- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 66565 OF 2012 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DARSHAN KUMAR S.M. S/O. MADE GOWDA S.D., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, A.E.(M) KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., (K.P.C.L.) BTPS, BELLARY. 2. ARVIND B.K. S/O. KRISHNE GOWDA B.S., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L. BTPS, BELLARY. 3. MARISWAMY S.K. S/O. KEMPUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 4. CHETAN KUMAR C. S/O. CHINNAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 5. SIDDESH I.S. S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, A.E. (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 6. PRADEEP V.G. GANGADHAR R. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 7. MANJUNATH N.K. S/O. LATE KARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.01 15:22:02 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 8. LAKSHMINARAYAN C.N. S/O. CHIKKASIDDANAIKA S. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 9. RAVI KUMAR D.J. S/O. JAGADESHAPPA D., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 10. S. MOHAN KRISHNA S/O. S.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 11. MALLIKARJUNA L. S/O. WADAPPA L. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 12. LOHITH K.P S/O. PARASURAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 13. MOULA SAA P. S/O. DEENASAB P. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, A.E.(M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 14. CHANDRAKANTH CHONDARI R. S/O. R. RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, A.E.(M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 15. MANJUNATH J. HUDED S/O. JAMBUNATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, A.E.(M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 16. K. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. KURUBARA SUGALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 17. RAJESHWARI A.R. D/O. RAJANNA A.R., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, A.E. (E) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 18. CHANNAKESHWA PRASAD S.M. S/O. MANJUNATH S.G., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 19. H.M. UMESH S/O. S.MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, A.E.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 20. T.G. SHIVAKUMR S/O. GURUNATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, A.E.E. (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 21. SOMASETTY HANUMANTHA S/O. SOMASETTY SESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, A.E. (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 22. HANAMANTHAGOUDA Y. PATIL S/O. YALLANGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, A.E.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 23. VINAYAK G. BHAT S/O. GANAPATI M. BHAT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, A.E.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 24. R. DATHA PRASAD S/O. C.S. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, A.E.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 25. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY V. S/O. VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 26. V.M. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 27. GAJANANA BHAT SOORI S/O. PRARAMESHWAR BHAT SOORI, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 28. SUNIL BAGALKOT S/O. SUSHILENDRA BAGALKOT, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 29. SHARANAPPA KAMATAR S/O. VEERAPPA KAMATAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L. BTPS, BELLARY. 30. D.M. SURESH S/O. P.D.MADI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 31. VENKATARAMU S/O. JAYARAMA SETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, KUDULKINNI. 32. PRASAD T.V. S/O. VENKATARAMANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., O/O. CETD, BANGALORE. 33. LINGAIAH H.N. S/O. NARASIMHAIAH AGE: 31 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L. BTPS, KUDATHINNI. 34. M.N. MAHALAKSHMI S/O. NARASIMHAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 35. POOJA B.K. D/O. SATHYA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, A.E (M) K.P.C.L. BTPS, KUDATHINI. 36. RAVEENDRA K.J. S/O. JAYAPRAKASH K.N., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, A.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, KUDATHINI. 37. SRINIVAS S. S/O. S.VENKATARAMANA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, A.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, KUDATHINI. 38. KASHINATH S. NAGARAJ S/O. SHANKRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, A.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, KUDATHINI. 39. SADANANDA S/O. PREMCHAND AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, A.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, KUDATHINI. 40. SMITHA KALE D/O. NARASIMHA KALE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, A.E (M) K.P.C.L. BTPS, BELLARY. 41. SHEELA A. NAREGAL D/O. ANDANAPPA NAREGAL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, A.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 42. BHARATHI K. D/O. APPARAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, A.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 43. D.S. RAJENDRA PRAKASH S/O. B.SRINIVASACHARY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, A.E.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 44. VENKOBA RAO S.G. S/O. S.M. GAJENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 45. BASAVARAJU N. S/O. NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 46. NIKHIL A.H. S/O. ASHOK K.H. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, A.E. (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 47. VIJAYALAKSHMI C.S. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 S/O. SEETHARAM C.R., AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, A.E. (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 48. G.K. PASUPATHI S/O. G.H. KARIYAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 49. SRI. B.R. SURESHA S/O. B. RAMAPPAK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L. BTPS, BELLARY. 