1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.26968/2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O CHENNABASAPPA CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GURMITKAL- 585214 H. NO.3-977/3, BASAVA NIVAS ATTAR COMPOUND GAZIPURA, JAGAT KALABURAGI- 585101. 2. ARUN KUMAR E N AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O NAGARAJAPPA E COMMITTEE SECRETARY AT CITY CORPORATION SHIVAMOGGA-577201 R/AT SINGRIHALLI VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK VIJAYANAGAR- 583137. 2 3. SMT. SHEELA BAI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS CHIEF OFFICER NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE AT SHAHABAD -585228 R/T PLOT NO.3, BHEEMNAGAR KAKADE CHOWK RING ROAD NEHRU GUNJ KALABURAGI- 585104. 4. SRI VINAYKUMAR HOLEPPAGOL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O SABAPPA CHIEF OFFICER, TMC BYADGI R/AT NO.1, DEVI APARTMENT, YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, VIDYAGIRI, CHARWAD-580004. 5. SRI BHARATH A AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O PUTTA NAIK A CHIEF OFFICER, TMC AT SHIKARIPURA R/AT 198, BHOJA RAM NILAYA, GUNDAGATTI ROAD, MACHIHALLI, DAVANAGERE-583 137. 6. SRI NAGARAJ KARIWALAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O KARIWALAPPA, CHIEF OFFICER, (I/C) KAPU R/AT BA PAMANAKALLUR, MANVI, RAICHUR-584 120. 7. NARASIMHA MURTHY P S/O POOJA BYLAIAH AGED 47 YEARS CHIEF OFFICER, BASETTAHALLI 3 TOWN PANCHAYAT BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT NO.76, JAYAPRASHANTH APARTMENT 2ND CROSS, VENKATAPPA LAYOUT SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU- 560094. 8. DODDAMALAVAIAH C AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O CHIKKA MALAVAIAH CHIEF OFFICER, DEVANAHALLI TMC, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, LALAGHATTA VILLAGE SPEED POST, CHENAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA, CHANNAPATNA-562 160. 9. VIJAYANANDINI M A AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS D/O ANJANEYA PROJECT COORDINATOR AT KMDS RAJAJINAGAR-560 010 R/AT C B NAGAR, SULIBELE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL-562 129. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA M S BUILDING BANGALORE- 560001 REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4 VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE -560001. 3. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE -560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO 5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/06/2023 IN APPLICATION NUMBER 3201-3210/2022 C/W APPLICATION NUMBER 3086-3123/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 14.07.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF 5 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2023 in Application Nos.3201-3210/2022 C/W Application Nos.3086-3123/2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) are before this Court in this writ petition, wherein, the petitioners have questioned the validity of the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 2022 (for short “2022 Rules”) notified under Notification dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure-A1) insofar as prescribing the method of recruitment to the post of Chief Officer Grade-I is concerned. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are working as Chief Officer Grade-II in the 3rd respondent-Directorate of Municipal Administration. The next promotional post from the 6 post of Chief Officer Grade-II is to the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-I. Under the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 1970 (for short “1970 Rules”) the method of recruitment to the post of Chief Officer Grade-I was, 66.66% by promotion from the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-II on seniority-cum-merit basis and 33.33% by direct recruitment. The method of recruitment to the post of Chief Officer Grade-II was, 66.66% by promotion from the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-III and 33.33% by direct recruitment. Under the amended 2022 Rules, the post of Chief Officer Grade-I is to be filled up as follows:- 25% by direct recruitment; 20% by promotion from the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-II ; 21% by selection from the cadre of Revenue Officers of Urban Local Bodies on the basis of seniority; 21% by selection from the cadre of Officer Managers of Urban Local Bodies; 10% by selection from the cadre 7 of Office Assistants of Corporations and 3% by selection from Manager Cadre of Directorate of Municipal Administration. The post of Chief Officer Grade-II under the amended 2022 Rules was to be filled up as follows:- 50% by direct recruitment; 10% by in-service direct recruitment from any cadre of Urban Local Bodies and 40% by selection from the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors of Urban Local Bodies. Aggrieved by the amendment brought in by 2022 Rules, the petitioners approached the Tribunal in the above stated applications, on various grounds inter alia, on reduction of chances of their promotions to the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-I. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order dismissed the applications placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.U.JOSHI v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2003)2 SCC 632, holding that, it is the prerogative of the Rule Making Authority to 8 create cadres, categories, abolition, etc. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Heard Sri.Mahesh Chowdhary, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents-State. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the petitioners’ service condition is altered to their disadvantage under the amended 2022 Rules. Learned counsel would submit that, as on the date of their appointment, service conditions of the petitioners were governed by 1970 Rules and under 1970 Rules, method of recruitment prescribed to the post of Chief Officer Grade-I was, 66.66% by promotion from the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-II which has been now 9 reduced to 20% under the 2022 Rules. Thus, learned counsel would submit that, since there is a drastic reduction in the chances of petitioners’ promotion to the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-I, the amendment is arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair to the petitioners who are working in the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-II. Further, learned counsel would submit that, the juniors of the petitioners in the other cadres to whom promotional opportunity is provided now, to the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-I would sit over the petitioners and petitioners shall have to work under their juniors. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that under the amended 2022 Rules, unequals have been provided promotional opportunity to the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-I. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that 2022 Rules is in violation of provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Prohibition of Absorption of the Services of 10 the Employees of Establishment in Public Sector into Public Service) Act, 2020 (for short “2020 Act”). Thus, it is submitted that the 2022 Rules are arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and hence, it is prayed for quashing the said Rules. 5. Per contra, learned AGA in support of the order of the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal by rightly placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.U.JOSHI (supra), dismissed the applications of the petitioners. Learned AGA would submit that, reduction in chances of promotion would not yield any right to the petitioners to challenge the 2022 Rules. