Karnataka High Court
Kavita D/O Basavarajappa Keralli vs The Director And Ors on 6 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
WP No. 202245 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 202245 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KAVITA D/O BASAVARAJAPPA KERALLI
W/O SIDDALINGAPPA BULLA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LINEMAN,
SHARAN NAGAR, BEHIND S.B.TEMPLE,
SHAHABAD, TQ.SHAHABAD,
DIST.KALABURAGI-585228
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE DIRECTOR
by SACHIN KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
Location: HIGH CORPORATION LTD.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560032.
2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
KALABURAGI-585102.
3. PRINCIPAL MANAGER
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
WP No. 202245 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD., (O AND M) DIVISION,
POST.YADGIR-585201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, 1) ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THAT TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28.08.2019,
GIVEN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE- E-2. 2) TO
QUASH THE CONDITION IMPOSED AT SL NO. 6 IN THE
APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.07.2012, IN
NO.KA.NI.A(V)/YA/LE/SALE/HISA(SI)/12-13/3658-62, ISSUED
BY 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND FURTHER DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONER UNDER ORDINARY PENSION SCHEME. 3) ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, TO
CONSIDER THE SENIORITY OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE
DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF SIMILAR PERSONS WHO WERE
APPOINTED I.E. ON 07.04.1998 UNDER THE VERY SAME
NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.1997 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRSENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR PAYMENT
SALARY OF ARREARS FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION I.E
24.04.1998 TO 18.07.2012 AND GRANT ALL THE
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON PASSING THE
ABOVE ORDER. 4) OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ARISING
THERETO WITH AN INTEREST ON THE ARREARS AT 12% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION I.E 20.05.1997 TO
18.07.2012, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. 5) TO PASS OR
GRANT SUCH ORDERS OR ISSUE SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS
DEEMED FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
WP No. 202245 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing that to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.08.2019 given to the 1st respondent vide Annexure-
E2.
(ii) To quash the condition imposed at Sl.No.6 in the appointment order dated 18.07.2012 in No.Ka.Ni.A(v)/Ya/Le/Sale/Nisa(simple imprisonment) 12-13/3658-62, issued by 4th respondent vide Annexure-D and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under ordinary pension scheme.
(iii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents, to consider the representation given to consider the seniority of the petitioner from the date of -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR appointment of similar persons who were appointed i.e. on 07.04.1998, under the very same notification dated 20.05.1997. By the petitioner for payment salary of arrears from the date of notification i.e. 20.05.1997 to 18.07.2012 and grant all the consequential benefits consequent upon passing the above order, to meet the ends of justice.
(iv) Other consequential benefits arising thereto with an interest on the arrears at 12% p.a. from the date of notification i.e. 20.05.1997 to 18.07.2012 till the date of payment.
(v) to pass or grant such orders or issue such other directions deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. The petitioner had applied to the post of Assistant Lineman pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent- Corporation. In the said notification, one post of Assistant Lineman was reserved for women category under general merit. Smt. Saroja who was appointed to the post of Assistant Lineman under women category, had not reported. Under the circumstances, the petitioner who was the only other woman in the additional list that was published by the respondent- -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR corporation had made a request to appoint her to the post of Assistant Lineman. The same was rejected by the corporation and therefore, she had approached this Court in W.P.No.5119/2001 which was allowed on 30.01.2003 and the impugned endorsement was set aside and the Corporation was directed to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of Assistant Lineman in women category. As against the said order passed in W.P.No.5119/2001, the Corporation had filed an appeal in Writ Appeal No.2965/2003 and the Division Bench of this Court on 12.06.2009 had dismissed the said writ appeal.
4. The Corporation thereafter once again issued endorsement dated 22.10.2009 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to appoint her to the post of Assistant Lineman under the reserved category for women. The said endorsement was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.80616/2010 which was allowed by this Court on 06.04.2011. In the said writ petition this Court having set aside the impugned endorsement dated 22.10.2009, observed that, the petitioner shall be appointed to the post of Assistant -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR Lineman which is reserved for women category (general merit) and which fell vacant due to non-joining of Smt. Saroja. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.80616/2010 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Lineman for women category on 18.07.2012.
