1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.7119/2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. K PUSHPAVATI W/O B NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, MAPANA BHAVAN, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU -560052. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S. RAJENDRA, ADV. FOR SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI SUDHAKAR S B S/O BYRAPPA S R, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, INSPECTOR LEGAL METROLOGY, LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT LEGAL METROLOGY INSPECTORS OFFICE, RAJAJINAGAR SUB DIVISION, 2 NO.27, SUBHIKSHA, OPPOSITE BEST APARTMENT, BEML LAYOUT, 5TH STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU -560098 R/AT 1810, PRAVANAM, 25TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN ROAD, C BLOCK, D GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANDA KAVALU, NEAR AGASTHYA SCHOOL, BENGALURU- 560091. 2. THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY, GROUND FLLOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560001. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY MAPANA BHAVANA, NO.1, ALI ASGHAR ROAD, POST BOX NO.175, BENGALURU- 560052. 4. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY CIRCLE NO.4, NO.881/A, YASHODHARA BUILDING, I FLOOR, DR. MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU- 560079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4 SRI RAGHAVENDRA JOIS, ADV. FOR C/R1 SRI SATISH K., ADV. FOR PROPOSED R5-R14 ON IA 1/25 FOR IMPLEADING) 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO. 100 OF 2020 (ANNEXURE-C) AND II) GRANT SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 13.01.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 19.01.2023 in Application No.100/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), allowing respondent Nos.1 and 2’s application questioning the office order dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure-A1), placing 4 petitioner under additional charge of the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Second Division Assistant in the year 1987 in the department of Legal Metrology. Subsequently, the petitioner changed her cadre to the Manual Assistant in the year 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that the next promotional post of Manual Assistant is to the post/cadre of Inspectors of Weights and Measures. For promotion to the post of Inspector, one must have put in not less than five years of service in the cadre of Manual Assistant and must have passed SSLC or equivalent examination. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was qualified for consideration of her case for promotion to the cadre of Inspector. It is submitted that instead of promoting the petitioner to the cadre of Inspector, the 5 petitioner was placed to work in the post of Inspector under office order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the third respondent and was posted to Indiranagar, in terms of Rule 68 of the KCSRs. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 initially questioned the said office order in public interest litigation before this Court in W.P.No.6109/2022 and this Court by order dated 10.10.2022 dismissed the said writ petition observing that public interest litigation is not maintainable. 4. Thereafter, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal in Application No.100/2020 questioning the office order dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure-A1) placing the petitioner in the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology. The Tribunal under impugned order quashed the office order dated 31.12.2019 holding that the Inspector of Legal Metrology who do not fulfill the minimum educational qualifications prescribed under the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011 (for 6 short, ‘2011 Rules’) cannot exercise the powers of Legal Metrology Officers under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short, ‘2009 Act’). Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner who was respondent No.4 before the Tribunal is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.S.Rajendra for Sri.Vivek Holla, learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Learned counsel Sri.M.S.Rajendra for petitioner would contend that the petitioner was qualified and eligible for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology in terms of the prevailing Cadre and Recruitment Rules i.e., the Karnataka Weights and Measures Service (Recruitment) Rules, 7 1978 (for short, ‘1978 Rules’) and instead of promoting the petitioner as Inspector, she was only posted to discharge the duties of the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology. Further, learned counsel would submit that as the Cadre and Recruitment Rules was not amended in terms of the 2009 Act and 2011 Rules and as the petitioner is posted to work as Inspector of Legal Metrology, any qualification prescribed subsequently would not affect the petitioner. Further, it is contended that, in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules which prescribes qualification of minimum five years of service in the cadre of Manual Assistant with qualification of SSLC, the petitioner fulfills the same. 7. Further, learned counsel Sri.M.S.Rajendra for petitioner would submit that the vacancies for promotion shall be filled in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, which was in existence as on the 8 date of vacancy. Further, learned counsel would submit that respondent No.1 who is already in the cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology is not an aggrieved person and his promotional opportunity is not affected, as such, he has no locus to question placing the petitioner in-charge of the post of Inspector. