- (1.) Whether the non-passing of Service and Kannada Language Examinations by government servants of Karnataka, required to be passed by them under the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974 within the period allowed for the purpose thereunder, rendered them liable to reversion, from the higher posts to which they were promoted during that period, to the lower posts held by them before such promotions, is the sole question, which needs our answer in deciding these Civils and special leave petitions.
(2.) New State of Mysore formed under the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 ('the S. R. Act') , comprised certain territories of the States of Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras and the territories of the States of Coorg and Mysore. As a consequence thereof, a large number of government servants who belonged to the States of Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras and all the government servants who belonged to the States of Mysore and Coorg constituted the Civil Services of the new State of Mysore, which a few years thereafter, was renamed as 'karnataka State'. In course of time, the contingent of government servants in State's Civil Services largely swelled, due to intermittent fresh recruitments. But the quality of service rendered by the government servants was found to be, rather, unsatisfactory. This situation, compelled the State government to take urgent measures needed to improve the quality in the performance of duties by its government servants. The State government, therefore, brought into force from 10/01/1974 the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', a measure which imposed an obligation on almost all government servants in the State's Civil Services, the passing of the Kannada Language and prescribed service examinations, within the prescribed period or extended period. What consequences, should the government servants suffer for non-passing of such examinations within the prescribed period or extended period, were also specified in the Rules. Although the period so prescribed and the period so extended for the passing of the required examinations by the government servants elapsed, a considerable number of them did not pass one or the other of such examinations. Among those who did not pass the examinations were a few, who had been promoted to higher posts during the period prescribed and the period extended, therefor. At the time of expiry of the period thus prescribed and the period thus extended for passing of such examinations, the State government was engaged in the preparation of provisional seniority lists of government servants in all its Departments. The question which was confronted by the State government then was, whether the government servants who were promoted to higher posts during the period prescribed or the period extended under the Rules for passing the required examinations should be reverted to lower posts occupied by them before their promotions, due to their non-passing of one or the other of such examinations. The State government, on consideration of the question, since took the view that non-passing of the examinations required to be passed under the Rules by such promotees, did not entail their reversion, that view became the basis for finalisation of provisional seniority lists of the government servants, in its various Departments. However, several government servants, who were juniors to such promotees, but who had passed the requiredexaminations in time, in their bid to overtake their seniors, filed writ petitions in the High court challenging the correctness of the provisional seniority lists of their respective departments. A learned Single Judge of the High court, who heard a batch of such writ petitions, came to hold the view, that the government servants who had been promoted to the higher posts without passing the required examinations, during the period allowed to them under the Rules to pass such examinations, should be reverted to the posts held by them before such promotion, yielding places to their juniors, who had passed the examinations. That learned Judge, therefore, by his order dated 15/11/1979 The State government and the Comptroller of the State Accounts Department, who were the respondents in the said writ petitions, challenged the sustainability of the orders made thereon by the said two learned Single Judges, by filing writ appeals, to be heard by a division bench. Another writ petition W. P. No. 17720 of 1980, where the question involved was whether the writ petitioner therein, a second Division Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, who had passed the examinations as per the Rules entitled him to displace his senior who had been promoted to a higher post but had not passed the examination as per Rules, was a matter referred for decision by the division bench, which was to hear the writ appeals. The division bench constituted for the purpose, which heard the writ appeals and the referred writ petition, rendered its common judgment dated 30/11/1984 "1.(A) We declare that those that have been promoted within the first period viz. , November 1, 195 6/01/1974 but have not passed the Kannada and Service Examinations within the time allowed by the Rules except those that are exempted under the Rules to the extent they are so exempted, are not entitled for confirmation and increments in the promotional posts held by them only and are not liable to be reverted to the lower posts solely on the ground that they had not passed the Kannada language and service examinations prescribed under the Rules. (b) We declare that those that were in government service as on 10/01/1974 and have been promoted on and after 10/01/1974 for vacancies arising during the second period from 10/01/197 4/04/1977 with or without a condition to pass the Kannada language and service examinations, if any prescribed on that day except those that are exempted by the Rules are liable to be reverted on or after 1/05/1977 if they have not passed the Kannada language and service examinations so prescribed on or before 30/04/1977. (c) We declare that the State government and its subordinate authorities that are competent, are bound to review the earlier promotions as on 1/05/1977 and revert those that are ineligible to hold the promotional posts and promote those that are eligible and suitable to hold the posts in their places in accordance with law and the observations made in this order. 2. We direct the appellants in the writ appeals and the respondents in the writ petition to review all the earlier promotions in their respective departments/offices in the respective cadres and make available all such benefits to which the respondents in the writ appeals and the petitioner in the writ petition are entitled to in accordance with law and the observations made in this order and the orders in the original writ petitions to the extent they are affirmed by this order, with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the cases and in any event within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order of this court. "
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the division bench of the High court, the State of Karnataka, has preferred against that judgment Civil Nos. 5339-5362 of 1985 and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 14163 and 14876 of 1985, under consideration. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3394 of 1987 is that filed by a government servant who felt aggrieved by another division bench judgment of the High court in Writ Appeal No. 1790 of 1985 rendered following the judgment, now under consideration in the Civils and special leave petitions of the State of Karnataka.;