Karnataka High Court
G.S.Siddalingappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 1130 OF 2020 (S-RES)
C/w. WRIT PETITION NO. 39961 OF 2016 (S-PRO),
WRIT PETITION NO. 4296 OF 2018 (S-PRO),
WRIT PETITION NO. 9775 OF 2018 (S-PRO),
WRIT PETITION NO. 56010 OF 2018 (S-PRO),
WRIT PETITION NO. 3915 OF 2020 (S-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 10739 OF 2020 (S-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 5188 OF 2021 (S-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 10879 OF 2021 (S-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 18471 OF 2022 (S-PRO)
IN W.P.No.1130/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.G.S.SIDDALINGAPPA,
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT REVENUE
Digitally
signed by OFFICER, MARATHAHALLI ZONE,
MANJANNA
MANJANNA E
E Date:
2024.01.24
MAHADEVAPURA BBMP,
10:29:25
+0530 R/O.#227, OPP TO MARAMMA TEMPLE,
GUNJUR POST VIA VARTHUR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 087.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
5. R.KRISHNA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560001.
6. M.H.SWAMY,
S/O LATE HOMBALE CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
WEST ZONE BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 010.
7. SHARNAMMA,
W/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
8. N.RAMESH,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,BENGALURU-560 001.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
9. V.VASANTH,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
10. P.NIRANJANA MURTHY,
S/O RAMALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O ARO,
CHIKKAPETE SUB-DIVISION,
THULASITHOTA, WEST ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 053.
11. N.G.BASAVARAJU,
S/O B.GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O ARO,
HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION,
JAYANTHY CIRCLE, HORAMAVU,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 113.
12. A.E.RAJANNA,
S/O ESHRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O ARO,
BATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND,
YALAHANKA ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 077.
13. ADHINATH CHOWGALE,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUAR,
BENGALURU-560 001.
14. SANTHOSH KUMAR EJJIRE,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
15. CHANDRAPPA BERAJJANAVAR,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O ARO,
K.R.PURAM, SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 036.
16. N.CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O/ ARO
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE) ADVERTISEMENT
R.R.NAGAR,OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
R.R.NAGAR, ZONE, IDEAL HOME BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 098.
17. RAJAKUMAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R. SUQARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
18. MHIB ULLA H.M.
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
19. B.S.ANITHA,
W/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
20. INDRIJITH LAMBANI,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGLAURU-560 001.
21. JANARDHAN RAJUR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
22. KADRAPPA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
23. G.V.NAGARAJU,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
24. NETHRAVATHI,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
25. MANJUNATH,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
26. A.NALLAPPA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
27. N.ANJANEYA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
28. K.SHANKAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
29. SURESH BABU,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
30. RAMESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
31. B.VITTALAIAH,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 001.
32. S.MAHESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 001.
33. DODDASHAMACHARI,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
ESTATE YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 001.
34. K.SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 001.
35. H.N.BASAVARAJU,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.
36. S.M.SHANTHALA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
YESWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 001.
37. M.RAVIKUMAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
WELFARE, R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.
38. RAJAPPA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
CHIKKAPETE SUB-DIVISION,
THULASITHOTA,
WEST ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 053.
39. KRISHNA.R.THASILDAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
D E O NORTH, BENGALURU-560 001.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
40 S.K.MOHAN RAM,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
V R S ASSESSOR,
O/O BBMP, BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI.S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO
R-4;
R-6, R-16, R-20 & R-38 ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021, PETITION AGAINST R-37
IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AND NOTICE TO R-5, R-7 TO
R-15, R-17 TO R-19, R-21 TO R-36, R-39 & R-40 ARE
HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FINAL GRADATION LIST ISSUED BY THE R-2 THE
COMMISSIONER, BBMP, BENGALURU DATED 08.11.2019 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E, ETC.
IN W.P.No.39961/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. K CHANDRA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
O/O ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (BTM),
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 011.
2. E. SURESH
S/O LATE ERE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, RTI CELL,
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU 560 002.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
3. S HARISH KUMAR
S/O LATE G. SHIVASHANKAR
AGED ABOIT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
O/O JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQARE, BNGALURU 560 002.
4. VEERASWAMY
S/O C AMAVASYE
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
O/O ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF FINANCE (SOUTH),
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 011.