5. In the appointment order dated 18.07.2012 there were certain terms and conditions. The condition No.6 of the appointment order dated 18.07.2012 states that, the petitioner would be entitled for the new contribution pension scheme as per the order of the Corporation dated 05.07.2007. Since, the candidates who were appointed under the said notification in response to which the petitioner had filed her application were extended the benefits of the earlier pension scheme, it appears that, the petitioner had made several representation to extend the benefits of the earlier pension scheme even to her. The petitioner also appears to have made repeated representation to consider her seniority from the date of appointment of other candidates under the notification dated 20.05.1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the representations remained -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR unconsidered by the Corporation and it is under these circumstances she is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, in an identical circumstances this Court in W.P.No.81728/2013 (S-Res) has observed that, a candidate who was wrongly denied the appointment is entitled to be placed along with other candidates who were appointed under the very same notification and the very same service conditions will apply even to the said candidate.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents who has filed his statement of objections submits that, the petitioner was not appointed on merit and on the other hand, her name was only found in the additional list, even in the additional list her name was at Sl.No.7 which is the last name. Having accepted the order of appointment, she now cannot turn around and submit that she is also entitled for service benefits extended to the candidates who were earlier appointed on merits. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR
8. The material on record would go to show that, the petitioner in response to the notification dated 20.05.1997 published by the corporation had applied for the post of Assistant Lineman (women category). Smt. Saroja who was appointed to the said post against reserved category had undisputedly not reported and therefore, the said post had remained vacant. The corporation had published the select list and the waiting list of candidates. In the waiting list there were seven candidates and the petitioner's name is found at Sl.No.7. Except the petitioner, there was no other woman candidate either in the first list or in the waiting list and it is under these circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.5119/2001 had set aside the endorsement issued by the Corporation and had directed the corporation to consider the candidature of the petitioner against the reserved category. However, the challenge made to the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the Corporation was unsuccessful and the Writ Appeal No.2965/2003 filed by them was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Even thereafter, yet another endorsement was issued by the Corporation once again rejecting the petitioner's candidature vide endorsement dated 22.10.2009. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR The said endorsement was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.80616/2010 and this Court on 06.04.2011 had set aside the said endorsement dated 22.10.2009 and issued a positive direction to the corporation to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Lineman which is reserved for women category (general merit) and which fell vacant pursuant to the non-joining of Smt. Saroja. It is only thereafter, the corporation issued an appointment letter to the petitioner on 18.07.2012 subject to certain terms and conditions. Aggrieved by the condition No.6, the petitioner appears to have given multiple representations to the Corporation and a request was made to extend the benefits of the earlier pension scheme which was prevailing when the other candidates were appointed pursuant to the notification dated 20.05.1997. The petitioner appears to have also made repeated representations to extend the seniority and other service benefits from the date of appointment of similarly situated persons who were appointed pursuant to the notification dated 20.05.1997. It appears that, even the said request was not considered by the corporation.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR
9. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.81728/2013 disposed of on 24.11.2021 in the case of Subhash Fakkirappa Mushannavar Vs. The Registrar, at paragraph Nos.3, 7 and 8 has observed as follows:
3. After the petitioner joined the service in the respondent - University, he was given an option to opt for pensionary benefit under the notification dated 1.1.2006.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation with the respondent - University to consider his appointment with effect from the date of similarly situated persons, who were appointed under the notification dated 05.10.2002. However, the said representation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2010 and as such, the benefit of fixation of seniority and pensionary benefit prior to the government notification dated 1.1.2006 cannot be extended. Hence, this writ petition.
4. xxxxxx
5. xxxxxx
6. xxxxxx
7. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the notification dated 5.10.2002 petitioner submitted an application to consider his case for appointment to the post of peon, however, the same was not considered on the ground that he has not secured minimum marks in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR the interview. This Court directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the qualifying examination without reference to the marks obtained in the interview. It is only thereafter the petitioner was issued with an appointment order appointing him to the post of peon. The appointment of the petitioner as peon should be construed as one under the notification dated 05.10.2002. Since the appointment of the petitioner was in pursuance of the notification dated 5.10.2002, the seniority as well as the pensionary benefit should be extended from the date of appointment of similarly situated persons, who were appointed under the very same notification on 12.2.2003.
8. The contention of the University that the petitioner having accepted the appointment order unconditionally cannot seek for fixation of seniority as well as pensionary benefits notionally. Petitioner after obtaining the order of appointment has represented with the University so as to set right the anomaly in the appointment order and there is no bar for him to submit a representation to consider his claim to which he is legally entitled to in accordance with law. The respondent- University was at fault in not appointing the petitioner on 12.2.2003 and due to the fault of the University, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his claim to fix seniority and continuity in service notionally. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the University that the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate is not acceptable."
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR
10. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner's name is found in the waiting list published by the Corporation and she was the only other women candidate in the list and therefore, after Smt. Saroja had not reported pursuant to her appointment, the Corporation ought to have considered the request made by the petitioner for her appointment, but unfortunately the Corporation had rejected the same.
11. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had initially approached this Court in W.P.No.5119/2001. Though this Court had set aside the endorsement issued by the Corporation and directed the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment for second time, the Corporation had rejected the petitioner's candidature and it is under these circumstances in W.P.No.80616/2010, this Court after quashing the endorsement by the Corporation had issued a positive direction to the Corporation to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Lineman in women category. Therefore, it is apparent that, the Corporation had wrongly rejected the petitioner's candidature who was otherwise entitled to be appointed under the notification of 20.05.1997. Therefore, I am
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203 WP No. 202245 of 2021 HC-KAR of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition.
12. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER The writ petition is partly allowed and the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the representations at Annexures-E, E1 and E2, dated 22.02.2016, 13.10.2017 and 28.08.2019 respectively, submitted by the petitioner to consider his case for fixation of seniority and other service benefits notionally from the date of appointment of the other candidates under the notification dated 20.05.1997 and pass appropriate orders on the same as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38