Karnataka High Court
Shivaprasad K M vs The Karnataka State Road ... on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
W.A. No.510 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.510 OF 2022 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAPRASAD K.M.
S/O KESHAVA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS ASSISTANT
ADMINSITRATIVE OFFICER (ADMN) NWKRTC
HAVERI DIVISION HAVERI
NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE
Digitally signed OFFICER, CHIKMAALUR DIVISION
by RUPA V
CHIKMAALUR-577 101.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. SRI. RAJASHEKHARA T. KUMBAR
S/O TIPPANNA KUMBAR
AGED 48 YEARS
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (ADMN)
KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION
DAVANAGERE
AND R/AT C/O PANDURANGA
NO.38/1, LABOUR COLONY, 3RD CROSS
DAVANAGERE-577 002.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTINAGAR
BANGALORE-27
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-2-
W.A. No.510 of 2022
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL)
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-27.
3. MAHADEVAPPA UPPIN
AGE MAJOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NEKRTC
BIDAR DIVISION, BIDAR-585401.
4. B.S. MUNIRAME GOWDA
AGED MAJOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NEKRTC
BELLARY DIVISION,
BELLARY-583101.
5. SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O PITAMBARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
(ADMN), NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R. ADV., FOR R1 & R2
SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADV., FOR R3 & R4
R5 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2021 PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO.19452/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON BLE COURT. PASS ANY OTHER ORDERS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
W.A. No.510 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed against an
order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the
appellants has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the appellants were appointed on the post
of Assistant Administrative Officers (Grade-II) on
16.06.2010 whereas respondent No.3 was appointed on
the said post on 20.08.2008. The Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Corporation') prepared a provisional seniority list of
Assistant Administrative Officers (Grade-II) as on
01.01.2013. In the aforesaid seniority list, the appellants
were placed at Sl.Nos.10, 8 and 11 whereas respondent
No.3 was placed at Sl.No.12. A meeting of the
Departmental Promotion Committee was confined on
24.01.2012. The Committee considered the case of 13
W.A. No.510 of 2022
candidates. Out of 13 candidates, the appellants as well
as one Vasantha Buddakalppanavar did not possess the
eligibility criteria. The Committee therefore examined the
details of remaining Officers. Out of which, against 3
officers, criminal cases were pending and therefore, their
cases were considered under sealed cover procedure. In
respect of remaining 2 Officers namely respondent Nos.3
and 4, their cases were considered and were found to be
eligible for promotion.
3. Accordingly, orders of promotion were issued on
19.06.2012 promoting respondent Nos.3 and 4 as
Administrative Officers (Grade-I). The appellants
challenged the order of promotion in a writ petition after a
period of 3 years which has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 17.04.2021. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not eligible for promotion
W.A. No.510 of 2022
as they have been considered in excess of their scope. It
is also submitted that for making promotion, the quota
prescribed for direct recruitees and the promotees has to
be strictly adhered to. In support of aforesaid
submission, learned counsel for the appellants has placed
reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in VINOD
GIRI GOSWAMI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF
UTTARKHAND AND OTHERS1 and DIRECT RECRUIT
CLASS II ENGINEERING OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS2.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Corporation has invited the attention of this Court to
averments made in paragraph 4 of the statement of
objections and has supported the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
(2020) 13 SCC 161
(1990) 2 SCC 715
W.A. No.510 of 2022
6. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. Admittedly, it has not been disputed before us
that the appellants were not eligible to seek promotion to
the post of Administrative Officer (Grade-I) as they had
not completed three years of minimum service on the date
of Committee meeting i.e. 24.01.2012. The appellants
were appointed on 16.06.2010 and would have eligible for
consideration of promotion on 15.06.2013. It is pertinent
to note that the respondent No.3 was promoted by an
order dated 19.06.2012. However, the petition was filed
questioning the order of promotion of respondent No.3
after an inordinate delay of 3 years for which no
explanation has been offered.
7. It is also noteworthy that the case of the
appellants were also considered by the Committee and
were not found to be eligible as they did not have requisite
minimum service of 3 years. The appellants have not
W.A. No.510 of 2022
been able to demonstrate as to how promotion of
respondent No.3 suffers from any infirmity. The challenge
to the order of promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of
Administrative Officer (Grade-I) suffers from delay and
laches as well.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Consequently, pending interlocutory application is
also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
