A.R.Lakshmanan, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted in both the special leave petitions.
(2.) THESE appeals have raised substantial questions of law involving interpretation of certain provisions of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 (for short "the Act") and the Rules made thereunder and also the principles of law governing the Writ of Quo Warranto and the power of the Government to make a contractual appointment under Section 4(2) of the Act. This appeal was filed by Mr. B. Srinivasa Reddy (hereinafter called Mr. Reddy) seeking leave to appeal against the final judgment and order dated 04.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 86 of 2006. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant-herein against the order dated 10.01.2006 passed by a learned Judge of the said Court in Writ Petition No. 9852 of 2004 and has declared that the appellant is not entitled to hold the post of Managing Director of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter called 'the Board') (respondent No.4). The above appeal was filed by the Government of Karnataka against the very same judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 254 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the State.
(3.) THE Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 was enacted to provide for the establishment of water supply and drainage Board and the regulation and development of drinking water and drainage facilities in the urban areas in the State of Karnataka. THE Board, with the previous sanction of the Government of Karnataka, framed the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1985. An amendment to serial No. 1 of the Schedule to the Regulations was introduced by the Board whereby even the Chief Engineers of the Board were made eligible for appointment to the post of Managing Director. Respondent No.1 is the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association represented by its President Halakatte. He is also respondent No.2 in his capacity as President of the Employees' Association. THE State of Karnataka and the Board are also the contesting respondents 3 and 4 in this appeal. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter called the Employees' Association) filed writ petition No. 44001 of 1995 in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the appointment of one S. Ramamurthy as the Managing Director of the Board on the ground that by virtue of Section 7(1)(d) of the Act, the said Ramamurthy, being an officer/servant (Chief Engineer earlier) of the Board, could not have been appointed as the Managing Director of the Board. THE Government of Karnataka, vide notification No. UDD/14/UB/91 dated 28.04.1997, nominated the appellant who was a Chief Engineer of the Board as one of the Directors of the Board "with immediate effect and until further orders". THE Board, after due approval of the State, vide G.O. No. HUD 15 UWE 93 dated 11.12.1997, amended the method of recruitment for the post of Managing Director of the Board in serial No. 1 of the Schedule to the Regulations to the effect that a Managing Director can be selected only from amongst the Chief Engineers of the Board. Other criterias were removed. On 28.01.1998, the Government of Karnataka, through the Urban Development Department, vide Notification No. UDD 4 UWE 98 dated 28.01.1998, pursuant to Section 53 of the Act read with Rule 27 of and serial No. 1 of the Schedule to the Regulations, promoted the appellant on officiating basis and appointed him as the Managing Director of the Board w.e.f. 31.01.1998 afternoon and "until further orders" since S. Ramamurthy, the then Managing Director of the Board took voluntary retirement. The Employees' Union filed an amended version of the writ petition before the High Court also challenging the above-mentioned amendment to the Regulation which relates to making of a provision of appointing the Chief Engineer of the Board as its Managing Director. The writ petition was further amended to include the challenge to the promotion/appointment of the appellant as the Managing Director of the Board pursuant to the said amendment.;