Karnataka High Court
Mr. Yoganandh vs The Managing Director on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.123 OF 2021 (S-RES)
IN
W.P.No.800 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. YOGANANDH
S/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
C/O M. GOPINATH
BHGAWANTH RAO LAYOUT
WEAVERS COLONY, NELEMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 562 123.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SAGAR B.B. ADV.,)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
MML LIMITED, FIFTH FLOOR
TTMC BUILDING
(BMTC BUILDING)
A BLOCK, SHANTHINAGARA
BANGALORE - 560 027.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADV.,)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
2
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.800/2017 DATED 14.10.2020 (S-RES)
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY QUASHING
THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.10.2016 BEARING
NO.PER/110/GEN/(2005)/2016-17/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE Q IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal arises out of an order
dated 14.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge by
which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has
been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the appellant was recruited in
the year 1985 in Mysore Minerals Limited (MML) as
unskilled worker on contract basis. By an order dated
10.06.1988, services of the appellant were regularized.
From perusal of the representation dated 04.06.2013
submitted by the appellant himself, it is evident that
he was promoted as Assistant Operator, Mate
Assistant and Sale Assistant on 01.05.1987,
01.07.1993 and 01.04.2006 respectively. The
appellant has acquired the qualification of PG
Diploma in Marketing Management in the year 2001
and PG Diploma in Human Resources in 2002.
3. The appellant, on the basis of Circular
dated 18.07.1996 claimed further promotion. The
appellant submitted representations on 29.10.2002
and 13.06.2007 to MML, which were rejected by an
order dated 06.10.2007 and 13.07.2009 respectively
on the ground that there is no provision in the cadre
and recruitment rules for granting further promotion
to the appellant. The appellant, thereafter, filed a writ
petition viz., W.P.No.28394/2009 seeking a writ of
mandamus to consider the representation submitted
by the appellant. The aforesaid writ petition was
disposed of with liberty to the appellant to assail the
orders dated 06.10.2007 and 13.07.2009.
4. The appellant therefore, filed a writ petition
viz., W.P.No.26845/2010, in which aforesaid orders
dated 06.10.2007 and 13.07.2009 were challenged. In
the said writ petition it was inter alia held that MML
has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant for
promotion and the writ petition preferred by the
appellant was dismissed. The appellant thereafter,
again filed a writ petitions seeking quashment of
endorsement dated 03.10.2015 as well as a writ of
mandamus to MML to promote the appellant by
creating suitable post. The learned Single Judge by an
order dated 14.10.2020 has dismissed the writ
petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this
appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that if some post is upgraded in the cadre,
the same does not amount to promotion. It is further
submitted that the appellant is entitled to further
promotion in view of the higher qualification acquired
by him. In support of aforesaid submission, reference
has been made to decision of Kerala High Court in
'N.G.PRABHU AND ANR. VS. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
ANOTHER', 1973(2) SLR 251.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel
for the respondent submitted that three promotions
have already been given to the appellant and the
appellant has no further right to claim promotion in
the absence of any provision in cadre and recruitment
rules. In support of aforesaid submission, reference
has been made to decision of Supreme Court in
'STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS VS. K.K.ROY',
(2004) 9 SCC 65.
7. We have considered the submissions made
on both sides. Undoubtedly, an employer is under an
obligation to provide promotional avenues to its
employees and absence of prospects of promotion has
been deprecated. However, in the instant case, the
appellant has already been given the benefit of time
bound promotion. The appellant was recruited as
unskilled worker. Thereafter, from perusal of his
representation dated 04.06.2013, it is evident that he
has been promoted as Assistant Operator, Mate
Assistant and Sale Assistant on 01.05.1987,
01.07.1993 and 01.04.2006 respectively. The claim
for further promotion cannot be granted in the
absence of any provision in the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules. Even otherwise, the claim of the
appellant for promotion has already been adjudicated
by an order dated 07.04.2015 passed in
W.P.No.26845/2010. Three promotions have already
been given to the appellant.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any ground to differ with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