5. SHIVA BEERAIAH
S/O BEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R.SUBRAMANYA FOR SRI.VINAYAKA.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
3. V. SHIVAMMA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
4. N. CHANDRAIAH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
5. S. RAMU
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
6. SHARANAMMA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
7. N. RAMESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
8. K.S. ANAND
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
9. MANJUNATHA N
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
10 . PRATHIBA KULKARNI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
11 . H.L. GURUPRASANNA
SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
12 . H.N. AJITHAPRASAD
SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
13 . V. VASANTHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
14 . M. NARAYANAPPA
SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
15 . S.V. MANUJANTH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
16 . UMESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TH THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022.
17 . RADHA BADIGERA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
18 . P. NIRANJANA MURTHY
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
19 . B. VARUN KUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
20 . G.S. RAMPRASAD
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
21 . K.N. SRIDHAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
22 . C. REKHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
23 . N.G. BASAVARAJU
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
24 . A.E. RAJANNA
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
25 . M.R. ASHOK
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
26 . MADHURI KOTAGI
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
27 . M. MAHESH
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
28 . K. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
29 . SHILPA S BHARADWAD
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
30 . ADINATH CHOWGALA
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
31 . L. REKHA
D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
32 . D.K. NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
33 . K NAGARAJA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
34 . SIDDARAMA HALADAKI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
35 . M V KRUTHIKA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
36 . H SURESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
37 . SANTHOSH KUMAR EJERI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
38 . JAYASHREE AMBIGERA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
39 . M Y KAVITHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
40 . J NAGASHREE
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
41 . CHANDRAPLPA BIRAJJANAVAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
42 . J.K.SHOBHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
43 . MR.DEEPASHREE
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
44 . N. SRINIVASAMURTHY
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
45 . K.S.MANJULA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
46 . K. SAVITHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
47 . NAGAVENI ERAPPA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
48 . N.B.DEEPA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
49 . RAJAKUMARA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
50 . PRASAD KUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
51 . H.M.MAHIBULLA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
52 . JAYA B HARITHI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
53 . K RASHMI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
54 . BASAVARAJ S MAGI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
55 . SAFINAZ
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
56 . D.M. NAGARAJAPPA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
57 . B.N.ANITHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
58 . MAHESH K SAVANTH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
59 . BHAGYASHREE HALLI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
60 . K.N.YUVARAJKUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
61 . H.BHARATHI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
62 . H.B.SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
63 . INDRAJIT LAMANI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
64 . C.SUMA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
65 . A.CHITRALEKHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
66 . C.ANITHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
67 . NANDHINI U THASILDAR
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
68 . ANJANA BAGANTHRI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
69 . B E VANI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
70 . JANARDHANA RAJURA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
71 . D VARALAKSHMI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
72 . RAJASREE
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
73 . S MOHANKUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
74 . N CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
75 . R VENKATESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
76 . YASHODA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
77 . H HEMANTHKUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
78 . D SANDEEP
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
79 . N SANTOSH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
80 . VENKATACHALAPATHI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
81 . N SWATHI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
82 . FAROOQ DILAVARA YADURANTHI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
83 . ARAVIND M
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
84 . PRASHANT V
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITINERS,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
85 . MANJULA K
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETIITONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
86 . M NAGARAJU
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
87 . N V VENUGOPAL
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
88 . REKHA K M
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
89 . DEEPA NADUVINAMANI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
90 . RAMESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
91 . BHAGAVANTHAPPA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
92 . B RAJESHKUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
93 . V HARIPRASAD
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
94 . K N VIJAYAKUMRA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
95 . N S MAHESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
96 . S DHANARAJ
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
97 . S. MANJUNATH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
98 . M. VENKATESH MURTHY
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
99 . M. KALYANI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
100 . M. MURALIDHARAIAH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022
101 . N. SOMASHEKAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
102 . ARUNKUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
103 . VINODH KUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
104 . PRAKASH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
105 . JAGADISH R
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
106 . B C SURESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
107 . ASHWINI
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
108 . T HEMALATHA
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
109 . H R BHARATH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
110 . K JAYANTHA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
111 . R MANJUNATHA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
112 . D C GURUSHANTHAPPA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R-3 TO R-112 ARE ALL WORKING AS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANTS IN
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI.HARISHA.A.S, AGA FOR SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA,
ADVOCATE FOR R-11, R-19, R-20, R-22, R-42, R-45, R-47,
R- 59, R-61, R-64, R-69, R-71, R-78, R-79, R-81, R-82,
R-88, R-89, R-93, R-96 TO R-99, R-101, R-102, R-105 TO
R-107, R-109 & R-110;
SRI.ARAVIND UPADHYE, FOR R-104;
VIDE ORDER DATED:06.12.2022 R-10, R-12, R-16, R-27,
R-33, R-34, R-46, R-92, R-94, R-95 & R-100 ARE DELETED;
R-3, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-13 TO R-15, R-17 TO R-20, R-22,
R-25, R-26, R-29, R-32, R-35 TO R-39, R-42 TO R-45, R-47
TO R-49, R-51 TO R-53, R-55, R-58 TO R-67, R-69, R-70,
R-72, R-73, R-76, R-77, R-80, R-83 TO R-85, R-87, R-90,
R-91, R-103, R-111 & R-112 ARE SERVED THROUGH HAND
SUMMONS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FINAL GRADATION LIST OF FIRST DIVISION
ASSISTANTS ISSUED AS PER OFFICE ORDER
DATED:09.09.2015 BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR
AS PLACING THE R-3 TO 112 ABOVE THE PETITIONERS IN THE
SAID FINAL GRADATION LIST, ETC.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
IN W.P.No.4296/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. N.VENKATESH,
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 years,
WORKING AS MANAER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
C.V.RAMANNAGAR,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
COX TOWN, BENGALURU.
