Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by officers and employees of the BBMP, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 4(a) of the BBMP (General Cadre and Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2018.
The rule grants the state government authority over the appointment of Group A officers in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed that local bodies like the BBMP are not entirely autonomous and require guidance from the state to ensure effective governance.
The petitioners argued that municipal governance in Bengaluru is exclusively vested in the BBMP, which holds powers as specified in the BBMP Act, allowing it to perform functions and discharge duties outlined in the Act. They referred to multiple sections of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (KMC) Act and the BBMP Act, contending that the legislative framework does not grant the government appointing authority over any cadre or office, particularly concerning Group A posts.
Conversely, the government advocate pointed out that under Section 105(1)(c) of the BBMP Act, the state is explicitly authorised to create rules regulating appointments.
The court noted that the state's authority over high-ranking positions, such as Group A officers in urban local bodies like the BBMP, is rooted in the Constitution of India. The 74th Amendment Act of 1992 placed local governments within the framework of state legislation, thereby ensuring the state's supervisory powers over the appointments of senior officers.
"Senior appointments, particularly for Group A officers, have strategic importance. These officers influence policy implementation, development projects and administrative decision-making. The state’s control over these appointments is essential for the coordination of state-wide development policies, especially in a city like Bengaluru, where urban development and governance are crucial to the state's economic growth,” Justice Magadum said.
The court further emphasised: “Another important aspect of state control over Group A appointments is to safeguard these positions from local political interference. The state government’s direct involvement ensures that appointments are based on objective criteria rather than local political dynamics, which may skew recruitment for short-term political gains.”