Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkalinge Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 February, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
WP No. 26438 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 26438 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHIKKALINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O DODDANINGEGOWDA,
APC 301(AHC 101) WORKING AT CAR,
MYSURU, CITY MYSURU, R/AT NO.134,
GANGARAHUNDI, N.K,
HALLI POST, MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-570 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KUMAR J.C, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
K S RENUKAMBA
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR & INSPECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU CITY,
MYSURU-570 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
WP No. 26438 of 2023
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
CITY ARMED RESERVE POLICE,
MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR
DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN ANY NATURE FOR QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/05/2023 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.2039/2022, AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
17/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
17/04/2018 VIDE NO.STAFF(3)/(1)/2017-18 AS PER
ANNEXURE-Q.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent
Nos.1 to 4.
2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged
the legality and correctness of the order passed in Application
No.2039/2022 dated 26.05.2023 by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'KSAT'), wherein
the KSAT dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
3. The facts that are apposite from the record, which
are necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are as under:
The petitioner was recruited as Armed Police Constable
(APC) on 07.11.1985. By virtue of bifurcation of zones from
Mysore District to Mysore City in the year 1990, the petitioner
was sent to Mysore City Zone on 31.10.1985. After long
deliberation with the higher authorities, he was re-transferred
to Mysore City Range on 26.03.1996. In the seniority list
pertaining to the cadre of APC, he was entitled to place in
Msyore City Range showing from the date of initial appointment
i.e., 07.11.1985. However, ignoring the same, his seniority has
been fixed from the date he returned to Mysore City Police on
26.03.1996, for which there has been no request from the
petitioner. Hence, according to the petitioner, he has been
denied his legitimate right of considering his case for promotion
as Armed Head Constable (AHC) and in the meanwhile, many
of his juniors have been promoted without considering his
request for promotion. Hence, the petitioner claimed fixation of
his seniority in the cadre of APC as on 07.11.1985 and not as
on 26.03.1996. Accordingly, he submitted a detailed
representation on 05.12.2012 to the respondents' authority
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
requesting to rectify his pay and for grant of promotion. He also
referred the order of this Court in W.P.No.48963/2012 dated
11.06.2013, wherein this Court granted similar relief to the
other aggrieved parties. However, by communication dated
26.09.2014 to the DGIG, the State Government has clarified
that, the benefit of Government Order dated 05.04.2010 should
be extended on completion of 18 year of service though it may
not be application for time bond promotion and the same is
followed by the communication of the Assistant Administrative
Officer, Office of the State Establishment and Appeal
Department of the Office of DGIG, to all the Police
Commissioner, Director, DPC and to all the Superintendents of
Police of the Districts, Assistant Inspector General of Police etc.,
on 18.12.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner was extended the
benefit of fixation of pay in the cadre of APC on 11.03.2014 and
later, he was promoted to the cadre of AHC on 10.03.2016.
However, he was deprived of the benefit of promotion
retrospectively taking into account his date of initial
appointment as many as his juniors have been promoted to the
cadre of Head Constable much earlier to him. Hence, he
submitted a representation on 13.01.2018 and the
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
respondents' authority issued an endorsement dated
17.04.2018 stating that he shall be considered for promotion
on the basis of seniority as on 26.03.1996 and not from the
date of his initial entry into service. Subsequently, though he
has completed more than 18 years of service, as per the
Government Order dated 05.04.2010, he has not been
considered for promotion although many of his juniors have
been promoted to the next higher cadre with all consequential
and monitory benefits flowing therefrom. The Government
Order dated 05.04.2010 mentions about granting of promotion
to 2396 Head Constables and these posts will be upgraded as
Head Constable with certain conditions mentioned therein.
Hence, the petitioner approached the KSAT seeking to quash
the endorsement dated 17.04.2018.
The KSAT, after considering the arguments advanced by
both the parties so also after assessment of the documents
placed before it, dismissed the application filed by the
petitioner. The legality of the said order is challenged under this
writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner so also learned AGA for the respondents-State.
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the KSAT erred while passing the
impugned order by not considering the effect of the order of
this Court in W.P.No.48963/2012. As per the order of this
Court, the claim of the petitioner has to be considered from his
date of appointment i.e., as on 07.11.1985 for the purpose of
determination of seniority and not from the date of mutual
transfer of the petitioner to Mysore City. He would further
contend that the petitioner having completed more than 18
years of service as required under Government Order dated
05.04.2010, he should be atleast considered for such
promotion on the basis of completion of number of years of
service which would necessarily be from the date of entry into
service on 07.11.1985 by which he would completing 18 years
of service on 07.11.2003. The mutual transfer cannot be
considered to be a transfer on request so also to apply Rule 26
of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957
(for short 'Rules 1957'). Therefore, the respondents cannot
deny the benefit of seniority from the date of order of
appointment of the petitioner. In order to buttress his
arguments, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
of Sri Krishna vs. State of Karnataka and others in
W.P.No.7924/2020 (S-KAT) Connected with
W.P.No.13315/2021 (S-KSAT) disposed of on
03.07.2023.
