Kum. S. Shylaja and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - he explained that there are good number of applications for appointment are pending with the chairman. 9. it is further submitted by the respondent 4 that the selection of 55 persons on contract basis is bad in law for the following reasons: (i) the appointments on contract basis were bad because the said appointments were made without any advertisement; he also submitted that the intrinsic evidence in the resolution annexure-c passed by the executive committee shows that the executive committee also totally abused the power conferred on it while making the appointment of the petitioners and therefore the said resolution at best could be considered only as making appointment on temporary basis only for a period of six months. the object of selection is to pick up the best material.....order1. though these petitions were posted for orders on the application filed by the respondents seeking modification of the interim order, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for hearing; and since the questions involved in these petitions are same and identical, all these petitions are taken up together for final hearing and disposed of by this common order.2. the petitioners, in these petitions, have prayed for quashing the order dated 23rd of april, 1999 passed by the managing director of the karnataka state warehousing corporation, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-g in writ petition nos. 15339 to 15364 of 1999;and for a further direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners as permanent employees of the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Though these petitions were posted for orders on the application filed by the respondents seeking modification of the interim order, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for hearing; and since the questions involved in these petitions are same and identical, all these petitions are taken up together for final hearing and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners, in these petitions, have prayed for quashing the order dated 23rd of April, 1999 passed by the Managing Director of the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G in Writ Petition Nos. 15339 to 15364 of 1999;and for a further direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners as permanent employees of the Karnataka Warehousing Corporation and to give parity of service conditions as given to other permanent employees of the Corporation.

3. The Karnataka Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has been established by the State of Karnataka in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 18 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 20 of the Act provides that general superintendence and management of the affairs of the Corporation shall vest in the Board of Directors. The Corporation, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 54(1) of the Agricultural Produce (Development and Warehousing) Corporations Act, 1956, had framed the Regulations known as 'Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1959' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations').

4. Few facts that may be relevant for the purpose of disposal of these petitions, may be stated as hereunder:

(a) The Executive Committee of the Corporation, in its meeting held on 6th of June, 1998, resolved to appoint 56 persons, referred to in the said resolution, in various categories of posts. Out of 56 persons, 2 persons were appointed as Assistant Engineers, 16 persons were appointed as Senior Clerks. 17 persons were appointed as Junior Clerks and 21 persons were appointed as Peon-cum-Watchmen. A sum of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 2,000/- were fixed as consolidated salary to the Assistant Engineers, Senior Clerks, Junior Clerks and Peon-cum-Watchmen respectively. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the resolution of the Executive Committee, which reads as hereunder:

'SUB No. 8: Filling up of vacant posts in the Corporation:

The subject was moved by Sri T.C. Nagaraju, Director, with the permission of the Chair.

Sri T.C. Nagaraju, Director, explained in detail that the subject of filling up of vacancies in the Corporation has already been discussed in the Board meeting held on 7-11-1997, vide subject No. 24(4) and the Board has resolved to obtain the Government permission to fill up the vacant posts and to take action for the recruitment to various vacant posts. The issue has been referred to Government and the same is pending with the Government. He further explained that the issue of filling up of vacant posts in the KSWC on contract basis has been discussed in the Board meeting held on 16-1-1998, wherein, it has been decided to request the Government to accord approval for filling up of PCWs/Junior Clerks/Typists/Stenos/Accountants/Computer Staff on temporary basis for a period of six months. He continued his discussions, stating that the subject of recruitment of personnel to the KSWC has been discussed in the Board meeting held on 7-4-1998, wherein, it was decided for requesting the Government to accord approval for recruitment. He further stated that apart from theabove said vacancies, there are also vacancies caused due to retirement/voluntary retirement/death cases of the KSWC staff in the recent years, which have not been filled-up.

Sri T.C. Nagaraju, Director, explained that in spite of the above position, no action has been taken by the Corporation to fill up the vacancies which has resulted in dislocation of the business of the Corporation and steep hindrance to the financial progress of the Corporation. He further stated that if we allow such omission to continue, it is almost impossible to manage the business of the Corporation and to prevent the Corporation from incurring financial loss in the current year. He explained that there are good number of applications for appointment are pending with the Chairman. Sri T.C. Nagaraju strongly urged that at least 50 PCWs, 50 Clerks, 5 Assistant Engineers, 10 Typists be immediately appointed from among the applicants who have applied to the Chairman, KSWC, without waiting further for the Government Order in the matter, as the G.O. is not warranted.

The MD explained the policy of the Government and urged to await the decision of the Government in the matter.