50. P.G. JAYATEERTHA S/O. LATE GURURAJACHAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, A.E.E (M) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. 51. H.B. KULKARNI S/O. BABURAO AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, A.E.E (E) K.P.C.L., BTPS, BELLARY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.V.HIREMATH AND SRI. M.R.SHAILENDRA AND SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., RPTD BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO. 82, SHAKTHI BAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. MANJUNATH H. SONNADA AEE (M), OFFICE OF CE (C.O. & M), SHAKTHINAGAR RTPS, RAICHUR-584170. 3. K. HASEENA , AEE (E) OFFICE OF ECES, BHADRA HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577115. 4. SHIVA PRAKASH S AEE (M), OFFICE OF EE3, KUDITINI, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 BELLARY-583152. 5. RAJESHWARI N. AEE (M), OFFICE OF CE (C.O & M), SHAKTHINAGAR, RTPS, RAICHUR. 6. H. SUMA, AEE (M), OFFICE OF CE (T.D.), DG PLANT A PREMISES, S.N. HALLI POST, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064. 7. M. RAMESH, AE (M), OFFICE OF SE (E), ALAMATTI DAM POWER HOUSE POST, RAMPUR, SITIMANI-587207, BAGALKOT TALUK. 8. K. SHARADHA A.E. (M), OFFICE OF EE (CHP2), BTPS, KDITINI, BELLARY-583152. 9. T. DUSHANTH AEE (M), OFFICE OF CE (CO & M), SHAKTHNAGAR, RTPS, RAICHUR. 10. Y. RAVENDRA BHAT AEE (M), OFFICE OF SE (E), VARAHI, HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, HOSANGADI, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DIST. 11. S. HARI, AEE (M) OFFICE OF CE (CO & M), SHAKTHINAGAR, RTPS, RAICHUR-584170. 12. JAGADEISH S. KULKUMATAGI AEE (M), OFFICE OF CE (C, O & M) SHAKTHINAGAR, RTPS, RAICHUR. 13. SHIVAKUMAR PATIL AEE (M), OFFICE OF CE (C, O & M), SHAKTHINAGAR, RTPS, RAICHUR-584170. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 14. GIRISH A. HONGUNTIKAR AEE (M), OFFICE OF CE (C, O & M), SHAKTHINAGAR, RTPS, RAICHUR-584170. 15. K. HARISH, AEE (M), OFFICE OF SE (E), VARAHI HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, HOSANGADI-576282, KUNDAPUR TALUK, DIST: UDUPI. 16. AMRUTH RAO, AEE (M), OFFICE OF CE (C, O & M), SHAKTINAGAR, RTPS, RAICHUR-584170. 17. K.S. THOMAS AE (M), OFFICE OF SE (O) BTPS, KUDITINI, BELLARY-583152. 18. CHANNABASAVARAJ AEE (E), OFFICE OF CE (C,O & M), SHAKTHINAGAR, RTPS, RAICHUR-584170. 19. MARKANDDIAH HEREMAT AEE (E), OFFICE OF CE (C,O & M), SHAKTHINAGR, RTPS, RAICHUR-584170. 20. RAMANA, AEE (E), OFFICE OF CE (C,O & M), SHAKTHINAGR, RTPS, RAICHUR-584170. 21. ARUNA KUMARI S. AE (E), OFFICE OF SE (O) BTPS, KUDITINI, BELLARY-583152. 22. KUMAR RAMESH BABU AE (E), OFFICE OF EEE-CHP 2, BTPS, KUDITINI, BELLARY-583152. …RESPONDENTS - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 (BY SRI. N.M.HANSI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. VEERESH BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V.R.DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R15, R22) SMT.SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R13, R16, R19 & R20) (NOTICE TO R2 TO R5, R7 TO R10, R12 AND R14, R17, R18 AND R21 ARE SERVED) (NOTICE TO R11 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE PROMOTION RULES UNDER CHAPTER III- PROMOTION SCHEME OF THE KPCL SERVICES CADRE, RECRUITMENT, PROBATION AND PROMOTION AND SENIORITY RULES 1997 AS PER ANNEXURE-G IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS AT SERIAL NO.6, NOTE PROVIDING COUNTING OF 1/3RD OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE JUNIOR ENGINEERS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER FOR SENIORITY AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL; DECLARE THE ELEVATION SCHEME PROVIDING TRANSFER OF JUNIOR ENGINEERS WITH DEGREE QUALIFICATION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS WITHOUT INSISTING ON ANY MINIMUM PERIOD OF SERVICE IN THE CADRE OF JUNIOR ENGINEER AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL; DECLARE THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN APPOINTING ON TRANSFER OR UNDER ELEVATION SCHEME THE ASSISTANT ENGINEERS WITH B.E. (INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION) AND B.E. (AUTOMOBILES) CONTRARY TO THE RECRUITMENT RULES AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY; DIRECT BY THE ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHE APPROPRIATE WRIT OF DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY AS THE HOW EMPLOYEES WHO ARE IN SERVICE COULD OBTAIN ENGINEERING DEGREE IN REGULAR COURSE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION THEREON; DIRECT BY THE ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-DO THE SENIORTIY LIST AS PER THE DIRECTIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE PRAYERS AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: (a) Quash by issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction, as the case may be, the promotion rules under Chapter III- Promotion Scheme of the KPCL Services Cadre, Recruitment, Probation and Promotion and Seniority Rules 1997 as per Annexure-G in so far as it relates to the cadre of assistant engineers at serial No.6, note providing counting of 1/3rd of service rendered by the Junior Engineers prior to appointment as Assistant Engineer for seniority as being arbitrary and illegal; (b) Declare the elevation scheme providing transfer of Junior Engineers with degree qualification to the post of Assistant Engineers without insisting on any minimum period of service in the cadre of Junior Engineer as being arbitrary and illegal; (c) Declare the action of the Respondents in appointing on transfer or under elevation scheme the Assistant Engineers with B.E. (Industrial Production) and B.E. (Automobiles) contrary to the recruitment rules as illegal and arbitrary. (d) Direct by the issue of an appropriate order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of direction as the case may be directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry as the how employees who are - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 in service could obtain Engineering Degree in Regular Course and take appropriate action thereon. (e) Direct by the issue of an appropriate order in the nature of mandamus or any other order directing the respondents to re-do the seniority list as per the directions to be issued by this Hon'ble court after considering the above prayers and grant all consequential benefits. (f) Pass such other orders just and expedient in the circumstances of the case including the award of costs.