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 1978 Rules was not amended till 2024 and only under notification dated 09.01.2024 the Cadre and Recruitment Rules were amended to incorporate the qualification as prescribed under the Act 2009 and Rules 2011 insofar as Inspector of Legal Metrology is concerned. Further, he submits that the petitioner is only placed in the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology 9 to discharge the duties of the said post and she is not regularly promoted substantively. 9. Learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for respondent No.1 would submit that the State failed to amend the Cadre and Recruitment Rules in terms of the Act and Rules which prescribes qualification for the Legal Metrology Officers. Further, he submits that the Act would define the Legal Metrology Officers which includes the Inspectors of Legal Metrology. A person who would not possess the qualification prescribed under the Act 2009 and Rules 2011 is disqualified to hold the post of Inspector. It is submitted that the petitioner, who only possesses SSLC qualification and who does not possess the qualification prescribed for the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology under the Act and Rules, cannot hold or discharge the duties and functions of the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology. 10 Thus, he would support the order passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1) Whether it would be mandatory to possess the qualification prescribed under the Act and Rules to discharge the functions of Legal Metrology Officers? 2) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference? 11. Answer to the above points would be in the affirmative and negative respectively, for the following reasons: The petitioner is holding the post of Manual Assistant substantively in the department of Legal Metrology. Under office order dated 31.12.2019 11 (Annexure-A1), the petitioner is posted to work as Inspector of Legal Metrology post at Indiranagar. The Inspector of Legal Metrology is a post which falls under the definition of Legal Metrology Officer as defined under the 2009 Act. Section 2(h) of the 2009 Act defines the Legal Metrology Officer, which reads as follows: “(h) “legal metrology officer” means Additional Director, Additional Controller, Joint Director, Joint Controller, Deputy Director, Deputy Controller, Assistant Director, Assistant Controller and Inspector appointed under sections 13 and 14.” 12. The ‘Inspector’ included in the definition of Legal Metrology Officers shall have to discharge the functions under 2009 Act as well as 2011 Rules. Sections 13 and 14 of 2009 Act deals with appointment and powers of Director, Controller in Legal Metrology Officers and appointment of 12 Controller, Legal Metrology Officers and other employees. Section 14(2) of the 2009 Act would state that the qualification of the Controller and Legal Metrology Officers appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall be such as may be prescribed. Rule 28 of 2011 Rules prescribes the qualifications of Legal Metrology Officers. Rule 28 of 2011 Rules prescribing qualifications of Legal Metrology Officers reads as follows: “28. Qualifications of Legal Metrology Officer. – (1) No person shall be appointed as Legal Metrology Officer unless he – (a) is a graduate of a recognized university in Science (with physics as one of the subjects), technology or engineering or holds a recognized diploma in engineering with three years professional experience; and (b) is able to speak, read and write the regional language of the State. 13 (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to officials who have been working as Legal Metrology Officer and are also eligible for promotion to the next higher grade of Legal Metrology Officer on the date of commencement of these rules. (3) The person appointed to the post of Legal Metrology Officer shall have to successfully complete the basic training course at the Indian Institute of Legal Metrology, Ranchi before his posting. (4) The Central Government may, in consideration of the practical difficulties faced by the State Government and on its recommendation, relax the qualification specified in sub-rule (1) for the post of legal Metrology Officers for the State.” 13. The Legal Metrology Officers in the State of Karnataka also discharges functions under the Karnataka Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1988 (for short, ‘1988 Rules’). 14 Rule 20 of 1988 Rules prescribes qualification of Inspectors which reads as follows: “20. Qualification of Inspectors. – (1) No person shall be appointed as Inspector unless he holds, a degree of a recognized University in Science (with Physics as one of the subjects) or technology or engineering or a recognized diploma in engineering. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to persons who have been working as Inspectors or are eligible for promotion as Inspectors before the commencement of these rules. (3) The person appointed to the post of Inspector shall have to complete the basic training course at the Indian Institute of Legal Metrology established by the Central Government under Section 76 of the Standards Act before he is considered for confirmation to the post.” 15 Both 2011 Rules and 1988 Rules prescribe identical qualification for Legal Metrology Officers as well as Inspectors. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 28 of 2011 Rules would submit that the petitioner was already placed to discharge the functions of Inspector of Legal Metrology and as she had become eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre of Inspector of Legal Metrology prior to 2011 Rules coming into force, the qualification prescribed under Sub-Rule(1) of Rule 28 would have no application. However, it is to be noticed that, the 1988 Rules also prescribed similar qualification and the petitioner had no qualification as prescribed under the 1988 Rules. A person who would not possess the requisite qualification prescribed under 2009 Act, 2011 Rules and 1988 Rules is disqualified to hold the post of Legal Metrology 16 Officers/Inspectors. A person who would not possess the prescribed qualification cannot be posted to hold a particular post, even for a day, that too without technical qualifications prescribed to hold such post. Though 1988 Rules, 2009 Act and 2011 Rules prescribe qualifications for the post of Legal Metrology Officers, the State Government failed to amend the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Department of Legal Metrology till January-2024. For more than 35 years, the State failed to amend the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of Legal Metrology Department and allowed the Officers to function as Legal Metrology Officers without possessing the qualification as prescribed under the 2009 Act or 2011 Rules or 1988 Rules. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision of STATE OF HARYANA VS. KRISHAN KUMAR reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 79, in a similar fact situation, arising out of challenge to similar Rules in State of Haryana and State of 17 Karnataka has reiterated that, where a Central enactment under the Concurrent List expressly occupies the field and confers exclusive regulatory power on the Centre, any inconsistent State Rule framed must yield and cannot prevail. The relevant extracts of KRISHAN KUMAR (supra) are reproduced hereunder: “35. Similarly, the Rules of 2013 have been framed by the State of Karnataka in exercise of the power under Section 3(1)(b) of KSCSA. These powers are general in nature and are to be exercised by the State Government to specify the different categories of posts in the different branches of public services of the State, specifying the total number, nature of posts in such categories and scale of pay admissible to them. This power may also be exercised for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such public service within the State. Thus, it can very well be inferred that the power of the State Government within the said statute is general in nature for recruitment in public employment in the state. However, the powers conferred under the D&C Act by a central legislation and in particular, for the appointment of DI/DCO, 18 prescribing qualifications shall prevail over the power exercised under the State enactment for public employment in general within the state. Xxxxxxxxx 44. It is therefore apposite to underscore the material distinction in the manner of framing of the two sets of Rules. While the Rules of 2013 trace their authority to a State enactment, the Drug Rules emanate from a central legislation enacted under the Concurrent List, wherein the central law, along with the Rules framed thereunder, constitutes the primary and dominant regulatory framework. Consequently, the Rules of 2013 cannot be construed so as to invalidate or prevail over the central Drug Rules. 45. Additionally, Section 33(2)(b) read with Section 33(2)(n) of the D&C Act confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the Central Government to frame rules for the purpose of appointment of Inspector. ‘Expressio unius est exclusio alterius’ means the “express mention of one thing excludes others.” This internal aid to statutory interpretation further reinforces the legislative intent that the power to prescribe qualifications and conditions for appointment of Inspectors vests exclusively with the 19 Central Government under the D&C Act. Once the Centre has consciously and expressly occupied the field by placing the Drug Rules framed under the D&C Act before both Houses of the Parliament as provided under Section 38, any inconsistent exercise of power by the State, even under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, stands impliedly excluded. 46. Reverting to the issue as raised regarding inconsistency between the laws made by the Parliament and the laws made by legislature of the State is also a point which requires consideration. As discussed, the power for appointment to the post of DI/DCO is co- extensive with the Central and State Governments, and they may assign the duties as they think fit. As analysed above, under the D&C Act, the power to prescribe the qualification of Inspectors is the domain of the Central Government. In the previous paragraphs, it is also said that the provisions of the D&C Act regarding power of the Central Government to prescribe the qualification has not been amended by the respective States. Since the subject matter is under Entry No. 19 by Concurrent List of List III, therefore, on the subject occupied by the Central 20 Legislation, the power of State legislation does not flow to the State on the subject so occupied.” (emphasis supplied) 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has no locus to challenge, as he is not an aggrieved person since he already holds the post of Inspector. Admittedly, the petitioner would not possess the qualification to hold the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology as prescribed under the 1988 Rules or 2011 Rules. When respondent No.1 has brought to the notice of the Tribunal or Court that a person who is not possessing qualification is holding the post, the Court or Tribunal cannot shut its eyes that too when that particular post requires discharge of statutory duties prescribed under the 2009 Act. Further, learned counsel contended that vacancy shall be filled up in terms of the Rules existed as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. 21 16. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. 17. If the petitioner still holds the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology, she shall be relieved forthwith and a person who possesses the requisite qualification in terms of the Act and Rules referred above shall be posted. Sd- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE NC. CT: bms