The Chairman explained that there is immediate need for filling-up of vacant posts in the interest of the business of the KSWC and also in the public interest. He opined that further postponing the issue may cause severe irreparable loss both to the business and financial progress of the Corporation.

Taking all aspects of the issue into consideration, it was resolved to appoint the following fifty-six persons to the service of the Corporation to the posts noted against their names:

Sl. No.

Nameof the person

Post to which appointed

Sriyuths

1.

S.S. Desai

AssistantEngineer

2.

B.S. Patil Kulkarni

- do -

3.

Ramesh Desai

Senior Clerk

4.

G. Narayana

-do-

5.

S. Shylaja

-do-

6.

Praveen S. Desai

-do-

7.

M.B. Hiregoudar

-do-

8.

M.S. Jalli

-do-

9.

R.S. Patil

-do-

10.

A.S. Haranala

-do-

11.

S.S. Hundral

-do-

12.

Maheshwara B. Muragouda

-do-

13.

Shivaputrappa Chandrappa Desai

-do-

14.

B.G. Desai

-do-

15.

Dadasab Peeragouda Patil

Senior Clerk

16.

S. Venkatesh

-do-

17.

Ravi Anna Rao Patil

Junior Clerk

18.

Smt. C.G. Prabha

-do-

19.

V.M. Karkall

-do-

20.

A.H. Rokkada Katti

-do-

21.

Prakash Shivappa Manahalli

-do-

22.

S.S. Patil

-do-

23.

C.N. Satheesha

-do-

24.

C.K. Gangadhara

-do-

25.

C.S. Mallikarjuna

-do-

26.

Prakash Basavannappa Agasimani

-do-

27.

N. Srinivas

-do-

28.

S.S. Nadagoudar

-do-

29.

H. Subramani

-do-

30.

Smt. Shamshad

-do-

31.

C.N. Patil

-do-

32.

S.M. Madikeshwar

-do-

33.

R.N. Patil

-do-

34.

Somashekar Chandappa Desai

Senior Clerk

35.

Maheshwar

-do-

36.

Govindaraju

Peon-cum-Watchman

37.

B. Seenappa

-do-

38.

R. Nagesh

-do-

39.

B.S. Hosahalli

-do-

40.

G.M. Matti

-do-

41.

Shivappa A. Giriammanavar

-do-

42.

Ram Bhahaddur

-do-

43.

Annagouda Bahaugouda Patil

-do-

44.

Bheemappa Chabanoor

-do-

45.

S.M. Matapathi

-do-

46.

H.A. Patil

-do-

47.

G.M. Jalapur

-do-

48.

P.Y. Madar

-do-

49.

Balappa Parappa Choudari

-do-

50.

S.G. Biradar

-do-

51.

M.G. Amblala

-do-

52.

S.S. Patil

-do-

53.

P.A. Biradar

-do-

54,

B.S. Biradar

-do-

55.

G.M. Choudari

-do-

56.

P. Somashekara Murthy

-do-

It was further resolved that a consolidated salary of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month shall be paid to the Assistant Engineers, Senior Clerks, Junior Clerks and Peon-cum-Watchman's respectively.

It was further resolved that appointment and posting order to the above persons shall be issued by the Managing Director, immediately.

Sd/- Sd/-(C.M. Eswara) (Shivaputrappa M. Desai)Managing Director Chairman'.Pursuant to the said resolution of the Executive Committee of the Corporation, the Managing Director of the Corporation issued appointment orders dated 6th of November, 1998 to all the 56 persons. Appointment orders issued to the petitioners specifically stated that they were appointed for a period of six months on contract basis subject to the terms and conditions set out in the appointment orders. It is useful to refer to one such appointment order issued to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15339 of 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D1, which reads as hereunder:

(b) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the appointment orders issued to them limiting their appointment for a period of six months and making their appointments as contractual appointments subject to the conditions mentioned therein, had filed appeals to the Chairman of the Corporation between 5th and 7th of January, 1999. The Chairman of the Corporation, by means of his order dated 22nd of April, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F to Writ Petition Nos. 15339 to 15364 of 1999, took the view that it was not permissible for the Managing Director of the Corporation to limit the appointment only for a period of six months and make them as contractual appointments subject to the terms and conditions set out in the orders of appointments issued to the petitioners. In the light of the said conclusion, the Chairman of the Corporation allowed the appeal and quashed condition Nos. (1), (4) and (7) in the appointment orders issued to each of the petitioners, which related to limiting their appointments for a period of six months and making them as contractual appointments. It is useful to extract the operative portion of the order made by the Chairman of the Corporation, which reads as hereunder:

'The appeal petitions are allowed. The words

included and the condition Nos. (1), (4) and (7), stipulated in the appointment orders dated 6-11-1998 issued to the appeal petitioners by the Managing Director, are hereby quashed'.

