- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4267-DB WA No. 1692 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICER AND EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, HAVING OFFICE AT CENTRAL OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRESIDENT A. AMRUTHARAJ S/O LATE ANANDA RAJ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE (P/H)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. 3. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4267-DB WA No. 1692 of 2024 (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 (P/H); SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 (P/H)) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO: (A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P.NO.7775/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND; (B) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.7775/2020 ON 26.09.2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPEALLANT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The appeal is filed by the petitioner – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Officers and Employees Welfare Association against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.7775/2020. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the validity of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4267-DB WA No. 1692 of 2024 Rule 4(a) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP General Cadre and Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2018 (for short ‘the 2018 Rules). 2. The draft of the Rules 2018 was published by the State inviting objections. The petitioner/Association had objected to certain prohibitions particularly, Rule 4(a) of the Cadre and Recruitment of Officers and Employees, Rules 2018. However, the Government has notified the Rules. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Association submits that earlier the control of the Corporation was with the Commissioner, but now by amendment, the control would be with the State Government and even the appointing Authority in respect of the Group ‘A’ post is the Government. 4. The Learned Single Judge has considered the submissions and provided detailed discussion and has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4267-DB WA No. 1692 of 2024 held that Rule 4(a) is neither ultra vires to the provisions of Section 82, 84, 89 and 69 of the KMC Act nor the provisions of Rule 4(a) in violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioner or Employees of the Association. 5. The learned Single Judge has extracted the provisions of the BBMP Act and KMC Act. The learned Single Judge has held that the BBMP Act would not exclude the State's role in the appointment of certain posts particularly in relation to group ‘A’ officials. Under Sections 97 and 98 of the BBMP Act, outlying the specific provisions for appointments, we should not preclude the State from exercising control over significant appointments that would impact the functioning of Municipal Corporation. 6. It is also not in dispute that the rule making Authority is the State Government including rules for appointment of in services under the Corporation. If the Government by statutory prescription has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4267-DB WA No. 1692 of 2024 prescribed that the group ‘A’ officers shall be appointed in the urban local bodies including BBMP by the State Government, the same cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to any of the employees. Further, the rule making powers are vested with the State Government and the rules have been framed under such powers. Rules as held are not validly of any provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020, nor ultra vires the statutory rule. A statutory rule can be struck down only on the ground of ultra vires the provision or the Constitution. No such contention has been made that the Rules are in violation of any statutory prescription under which it has been made or violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has thus rightly dismissed the writ petition and we do not find any ground to interfere with the well-considered case of the learned Single Judge. We therefore, dismiss the writ appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4267-DB WA No. 1692 of 2024 All pending IAs stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15