5. Per contra, learned AGA would submit that as per
Rule 6 of Rules 1957, seniority of persons transferred on their
own request, will be shown below all the officers borne on that
class or grade of service and since the petitioner's transfer was
on his own request, his seniority is fixed as per Rule 6 of the
Rules 1957. The petitioner was considered and promoted as
AHC by order dated 10.03.2016 and his seniority has been
reviewed and date of promotion has been considered with
retrospective effect from 26.09.2015 and accordingly, his
seniority is fixed. According to learned AGA, the contention of
the petitioner to accord promotion as per the Government
Order dated 05.04.2010, which is a special scheme for
stagnated Police Constables for 18 years and upgrading the
Police Constables, cannot be considered as he was already
promoted on 26.09.2015. He would also contend that the
petitioner approached the authority after lapse of 13 to 14
years as he already got promotion on 26.09.2015 and he did
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
not submit any objection to the seniority list to the post of APC
and AHC and as such, the KSAT has rightly dismissed the claim
of the petitioner instead, he challenged the said order after
lapse of so many years based on the judgment rendered by this
Court in W.P.No.48963/2012 decided on 11.06.2013.
Accordingly, the learned AGA prays to dismiss the petition both
on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for respective
parties, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the order passed by the KSAT in
Application No.2039/2022 dated 26.05.2023 suffers
from any perversity and requires interference by this
Court?
7. On careful perusal of the impugned order passed by
the KSAT so also the documents placed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the
endorsement dated 17.04.2018 based on the Government
Order bearing No.OE 297 POCE 2009 dated 05.04.2010. As per
the said order, the promotion shall be given from the post of
Police Constables to the post of Head Constables who are
stagnated for 18 years and the scheme was to accord
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
promotion on completion of 18 years of service. It is also made
clear in the said order that it is a special scheme by upgrading
as many as Police Constables, who have put in more than 18
years of service. The petitioner was initially appointed as APC
on 07.11.1985 in Mysore District Unit and thereafter, on his
request, he was transfer to Mysore City Unit on 26.03.1996.
Annexure-A14 to the writ petition dated 17.04.2018 reads as
under:
"G¯ÉèÃTvÀ vÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
¸ÉêÁ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ ¥Àjò°¸À¯ÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:7.11.1985 gÀ°è
C«¨sÁfvÀ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ°è J¦¹ 419 ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ
¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀ PÉÆÃjPÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÉêÁ eɵÀÖvÉ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀĪÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀÀbÉÃj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:367/¹§âA¢-4/95-96
¢£ÁAPÀ 1.3.96 gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀÖvÉ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀĪÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É rJDgï, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè¬ÄAzÀ ¹JDgï, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀPÉÌ
ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. (¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀÖvÉ ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ
°TvÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛÃj). ¤ªÀÄä eÉõÀÖvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 26.3.96
jAzÀ ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÀÄÝ, PÀæªÀħzÀݪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉõÀÖvÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ
¤ªÀÄä£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."
8. On perusal of the above, it is clear that the
petitioner was transferred to Mysore only based on his request
and also with his consent to give up the service seniority. To
that effect, he submitted a written representation to the
Commissioner. That being the scenario, after lapse of 13 to 14
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
years, he submitted the representation for retrospective
promotion to the cadre of AHC in Msyore City on the basis of
his initial date of entry into service i.e., on 07.11.1985. As per
Rule 6 of Rules 1957, the seniority of a person transferred on
his own request will be placed below all the officers in the
seniority list borne on the class or grade of service on or before
the date of transfer. Admittedly, the petitioner has not served
in a single unit without any promotion for more than 18 years.
9. Though the learned counsel emphasis the order
passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.7924/2020 (S-KAT) C/w W.P.No.13315/2021 (S-KSAT),
the facts of this case are totally stand in a different footing
since, there is no such inordinate delay in approaching the
KSAT by the petitioner in the said case. Whereas in the case on
hand, the petitioner has challenged the seniority list after lapse
of 13 to 14 years. As such, in our considered view, the KSAT
has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has not
made out any good grounds to interference with the
endorsement dated 17.04.2018.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8481-DB
10. In view of the above discussion, we answer the
point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM
