force after they were conferred with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering/Electrical Engineering, is improper and falls foul of the notification issued by the Government of India. He therefore contends that the case of the petitioners has to be considered in the light of the official memorandum issued by the Government of India referred supra. He also contends that the petitioners in W.P.No.38413/2013 are entitled for the said benefit and their case be considered for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Engineers. 7. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent in both the writ petitions. Initially the respondent in W.P.No.3989-3997/2013 contended inter alia, that the petitioners had failed to produce the necessary certificate from the Government of Karnataka, Technical Education, that Diploma with 10 years of technical experience was equivalent to a Degree in Engineering. Hence, it was contended that the cases of the petitioners were not considered. Later, an additional statement of objections was filed, contending that - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 the official memorandum dated 26.05.1977 relied upon by the petitioners purportedly issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare was fictitious and that the same fell for consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No.26/2018. In the said proceeding, an affidavit was filed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Human Resources, who stated that there was no notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development on 26.05.1977 stating that the Diploma conferred by Indian Air Force with 10 years experience is equivalent to a bachelors degree in Engineering. It is therefore stated that the petitioners have relied upon a fictitious official memorandum to claim that 10 years with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering is equivalent to a Bachelors degree in Engineering. 8. The respondent in W.P.No.38413/2013 has also filed a detailed statement of objections and enclosed therewith an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No.16224/2016, wherein under similar circumstances, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had accepted the claim of the Union of India that there was no notification dated 26.05.1977 and the notification sought to be relied did not exist. Reference - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 is also made to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in LPA No.26/2018 and the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.591/2009, filed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.17974/2006. Therefore, it is contended by the respondent that the notification relied upon by the petitioners is fictitious and hence, the claim of the petitioners that they possessed the Bachelor of Engineering Degree on they putting in 10 years of service cannot be accepted. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent in both the writ petitions reiterated the above contentions and contended that the notification relied upon by the petitioners is not in existence but is fictitious and therefore, the petitioners did not possess an Engineering Degree. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 11. The petitioners were all employed as Junior Engineers (Mechanical)/(Electrical) by the respondent. The next promotional post was Assistant Engineer and those Junior - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 Engineers with 3 years Diploma qualification on they acquiring an Engineering Degree, were entitled to be transferred and promoted as Assistant Engineers. The petitioners claimed that they possessed a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering/Electrical Engineering from the Indian Air Force and the certificate issued by the Indian Air Force declared that if the petitioners had 10 years experience in the concerned field, the same is equivalent to a Bachelors Degree in Engineering as per the O.M.No.F-18- 19/75/T-2 dated 26.05.1977, issued by the Government of India. Thus, they contend that they have acquired an Engineering Degree and are entitled to be promoted. 12. The petitioners are rooting their claim based on a certificate issued by the Indian Air Force, A sample certificate reads as follows: ”INDIAN AIR FORCE CERTIFICATE Diploma in Mechanical Engineering 1. Certified that Ex.675530 sgt Ashok B Hugar who served in the Indian Air Force from 11 May 1982 to 31 May 2002 had undergone and successfully completed the prescribed training in Eng Fit trade and was employed in that trade till his discharge. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 2. Indian Air Force Trade Engine Fitter has been recognised as diploma in ”MECHANICAL ENGINEERING” for recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the Central Government vide Government of India Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Department of Education) OM No.F. 18-52/75-T-2/T-7 dated 22nd July 1977. Further, Diploma in Engineering in appropriate discipline plus total 10 years of technical experience in the appropriate fields is recognized as EQUIVALENT TO DEGREE IN ENGINEERING vide Govt. of India Ministry of Education and Social Welfare (Department of Education) OM No.F-18-19/75/T-2 dated 26th May 1977. It is considered valid for the purpose of selection of gazetted posts and services under the Central Govt. or State Govt". 13. The petitioners therefore contend that, after they put in 10 years of technical experience in the appropriate field, the Diploma in Engineering would be equivalent to Degree in Engineering and it is valid for the purpose of selection of the Gazzetted posts and services under the Central Government or the State Government. It could be that, the respondent and other government entities may have accepted this certificate from time to time and may have appointed several persons by transfer to the higher post. However, the respondent has now contended that the notification dated 26/05/1977 which is the basis of the claim of the petitioners itself, does not exist. This - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10924 WP No. 3989 of 2013 C/W WP No. 38413 of 2013 contention of the respondent was considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it was held that the Government of India had not issued any memorandum on 26.05.1977. The finding of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the question of now granting the benefit of equivalence to the petitioners based on the official memorandum referred supra does not arise. The claim of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the benefit of the notification dated 26.05.1977 is given to various employees by the State Government has no consequence as a mistake cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Therefore, on all grounds, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs. Consequently, both these petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42