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Upendra Patkar and Others Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., & others1, wherein it is held as under: “13. At the outset, this Court is called upon to consider the validity of the appointment by transfer by giving 1/3rd service weightage to the JEs, who were 1 W.P. No.11925/2012, disposed of on 04.12.2024 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 promoted as AEs. Similarly, the validity of the elevation scheme is also questioned. It is relevant to note that the scheme related to appointment by transfer, which was earlier introduced in the department of Public Works and which was adopted by the respondent No.1 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Narayanan and others, referred supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of K. Narayanan and others, referred supra, that “the appointment by transfer and making it operative from 1976 subject to availability of vacancy would result in a JE appointed in 1986 rolling back his date of appointment to the year 1976. Retrospectivity of rules is a camouflage for appointment of JEs from a back date. In our opinion, the rule operates viciously against all those AEs, who were appointed between 1976 to 1985”. Therefore, it was held that the retrospective operation of rules attempts to disturb a system, which is in existence for long. It held that granting weightage was upheld in Devi Prasad vs. Government of A.P. [1980 Supp. SCC 206]. It held that note (2) to the Amendment of 1985 should be read as providing eligibility only and the respondents therein were directed to prepare fresh gradation list in the light of the observations made by it. 14. In the instant case too, the respondent No.1 had adopted the PWD model and had granted promotion to JEs by transferring them and also granted them the weightage of past service. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Narayanan and others, referred supra, the respondent No.1 was bound to undo the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 notional date of entry of such JEs. Though the respondent No.1 issued a memo to implement the order passed in K. Narayanan and others, referred supra, nothing is placed on record to show that the said judgment was given effect to. 15. Likewise, in the case of P. Sudhakar Rao and others, referred supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that grant of retrospective seniority based on weightage of service should not go beyond the period when incumbent was not even born in the cadre. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case of inter se seniority between the supervisors upgraded as JEs on acquiring engineering degree and directly recruited degree holders. In that case, seniority of upgraded supervisors was fixed retrospectively with effect from notional date after giving weightage of past service. It held that such fixation of notional date without reference to existing vacancies and giving seniority from a date when a upgraded supervisor had not even acquired eligibility was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malatesh N. Kodliyava and others vs. State of Karnataka [W.P.No.12567/2020], directed the respondent No.1 to implement the Board orders dated 16.08.1996 and 27.12.1996 with effect from 26.07.1986 and not to grant further promotion till implementation of the Board orders dated 16.08.1996 and 27.12.1996. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 17. It is therefore, apparent that the respondent No.1 has not complied with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Narayanan and others and P. Sudhakar Rao and others, referred supra, in the matter of granting promotion by appointment by transfer and giving weightage to past service from a notional date i.e., even before such JEs were not even born in the cadre. 18. However, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1, a reading of the entire writ petition shows that there is not even a whisper as to how the petitioners are affected by the appointment by transfer and grant of weightage of past service. Nonetheless, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the respondent No.1 is bound to fall in line to ensure adherence to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Narayanan and others and P. Sudhakar Rao and others, referred supra. The respondent No.1 having taken a policy decision to comply with the judgment in K. Narayanan and others, referred supra, cannot be allowed sleep over the matter but is bound to give effect by considering past service only for the purpose of eligibility and also to ensure that the fixation of the deemed date is not from a date when the concerned employee was not even born in the cadre. 