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not deprived of their chances of promotion and that only a reduction of chances of promotion is not a ground to question the 2022 Rules. Thus, learned AGA would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to whether the impugned order under challenge passed by the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court. 7. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: The petitioners are working in the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-II in 3rd respondent-Directorate of Municipal Administration. The hierarchy of posts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition is as follows: Position Grade Municipal Commissioner Grade-I Municipal Commissioner Grade-II Chief Officer Grade-I Chief Officer Grade-II Revenue Officers N/A Officer Managers N/A Senior Health Inspectors N/A 12 8. Under the 1970 Rules, the method of recruitment to the post of Chief Officer Grade-I is as follows: Chief Officers Grade-I (i) 66 per cent by promotion from the Cadre of Chief Officers Grade-II on the basis of seniority-cum-merit; and For Promotion, Should have put in not less than three years of service in the cadre of Chief Officers Grade-II (ii)33 per cent by direct recruitment in accordance with the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Classes I and II Posts For Direct Recruitment Probation Two years Appointment by Competitive Examination Rules, 1966 9. Under the 2022 Rules, the method of recruitment to Chief Officer Grade-I was prescribed, which is as follows: 4 Chief Officer- Grade-I (Rs.40900- 78200) 145 (1)Twenty five percent by direct recruitment in accordance with the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted probationers (Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997; (2) Twenty percent by promotion from the cadre of Chief Officer-Grade II; (3) Twenty one percent by Selection from the cadre of Revenue Officers of Urban Local Bodies on the basis of seniority; (4) Twenty one percent by Selection from the cadre of Office Manager of Urban Local Bodies on the basis of seniority; For direct recruitment.- Must be a holder of Bachelor’s Degree from an University established by law. For promotion / By Selection from among officers of the Urban Local Bodies- (1) Minimum qualifying service for promotion.- Must have put in a service of not less than three years in the cadre of Chief Officer – Grade II; (2) Minimum qualifying service for Selection.- Must have put in a service of not less than three years in the cadre of Revenue Officer/ Office Manager of Urban Local Bodies/ Office Assistant of Corporations and Manager of Directorate of Municipal Administration; and 13 (5) Ten percent by Selection from the cadre of Office Assistant of Corporations on the basis of seniority; and (6) Three percent by Selection from Manager Cadre of Directorate of Municipal Administration on the basis of seniority. (3) Must be a holder of Bachelor Degree from an University established by law: Provided that, the above Educational qualification shall not be insisted for Chief Officer- Grade II/ Revenue Officers of Urban Local Bodies / Office Manager of Urban Local Bodies / Office Assistant of Corporation and Office Manager of Directorate of Municipal Administration, who have attained the age of fifty years on the date of commencement of these rules. Provided further that, the above educational qualification shall not be insisted for a period of five years from the date of commencement of these rules, so that the present incumbents in the cadre of chief officer- Grade II/ Revenue Officers of Urban Local Bodies/ Office Manager of Urban Local Bodies/ Office Assistant of Corporation and Office Manager of Directorate of Municipal Administration shall be provided with an opportunity to acquire Bachelor’s Degree required for promotion as Chief Officer Grade-I; Note: The seniority of Revenue Officers of Urban Local Bodies/ Office Manger of Urban Local Bodies/ Office Assistant of Corporation and Office Manager of Directorate of Municipal Administration shall be considered from the date of their Selection as one time measure. 10. Under the 1970 Rules, 66.66% of the post of Chief Officer Grade-I was to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Chief Officer Grade-II. But, under the 2022 Rules, the State has decided to reduce the percentage of promotion from the cadre of Chief 14 Officer Grade-II to Chief Officer Grade-I from 66.66% to 20% to make provision for promotion from other cadres such as, 21% to Revenue Officers of Urban Local Bodies, 21% to Office Managers of Urban Local Bodies; 10% to Office Assistants of Corporations and 3% to Managers of Directorate of Municipal Administration. A mere reduction of promotional opportunity is not a ground to interfere with the 2022 Rules. The petitioners are not deprived of promotional opportunities and they cannot complain or raise any grievance as such. The Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER v/s CHANDRAKANT ANANT KULKARNI AND OTHERS reported in (1981) 4 SCC 130, in an identical situation at paragraph 16 observed that “Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the 15 conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not. ……..”. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO AND OTHERS v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 727 also observed that “it is imperative to record that the chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service, and as such, mere alteration of chances of promotion, would not per se call for judicial interference.” 12. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to how the reduction of their promotional chances is arbitrary. A mere statement that their juniors in the other cadres would get promotion earlier and the petitioners shall have to work under them is not sufficient to say that the 2022 Rules are arbitrary. 16 The petitioners have failed to demonstrate arbitrariness. The contention that the juniors in other cadres would sit over the petitioners cannot be accepted. A particular post can be filled up by different channels. The settled position of law is that a person belonging to one channel cannot complain that a person promoted from the other channel is junior to him. One can claim seniority only in the cadre in which they are working. 13. The other contention urged by the petitioners is that the 2022 Rules are in violation of the 2020 Act. However, the petitioners have not demonstrated as to how the 2022 Rules are in violation of the 2020 Act. The 2020 Act prescribes prohibition of absorption of employees of the public sector enterprises into civil services. The petitioners have failed to point out as to who are the employees who are being absorbed in Civil Services that affects the service conditions of the petitioners. 17 14. The Tribunal rightly placing reliance on P.U.JOSHI (supra) dismissed the applications of the petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.U.JOSHI (supra) has held that question relating to the constitutionality, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. Further, it was observed in P.U. Joshi (Supra) that there is no right in any employee of the State to claim that the rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he enters service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge 18 the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. 15. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK CT: bms