(c) However, the Managing Director of the Corporation, by means of his order dated 23rd of April, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G, notified that each of the petitioners, who was working on contractual basis, would be relieved from service with effect from the date notified in the said order. As it could be seen from the said order, the petitioners were to be relieved from service during the period between 8th of May, 1999 and 25th of May, 1999.

(d) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order Annexure-G, dated 23rd of April, 1999 passed by the Managing Director, notifying that each of the petitioners would be relieved from their duties with effect from the date notified in the said order, have presented these petitions before this Court, as stated by me earlier, seeking for quashing of the said order and also for a further direction to the respondents to treat them as permanent employees of the Corporation. This Court on 29th of April, 1999, granted an interim order in Writ Petition Nos. 15339 to 15364 of 1999, which reads as follows:

'The impugned O.M. dated 23-4-1999 passed by R-2 bearing No. KSWC. Admn. CR. No. 32/99-2000 (Annexure-G to the W.P.) be and the same is hereby stayed'.The interim order made in Writ Petition Nos. 15310 to 15318 of 1999 reads as under:'That the operation and implementation of the order dated 23-4-1999 bearing No. KSWC/ADM/CR/32/99-2000 issued by the respondent (Annexure-R to the W.P.) be and the same is hereby stayed insofar as it relates to the petitioners and to continue the petitioners in the posts held by them'.

5. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Subrahmanya Bhat and Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15310 to 15338 of 1999, strongly contended that since the petitioners were appointed by the Executive Committee of the Corporation as permanent employees of the Corporation, it was not permissible for the Managing Director of the Corporation to limit their appointment only for a period of six months and treat their appointments as contractual appointments subject to the terms and conditions set out in the order of appointment issued to each of the petitioners. They further contended that since the order of appointment issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation was in disregard of the resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the Corporation, the Chairman of the Corporation, in the absence of the Board, having exercised the power of the Board; and having nullified the conditions imposed by the Managing Director of the Corporation limiting the term of the appointments and making them as contractual appointments, it was not permissible for the Managing Director to pass the impugned order Annexure-G notifying that each of the petitioners would be relieved from their duties after the expiry of the term of six months. It is their submission that the order passed by the Chairman as per Annexure-F having become final, it is the imperative duty of the Managing Director of the Corporation to give effect to the said order. Sri K. Subba Rao relying upon Section 23 of the Act, further submitted that the Corporation is competent to make appointments as and when considered necessary for the efficient performance of its functioning.

6. However, Sri V. Lakshminarayan, learned Counsel appearing along with Sri Sangamesh G. Patil for the Corporation, strongly supported the action of the Corporation. Firstly, he submitted that since the appointments were not made in accordance with the Regulations, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to regularise the totally illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory action of the Executive Committee and the then Chairman of the Corporation. According to him, the appointment of the petitioners was a total abuse of power by the Executive Committee and also the then Chairman of the Corporation. Elaborating this submission, he pointed out that it was not permissible for the Executive Committee of the Corporation to make any appointment without notifying the vacancies available in the Corporation and giving wide publicity in leading newspapers and through local Employment Exchange and also without either holding personal interview or written test. In this connection, he drew my attention to Regulation 6 of the Regulations. It is his further submission that the resolution of the Executive Committee indicates that appointments were made purely on contract basis and it was for a period of six months; and hence,the Managing Director was fully justified in limiting the term of appointments to six months and making them as contractual appointments subject to the conditions set out in the appointment orders. Secondly, he submitted that the appointment of the petitioners made as per resolution Annexure-C of the Executive Committee and also of the order Annexure-F of the Chairman made, are vitiated on account of the personal bias of the then Chairman, Managing Director and two other members, namely, Sri T.C. Nagaraju and Sri V. Chennabasappa Murigeppa Pattanashetty, of the Corporation. In this connection, Sri Lakshminarayan pointed out that Sri S.S. Desai, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15664 of 1999, is the son of the then Chairman of the Corporation who participated and presided over the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Corporation. He further pointed out that one C.E. Maheshwara, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15344 of 1999, is the son of the then Managing Director of the Corporation and Kum. C.G. Prabha, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15343 of 1999, is the sister's daughter of the then Managing Director of the Corporation. He pointed out that both the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Corporation were vitally interested in passing resolution Annexure-C though the then Managing Director of the Corporation made to appear that he was not in favour of the appointments being made. In this connection, he drew my attention to the statements made in the statement of objections. It is useful to extract the statements made in paragraphs 6, 9 and 10, which read as hereunder:

'6. It is submitted by the respondent 4 that one of the Directors of the Board Sri T.C. Nagaraju and another Director Sri C.M. Pattanashetty, have submitted letters that the appointment shall be made out of these recommendation letters and rest of the names seems to have the choice of the Chairman. The applications are not available as the same have not been entered in the inward register. The entire original records, except the appointment orders and duty report, no individual applications are available in the Corporation. The respondent 4 submits that the basis for the purpose of contractual appointment were the two letters of the Directors Sri T.C. Nagaraj and Sri C.M. Pattanashetty.

9. It is further submitted by the respondent 4 that the selection of 55 persons on contract basis is bad in law for the following reasons:

(i) The appointments on contract basis were bad because the said appointments were made without any advertisement;

(ii) There are no applications available in the Corporation and the 55 persons have been selected based on the recommendation letters given by the two Board of Directors, Sri T.C. Nagaraju and Sri C.M. Pattanashetty.

(iii) The exercise of power is not in accordance with the law because when the resolution has been passed by the Board, the Chairman proceeded to appoint when the Executive Committee on 6-6-1998, wherein it was resolved to appoint 56 persons vitiatesthe principles of bias, as the Chairman and Managing Director were the Members of the Executive Committee, and in the said resolution the Chairman's son namely S.S. Desai, who is at Serial Number 1, has been appointed. The other person namely C.E. Maheshwar, son of the Ex-Managing Director, who is at Serial Number 35 has been appointed and Smt. C.G. Prabha, the sister's daughter of the Managing Director has been appointed, who is at Serial Number 18. Therefore the resolution dated 6-6-1998 is vitiated by the principles of bias.

(iv) The Chairman without the authority of law, when there being no emergency has invoked the power under Regulation 12, which has been annulled by the Board and therefore the appointments cannot be continued beyond six months.

10. The respondent 4 submits that in view of the continuance of the stay order and in view of the request made by the Counsel before this Hon'ble Court, the Managing Director has been advised by the Counsel to make payment of salary so long as the interim order is in force, and therefore the payments have been made upto February, 2000. The respondent 2 submits that as on today, the Corporation is not having any work at all and the Corporation is burdened to pay salary and the present work can be managed by the permanent employees. In case if any temporary/casual appointment is required, the Corporation would consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the law. The respondent 4 further submits that any appointment in future would be made strictly in accordance with the Mysore State Warehousing (Staff) Regulations, 1959, by giving wide publicity through leading newspaper and Employment Exchange and thereafter conducting interview, written test, the selection would be made in accordance with the law'.

Sri V. Lakshminarayan further submitted that as it could be seen from order Annexure-F, Sri S.S. Desai, the son of the then Chairman of the Corporation, and the aforesaid Sri C.E. Maheshwara and Kum. C.G. Prabha, the son and the niece (sister's daughter) of the then Managing Director of the Corporation, had also filed appeals challenging the appointment orders issued to them wherein their appointment was limited to six months and was made as contractual appointments. Therefore, Sri V. Lakshminarayan submitted that the entire action of the then Chairman and the then Managing Director of the Corporation is a collusive action though the then Managing Director of the Corporation gives an impression that he was not in favour of making appointments beyond six months. He submitted that order Annexure-F passed by the Chairman of the Corporation is also vitiated on account of the fact that the Chairman of the Corporation was personally interested in securing a permanent appointment to his son, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15364 of 1999; and therefore the resolution Annexure-C of the Executive Committee and the order Annexure-F passed by the Chairman ofthe Corporation being totally illegal and arbitrary, the petitioners who are beneficiaries of the said illegal orders, should not be permitted to seek for a declaration from this Court that their appointment is a permanent appointment in the Corporation. According to Sri V. Lakshminarayan, if the declaration sought for by the petitioners is granted, it would have the effect of this Court approving the arbitrary, unreasonable and mala fide action of the then Chairman and the then Managing Director of the Corporation. He also submitted that the intrinsic evidence in the resolution Annexure-C passed by the Executive Committee shows that the Executive Committee also totally abused the power conferred on it while making the appointment of the petitioners and therefore the said resolution at best could be considered only as making appointment on temporary basis only for a period of six months. Thirdly, he submitted that the decision to appoint the petitioners was taken by the Executive Committee as per resolution Annexure-C and thereafter, order Annexure-F came to be passed by the Chairman of the Corporation only with a view to show undue favour to the petitioners in total disregard of the Recruitment Rules and the power conferred on them. It is his submission that even for the purpose of temporary appointments, none of the petitioners had made any application to the Corporation, which is clear from the fact that there is no entry made in the register maintained by the Corporation. It is his submission that even for temporary appointment, it is not permissible for some of the Directors of the Corporation to receive applications privately and on that basis, proceed to make temporary appointments. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioners should not be allowed to take advantage of the resolution Annexure-C passed by the Executive Committee and the illegal order Annexure-F passed by the Chairman of the Corporation; and if it is done, it will seriously affect the rights of other eligible candidates guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India as they would be denied of an opportunity of their case being considered by the Corporation. Finally, he submitted that the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them for any relief at the hands of this Court. Elaborating this submission, Sri V. Lakshminarayan pointed out that the way in which the resolution came to be passed by the Executive Committee and the way in which the then Chairman of the Corporation, who was vitally interested in his son, who has joined the other petitioners in filing these petitions, passed order Annexure-F, would speak for itself that the entire decision of the Executive Committee and of the Chairman is vitiated on account of extraneous and irrelevant considerations. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the appointments of the petitioners made as per resolution Annexure-C and order Annexure-F being in total disregard of the regulations of the Corporation and also the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the petitioners should not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that would arise for consideration in these petitions, is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs sought for by them in these petitions?