19. In so far as the elevation scheme is concerned, no doubt the respondent No.1 has come with its innovative scheme of upgrading employees, who secured higher qualification. This scheme does militate against the Recruitment Rules, 1997. The example No.1, referred - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 supra, provided by the petitioners in the writ petition, is though hypothetical but the elevation scheme shows that it covers all those employees, who at the time of their recruitment as JEs possessed graduate qualification. This apart, there is no stipulation of qualifying service in the post of JE before an employee is considered for elevation scheme. This means that a JE, who also possessed a bachelors degree in engineering could soon after declaration of his probation claim promotion to the post of AE through the elevation scheme. This would definitely lead to an anomalous situation in as much as a direct recruit to the post of AE may be placed below a JE, who also possesses a graduate qualification. The respondent No.1 being a model employer cannot apply the elevation scheme without prescribing a minimum qualifying period of service in the post of JE. 20. Therefore, in the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed off on the following terms: (i) The orders of appointment of the respondent No.2 to 22 as Assistant Engineers by appointment on transfer or by applying the elevation scheme, are not disturbed but are subject to the following: (a) The respondent No.1 shall forthwith review all promotions granted to the Junior Engineers by transfer as per its earlier policy in memo No.A1P1A/4367 dated 28.03.1987 in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 K. Narayanan and others and P. Sudhakar Rao and others, referred supra. (b) The appointments of the respondent Nos.2 to 22 and similarly situated personnel shall be reviewed and reconsidered by treating 1/3rd weightage of past service in the post of Junior Engineer for the limited purpose of eligibility and their notional date shall be subject to vacancies and shall not be given effect to from a date when they were not born in service. (c) For implementation of the elevation scheme, a Junior Engineer shall have a minimum qualifying service in the post before being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. (d) In all cases of appointment by transfer or under a ladder scheme, Junior Engineers promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers shall be placed below direct recruit assistant engineers based on their respective dates of entry into service. (e) The aforesaid exercise shall be done by the respondent No.1 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. (ii) The question whether appointment on transfer or under the elevation scheme given to Assistant Engineers with B.E. (Industrial Production) and B.E. (Automobile) is in violation of the Karnataka Power - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 Corporation Limited (Cadre, Recruitment, Probation, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1997 or not, is kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. (iii) Similarly, the legality of withdrawal of the elevation scheme with effect from 16.11.2021 is kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. (iv) Likewise, the constitutionality of the elevation scheme for the year 2021-22 is also kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. (v) The respondent No.1 is reserved liberty to take action against all those Assistant Engineers, who have availed the benefit of promotion by transfer or under the elevation scheme, if it is found that the bachelors degree obtained by them is not in accordance with law.” 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said order. Accordingly, this petition also stands disposed off on the following terms: (i) The orders of appointment of the respondent No.2 to 22 as Assistant Engineers by appointment on transfer or by applying the elevation scheme, are not disturbed but are subject to the following: - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 (a) The respondent No.1 shall forthwith review all promotions granted to the Junior Engineers by transfer as per its earlier policy in memo No.A1P1A/4367 dated 28.03.1987 in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Narayanan and others and P. Sudhakar Rao and others, referred supra. (b) The appointments of the respondent Nos.2 to 22 and similarly situated personnel shall be reviewed and reconsidered by treating 1/3rd weightage of past service in the post of Junior Engineer for the limited purpose of eligibility and their notional date shall be subject to vacancies and shall not be given effect to from a date when they were not born in service. (c) For implementation of the elevation scheme, a Junior Engineer shall have a minimum qualifying service in the post before being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. (d) In all cases of appointment by transfer or under a ladder scheme, Junior Engineers promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers shall be placed below direct recruit - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 assistant engineers based on their respective dates of entry into service. (e) The aforesaid exercise shall be done by the respondent No.1 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. (ii) The question whether appointment on transfer or under the elevation scheme given to Assistant Engineers with B.E. (Industrial Production) and B.E. (Automobile) is in violation of the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (Cadre, Recruitment, Probation, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1997 or not, is kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. (iii) Similarly, the legality of withdrawal of the elevation scheme with effect from 16.11.2021 is kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. (iv) Likewise, the constitutionality of the elevation scheme for the year 2021-22 is also kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. (v) The respondent No.1 is reserved liberty to take action against all those Assistant Engineers, who have availed - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10665 WP No. 66565 of 2012 the benefit of promotion by transfer or under the elevation scheme, if it is found that the bachelors degree obtained by them is not in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3