2. A.N.PRASAD,
S/O LATE A.SUBBAR RAO,
AGED BOUT 45 YEARS,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICE,
SHANTHINAGAR, BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. N.CHANDRAPRAKASH,
S/O H.MUNIYAPPA,
AGED BOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
SHANTHINAGAR, BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE, PUBLIC UTILITY,
BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. H.DEVARAJU,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
K.G.NAGAR, BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 002.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
5. V.T.MAHADEV,
S/O H.THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PROJECTS, DASAPPA HOSPITAL,
TOWN HALL CIRCLE, BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PAVAN KUMAR.M.N., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.1;
SRI.R.SUBRAMANYA FOR SRI.VINAYAKA.B., ADVOCATE
FOR PETITIONERS No.2 TO 5)
AND:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. V SHIVAMMA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OLD CMC OFFICE, TUMKUR ROAD,
T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 058.
3. D. S. GIRISH
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION FINANCE,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
4. N ARUN KUMAR
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
K.G.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 058.
5. N JYOTHILAKSHMI
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, OLD CMC
OFFICE, TUMKUR ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
6. K S ANAND
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE MOH (RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSORE
ROAD, NEAR KEB OFFICE, 18TH MAIN,
BENGALURU - 98.
7. H L GURUPRASANNA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
8. M NARAYANAPPA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
9. G. S. RAMPRASAD
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (COUNCIL
BUILDING)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
10 . C REKHA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
DR TCM RAYAN ROAD,
NEAR CITY RAILWAY STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
11 . M R ASHOK
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, MYSORE ROAD,
NEAR KEB OFFICE, 18TH MAIN,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
12 . MADHURI KOTAGI
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 051.
13 . K NAVEEN KUMAR
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY MAJOR,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
14 . SHILPA S BHARADWAJ
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
ANNEXE-3, GROUND FLOOR, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
15 . D K NARASIMHAMURTHY
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HBR
LAYOUT, BDA COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
16 . S V MANJUNATH
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
17 . RADHA BADIGERA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(PROJECT SOUTH),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 2ND
BLOCK, 9TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
18 . B VARUN KUMAR
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNING COMMITTEE
(COUNCIL BUILDING)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
19 . H SURESH
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
20 . JAYASHREE AMBIGERA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RTO
COMPLEX, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
21 . M Y KAVITHA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 104.
22 . J NAGASHREE
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
23 . J K SHOBHA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NC ROAD,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
24 . M V KRUTHIKA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA, BELLARY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
25 . N SRINIVASAMURTHY
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
COUNCIL SECTION,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED:18.09.2018
26 . K S MANJULA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
JAYAMAHAL, BENGALURU - 560 024.
27 . NAGAVENI ERAPPA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 104.
28 . N B DEEPA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
29 . JAYA B. HARITHI
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER, HEALTH OFFICE
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
30 . K RASHMI, MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 17TH
MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
31 . SAFINAZ, MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WHITEFIELD ROAD,
RHB COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 048.
32 . M R DEEPASHREE
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SWD)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 4TH
BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
33 . BHAGYASHREE HALLI
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
34 . K N YUVARAJKUMAR
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WHITEFIELD ROAD, RHB COLONY,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
35 . H BHARATHI
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MALLESHWARAM,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
36 . H B SANTOSH KUMAR
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KRISHNA MANSION, RING ROAD,
MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 072.
37 . C SUMA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
ANJANANAGARA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
38 . A CHITRALEKHA
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
NETHAJI CIRCLE, MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
39 . K C SUMATHI
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
18TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT,
R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU.