8. Having elaborately heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and also having gone through the pleadings and also the records of the Corporation, which has been placed before me by Sri V. Lakshminarayan, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs sought for by them in these petitions for reasons more than one - firstly, on the ground that resolution Annexure-C passed by the Executive Committee is in disregard of the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Regulations and the mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the posts in question were not notified in leading newspapers and also through the local Employment Exchange for being filled up by the Corporation and the applications were not called for from the eligible candidates; and appointments were not made after conducting any test either written or oral or on the basis of the objective assessment regarding the suitability of the candidates for the posts to be filled up. Regulation 6 of the Regulations provides, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Corporation, that all posts available for appointment in the Corporation should be given wide publicity in the leading newspapers and through the local Employment Exchange. It further provides that appointments should be made either by personal interview or by conducting written test. It is useful to extract Regulation 6 of the Regulations, which reads as hereunder:

'6. All posts available for appointment shall be given wide publicity, through the leading newspapers and the local Employment Exchange.

(i) Appointments are to be made either by personal interviewor written test.

(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 7(i) the above procedure may be dispensed with, if suitable persons can be had on deputation from a State or Central Government or a Local Body. Such deputation shall, however, be for a period of not exceeding one year in the first instance'.

As noticed by me earlier, neither the applications were invited from eligible candidates nor any test either written or personal interview, was held. Regulation 6 of the Regulations is consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Equality of opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India includes the right guaranteed for being considered for appointment under the State services or under the services of the instrumentality of the State. It is not in dispute that the Corporation is an instrumentality of the State. Under these circumstances, it is not permissible for the Corporation to make any permanent appointment without notifying the vacancies and calling for applications and making selection of suitable persons from among the eligible candidates. It is also necessary to point out that opportunity is required to be given to all eligible candidates not only from the point of view of protecting the rights guaranteed to themunder Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and also in terms of Regulation 6 of the Regulations, but also in the interest of the Corporation. The object of selection is to pick up the best material among the available candidates who will serve the Corporation best. If the appointment of the petitioners which, from the stand taken by the Corporation and also from the records, amply demonstrates is a clandestine appointment, is allowed to stand, it will not only affect the rights of other eligible candidates who are entitled for being considered for appointment, but also the interest of the public at large. Therefore, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue an order or direction to approve the illegal actions of the then Executive Committee and the Chairman of the Corporation. Secondly, the appointment of the petitioners is also vitiated on account of the bias of the

Chairman, Managing Director and two of the Directors of the Corporation, namely, Sri T.C. Nagaraju and Sri Chennabasappa Murigeppa Pattanashetty. It is necessary to point out that Sri T.C. Nagaraju was also one of the members of the Executive Committee, who participated in the proceedings of the Executive Committee along with the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation. It is the case of the Corporation that none of the petitioners had filed applications to the Corporation seeking appointment, In the records produced before me also, I did not find applications submitted by the petitioners. On the other hand, letter dated 5th of June, 1998 addressed by Sri T.C. Nagaraju and letter dated 6th of June, 1998 addressed by Sri Chennabasappa Murigeppa Pattanashetty, who are Directors of the Corporation, to the Chairman of the Corporation requesting him to make appointment of 14 persons referred to by each of them, clearly show that they were interested in the appointments of the said persons. The letter of Sri T.C. Nagaraju reads as hereunder:

The letter of Sri Chennabasappa Murigeppa Pattanashetty reads as hereunder:

The proceedings of the Executive Committee Annexure-C also shows that Sri T.C. Nagaraju was one of the active participants in the proceedings and he was keen in making the appointments in the Corporation though the Government had not accepted the proposal made by the Corporation for appointment. Order dated 8th of July, 1998 made in No. KSWC:Admn-3:CR- 167/5053-91 found at page 49 of the records placed before me, shows that the appointment of 38 persons referred to in the said order, made for a period of six months by means of order dated 4th of July, 1998, came to be cancelled. On the same day, the then Managing Director of the Corporation had addressed a letter dated 8th of July, 1998 in No. Vya. Ni/KSWC/Admn-3:CR 167/5094/97-99 to the Government of Karnataka informing the Government that the appointment of 38 persons made on 4th of July, 1998 was cancelled. It is useful to extract the said letter, which reads as hereunder:

Further, letter dated 4th of July, 1998 shows that the Government had rejected the proposal to make any appointment in the Corporation. However, the Government of Karnataka, by means of communication dated 30th of October, 1998, while referring to the earlier direction given by the Government rejecting the request of the Corporation to make temporary appointments, had approved the appointment of 56 persons made by the Executive Committee only for a period of six months. It is useful to refer to the said letter which reads as hereunder:

The operative portion of the Government Order referred to above, would clearly show that the Government had approved the appointment of 56 persons only for a period of six months on the pressure brought by the then Chairman and the Managing Director of the Corporation on the ground that to carry out the activities of the Corporation, necessary appointments will have to be made. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Sri V. Lakshminarayan, the materials on record would clearly show that the then Chairman, the then Managing Director and two of the Directors of the Corporation were vitally interested in making the appointments in question. Insofar as the Chairman and the Managing Director are concerned, the reason is obvious. The Chairman was interested in the appointment of his son the aforesaid S.S. Desai, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15364 of 1999, and the then Managing Director was interested in the appointment of his son and niece, who are petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15344 of 1999 and 15343 of 1999. The letters written by Sri T.C. Nagaraju and Sri Pattanashetty recommending the names of the candidates in whom they were interested, are bald with regard to the academic and other qualifications of the candidates. It is not known on what basis they had recommended for the appointment of 28 persons referred to by them. The records also does not disclose as to on what basis, the names of the son of the Chairman and the son and the niece of the Managing Director came to up for consideration. The procedure adopted by the Executive Committee depicts a disturbing feature in the functioning of the Executive Committee of the Corporation. When the Chairman, Managing Director and a member of the Executive Committee who is a Director of the Corporation, were personally interested in the appointment of their close relatives and others, it was not permissible for them to participate in the proceedings of the Executive Committee. It was also not permissible for the Chairman to pass order Annexure-F. Therefore, in my view, the decision of the Executive Committee taken to appoint the petitioners and also the order Annexure-F passed by the then Chairman of the Corporation, are totally illegal, void in law and unenforceable as being vitiated on the ground of bias of the persons referred to above. In my view, the action of the persons, referred to above, is a total mala fide exercise of power. They, while making the appointments in question, totally misused the power conferred on them under the Act and the Regulations. The petitioners cannot derive any right on the basis of such illegal orders. At any event of the matter, the petitioners cannot seek for a direction from this Court to approve the illegal actions of the Executive Committee and also the Chairman of the Corporation. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, will not issue any direction or order which would have the effect of violating any statutory provision or the provisions of the Constitution. If the relief sought for by the petitioners is granted, in my considered view, it would result not only in violation of the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Regulations and also Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, but also result in approval of totally mala fide actions of the Chairman, the Managing Director and aforesaid member of the Executive Committee. In my view, such a thing cannot be permitted by this Court. When it is the prime duty of this Court to uphold the rule of law and to reach the illegalities wherever it is committed, and set right the illegalities, the Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot shut its eyes and put its seal of approval to the highly arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and interested decisions of the Executive Committee and the Chairman of the Corporation. Thirdly, as it can be seen from the resolution of the Executive Committee, it appears to me that the decision of the Executive Committee was only to make contractual appointments for six months. This is clear from the statement made by one Sri T.C. Nagaraju, the Director of the Corporation, wherein he has stated that 'the subject of filling up of vacancies in the Corporation has already been discussed in the Board meeting held on 7-11-1997, vide subject No. 24(4) and the Board has resolved to obtain the Government permission to fill up the vacant posts and to take action for the recruitment to various vacant posts. The issue has been referred to Government and the same is pending with the Government. He further explained that the issue of filling up of vacant posts in the KSWC on Contract Basis has been discussed in the Board meeting held on 16-1-1998, wherein, it has been decided to request the Government to accord approval for filling up of PCWs/Junior Clerks/Typists/Stenos/Accountants/Computer Staff on Temporary Basis for a period of six months. He continued his discussions, stating that the subject of recruitment of personnel to the KSWC has been discussed in the Board meeting held on 7-4-1998, wherein, it was decided for requesting the Government to accord approval for recruitment. He further stated that apart from the above said vacancies, there are also vacancies caused due to retirement/voluntary retirement/death cases of the KSWC Staff in the recent years, which have not been filled up'. Therefore, when the Regulation of the Corporation provides for recruitment only by calling for applications and giving wide publicity of the proposal to fill up thevacancies and after conducting either written test or personal interview, it is not possible to infer that the Executive Committee of the Corporation, however much some of the members of the Executive Committee of the Corporation were interested in getting their own persons appointed, would in total disregard of the mandate of the Regulations and also the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, proceed to make permanent appointments. Under these circumstances, the only way the resolution of the Executive Committee is to be understood is that the Executive Committee proceeded to make appointments only for a period of six months and purely on contractual basis. Therefore, in that background, if the Managing Director issued appointment orders to the candidates appointed pursuant to the resolution passed by the Executive Committee limiting the appointments only for a period of six months and making them as contractual appointments and subject to the conditions mentioned in the appointment orders, the said action of the Managing Director is unexceptionable and not liable to be nullified by the then Chairman of the Corporation as he has done in order Annexure-F. Fourthly, insofar as the reliance placed by the Counsel for the petitioners on Annexure-F passed by the Chairman in support of their prayer is concerned, it is necessary to point out that Counsel for the petitioners have not placed any provision of law on the basis of which the Chairman of the Corporation could have exercised the appellate power against the decision of the Managing Director. From order Annexure-F, it appears to me that the Chairman of the Corporation has proceeded to make order Annexure-F on the basis of the representation given by the petitioners. Regulation 12 of the Regulations, in my view, does not confer power on the Chairman of the Corporation in a matter like this. It is useful to extract Regulation 12 of the Regulations, which reads as hereunder:

'12. Powers of the Chairman in an Emergency.--In matters calling for emergent action, the Chairman may pass any order or perform any act within the competence of the Board of Directors; provided that any orders passed under this provision, shall be placed for confirmation before the next meeting of the Board of Directors, or of the Executive Committee, whichever is earlier'.

As it can be seen from Regulation 12, the Chairman of the Corporation, only in case of emergency, may make such an order or perform any act, which is within the competence of the Board of Directors. The validity of the appointment order issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, in my view, which is consistent with the decision of the Executive Committee, did not call for any emergent action on the part of the then Chairman of the Corporation. Even if the decision of the Managing Director was contrary to the decision of the Executive Committee, it did not call for any emergent action. As it can be seen from order Annexure-F, 'appeal petitions were presented on 5th, 6th and 7th of January, 1999'. He had passed the order on 22nd of April, 1999. Therefore, the power exercised for passing order Annexure-F, cannot be traced to the power conferred on the Chairman of the Corporation under Regulation12. Further, as it could be seen from Regulation 12 of the Regulations, referred to above, the Chairman of the Corporation can make an order calling for emergent action in respect of the matters where decision has not been taken either by the Board or Executive Committee. This is clear from the fact that Regulation 12 requires the Chairman to place the order passed or action taken by him, before the next meeting of the Board of Directors or the Executive Committee, for approval. Therefore, in the instant case, since the decision had already been taken by the Executive Committee with regard to the appointment of the petitioners, the Chairman of the Corporation could not have passed the impugned order Annexure-F after nearly more than three months from the date of presentation of the appeal petitions. It is also necessary to point out that it is the case of the respondents that one of the Directors of the Board, who is the Deputy Secretary of the Co-operation Department, Government of Karnataka, in the meeting of the Board held on 9th of December, 1999, raised objections regarding the lapse on the part of the Managing Director in not placing the subject before the Board about the order passed by the Chairman as per Annexure-F; and subsequently, the Board, in its meeting held on 13th of March, 2000, took a decision that the action taken by the then Chairman of the Board was not acceptable. Therefore, it is clear, as observed by me earlier, that the action of the Chairman of the Corporation in passing order Annexure-F is also not approved by the Board, apart from the fact that the said order is totally illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law. It is needless to observe that power is conferred on public authorities for the purpose of public good and is required to be exercised for the purpose for which the power is conferred; and it is not intended to be exercised to violate the mandatory provisions of the Staff Recruitment Rules and the mandate of the constitutional provisions provided under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to rely upon order Annexure-F and on that basis, seek for quashing of the order Annexure-G and for a declaration that they should be treated as permanent employees of the Corporation at the hands of this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As observed by me earlier, the petitioners, who are the beneficiaries of a totally illegal order, cannot be permitted to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of this Court to approve such an illegal order; and such an order, if allowed to be implemented, would go against the public interest and also in the interest of several other eligible candidates who are entitled to be considered for employment in the service of the Corporation. It is difficult to believe that the impugned order Annexure-F came to be emanated without there being any provocation by the petitioners for the said order. Fifthly, as observed by me earlier, there are no applications submitted by the petitioners in the file of the Corporation seeking appointment. The academic and other qualifications of the petitioners to hold the posts to which they are appointed, is not available on record. The proceedings of the Executive Committee and the order passed by the Chairman does not disclose that the petitioners are eligible to hold the posts to which they are appointed. The proceedings also does not disclose that the petitioners are suitable to be appointed to the posts held by them even on temporary basis. There is no material on record to show that the case of the petitioners or their suitability was considered by the Executive Committee of the Corporation on the basis of any objective assessment or test held by the Executive Committee. Even in respect of temporary appointments, if the appointments are required to be made, the Corporation could have proceeded to make such appointments only from amongst the candidates who are qualified to hold the post. Therefore, even on this ground also, the appointments of the petitioners cannot be sustained. Finally, it cannot be disputed that the Roster regarding reservation fixed by the Government as provided under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, is required to be followed by the Corporation while making appointments. The proceedings of the Executive Committee and the order of the Chairman also do not indicate that while appointing the petitioners, the Roster regarding reservation fixed by the Government was followed. All these factors indicate that the appointments of the petitioners were made in total disregard of the Recruitment Rules and the mandate of the constitutional provisions. Therefore, on this ground also, the relief sought for by the petitioners is liable to be rejected.

9. However, it is necessary to point out that the wealth of the country which includes the right to share employment in the State service or its instrumentalities, is required to be shared by every citizen of this country subject to the terms and conditions governing the Recruitment Rules and the constitutional provisions. The position of the Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors who are entrusted with the management of the Corporation, is akin to the position of Trustees who are entrusted with the management of Trust properties. In the course of discharge of their duties, they are required to keep the interest of the Institution and public interest uppermost in their mind. The employment opportunities in a Corporation like the first respondent, is not intended to be for distribution of the largess by the persons in management of the Corporation to their kith and kins or their associates or henchmen. It is intended to be made available to all those who are eligible to be appointed to the post. The way in which the appointment of the petitioners came to be made even for a period of six months, would clearly indicate that the Chairman and the Members of the Executive Committee have thrown to winds all the norms which they are required to follow while making the appointments. This action on their part can never be approved by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is also the case of the Corporation that the services of the petitioner are not required by the Corporation and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 29th of April, 1999, the petitioners are continued in service; and without there being any work, the petitioners are paid their salary by the Corporation. Therefore, judged from any point of view, I do not find any justification to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners.

10. In the light of the discussion made above, these petitions are liable to be dismissed.

11. Now, the only question is whether the petitioners should be saddled with costs. No doubt, the petitioners have been continued in service from 29th of April, 1999 by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court though, according to the Corporation, there was no work. The appointments of the petitioners were made in total disregard of the Recruitment Rules and the Regulations. Though I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, all the petitioners deserve to be saddled with costs, however, taking a sympathetic view of the entire matter and keeping in mind that the petitioners are all unemployed persons, I refrain from awarding costs against all the petitioners except petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15364 and 15344 of 1999, who are the sons of the then Chairman and the then Managing Director of the Corporation respectively. The costs payable by each of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15364 and 15344 of 1999 to the Corporation is fixed at Rs. 5,000/-.

12. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed with a direction to the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15364 and 15344 of 1999 to pay costs,as stated above.