P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this petition was earlier employed in the 1st respon dent-Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation'). After his retirement, he has enrolled himself as an Advocate. In this petition, he has called in question the validity of Regulation 229-A of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') and also has prayed for quashing of the communication dated 12th January, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D to the writ petition.
(2.) Sri S.V. Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the prayer of the petitioner, made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the communication Annexure-D is totally illegal and suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the said communication has been issued on wrong understanding of Regulation 229-A of the Regulations. It is his submission that since the petitioner has enrolled himself as an Advocate after his retirement from the service of the Corporation, Regulation 229-A of the Regulations cannot be made applicable to the petitioner as he has become an Advocate. According to the learned Counsel, the Regulation in question can be applied to such of the retired employees of the Corporation who have not enrolled themselves as Advocates and who claim to represent the consumers before the Appellate Authorities. Secondly, he submitted that Regulation 229-A of the Regulations is also liable to be declared as unconstitutional, on the ground that it is highly arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory in nature and violative of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Elaborating this submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the classification made to prevent the retired employees of the Corporation from appearing before the Appellate Authorities of the Board is highly unreasonable and discriminatory in nature. It is his submission that when large number of other retired employees who were in the services of the Government and other institutions are allowed to appear before the Appellate Authorities, only the former employees of the Corporation are prevented from appearing before the Appellate Authorities of the Board. According to the learned Counsel, there is absolutely no nexus or rationale in the classification made with the object sought to be achieved. Finally, he submitted that the regulation impugned also interferes with the right of the petitioner to carry on his profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) However, Sri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents strongly repelling all the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Regulation in question has been framed keeping in mind the public interest and also the interest of the administration of the Corporation. He pointed out that the Regulation in question would apply to such of those employees who after retirement from the service of the Corporation, have enrolled themselves as Advocates. According to him, the purpose of the Regulation is to prevent the employees of the Corporation from appearing before the Appellate Authorities of the Corporation as it was felt that former employees of the Corporation would have developed intimacy, close association with the members of the Appellate Authorities of the Corporation and also would have the facility of having access to the files and other records of the Corporation and the same would not be in the interest of the Corporation. Elaborating this submission, he pointed out that the First Appellate Authority of the Corporation would constitute employees of the rank of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineers. In this background, if a Chief Engineer who had the advantage of working with his subordinates is to appear before an Appellate Authority who is only in the Rank of an Executive Engineer, it is likely to affect his objectivity while taking a decision. He further pointed out that a restriction is made preventing former employees of the Corporation who have become Advocates from appearing before the Appellate Authority for a period of four years from the date of retirement; and the restriction so imposed is a reasonable restriction even if it is to be examined from the point of view of the petitioner's right to carry on his profession. It is his further submission that insofar as the petitioner who is an Advocate is concerned, he has no right apart from the right provided to him under the Advocates Act. It is the contention of Sri Gupta that when Section 30 of the Advocates Act has not yet been given effect to, the petitioner has no right to appear before any Tribunal or an authority like the Appellate Authority constituted by the Corporation. Therefore, he points out that the Regulation in question does not affect any of the rights of the petitioner. He also pointed out that Article 220 of the Constitution prevents Judges of the High Court from pleading or acting before any Court or Authority except before the Supreme Court and other High Courts. Therefore, when restrictions are imposed on the Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court from pleading or acting before any Court as set out in Article 220 of the Constitution of India, the restriction imposed on a former employee of the Board from appearing before the Appellate Authority of the Corporation for a period of four years from the date of his retirement cannot be held as either unreasonable or arbitrary.;