40 . MAHESH K SAVANTH
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ADDL COMMISSIONER (ADMN)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
41 . NANDHINI U THASILDAR
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,NAGARABHAVI BDA COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560079.
42 . B E VANI
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS MANAGER,
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
DR B.R.AMBEDKAR STADIUM,
BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI.UDAYA HOLLA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.L.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-5,
R-8, R-10, R-12, R-14, R-17, R-20, R-23, R-26 TO R-29,
R-31, R-32, R-37 & R-38;
SRI.V.N.SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-7, R-11
& R-15;
SRI.H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6, R-9, R-13, R-16, R-
18, R-19, R-36 & R-40;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.09.2018, R-25 IS DELETED;
R-3, R-4, R-21, R-22, R-24, R-30, R-33, R-34, R-35, R-39,
R-41, R-42 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED:17.07.2017
AND QUASH (i) ORDER DATED 17.7.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F
TO THE W.P. PASSED BY R-1 GRANTING THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS RETROSPECTIVE DATES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR
PROMOTION AND SENIORITY IN THE CADRE OF MANAGER,
ETC.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
IN W.P.No:9775/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT.M.PADMAVATHI,
W/O A.V.HEMARAJU,
AGED 45 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
J.P.NAGAR, SUB-DIVISION,
BBMP, BANGALORE-560 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATH.S.JOIS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BRUHATH BANGALORE MANAGARA PALIKE,
REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
KUMARA PARK ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.OMKAR KAMBI, ADVOVATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
4.1.2018 AND 17.7.2017 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT
VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND G PERSUE AND QUASH THE SAID LIST
IN SO FAR AS THE ALTERING THE RANKING OF THE
PETITIONER IN THE CADRE OF MANAGER IS CONCERNED, AS
BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16(1) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
IN W.P.No:56010/2018
BETWEEN:
1. A.E.RAJANNA,
S/O ESHWARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND,
YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP,
BANGALORE-560 077.
2. M.H.SWAMY,
S/O LATE HOMBALE CHANNAIAH,
AGED 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
WEST ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 010.
3. N.RAMESH,
S/O LATE V.NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
WEST ZONE, BBMP, BASHYAM PARK,
SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 020.
4. P.NIRANJANA MURTHY,
S/O P.RAMALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, CHIKKPET, TULASI THOTA,
WEST ZONE, BBMP,
BANGALORE-560 053.
5. N.G.BASAVARAJU,
S/O B.GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICE,
HORAMAVU SUB-DN. MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BBMP, JAYANTHI CIRCLE,
HORAMAVU, BANGALORE-560 113.
6. ADINATH CHOUGALE,
S/O DHANPAL,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND,
YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP,
BANGALORE-560 077.
7. SANTHOSH KUMAR IJERI,
S/O CHANNABASAPPA IJERI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
KENGERI BBMP, BANGALORE-560 060.
8. CHANDRAPPA BEERAJJANAVAR
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
K.R.PURAM SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 036.
9. RAJAKUMARA,
S/O BABU RAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
MATTIKERE SUB-DIVISION WEST ZONE,
BBMP, BANGALORE-560 054.
10. H.M.MUHEEBULLA,
S/O H.MOHAMMED SAMIULLA,
AGED ABUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
C.V.RAMANAGAR EAST ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 093.
11. INDRAJITH LAMANI,
S/O KOMALASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
SHIVAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
DISPENSARY ROAD, EAST ZONE,
BBMP, BANGALORE-560 042.
12. B.N.ANITHA,
W/O MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
REVENUE OFFICER, YELAHANKA
UPANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, YELAHANKA
ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 065.
13. JANARDHANA RAZURA,
S/O PAMPATHI RAZURA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFICER,
DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION, M.G.ROAD,
MAYOHALL BUILDING, EAST ZONE,
BBMP, BANGALORE-560 025.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
2. RAJANNA,
MAJOR BY AGE,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE), ESTATES
BOMMANAHALLI, OFFICE OF THE JOINT
COMMISSIONER,
BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,
BBMP, BANGALORE-560 068.
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
3. B.V.N.BHATTACHAR,
MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE), HAL
SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, 1ST CROSS,
RAMESHNAGAR, VIBHUTHIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 037.
4. M.KRISHNA MURTHY,
MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE)
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, OOD OFFICE
OF THE MAYOR, N.R.SQUARE,
BBMP, BANGALORE-560 002.
5. T.NATARAJA,
MAJOR BY AGE,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE),
ARAKERE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 076.
6. N.KRISHNA, MAJOR BY AGE,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE), GANDHINAGAR,
GOODSHED ROAD, BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 053
7. B.T.SHIVA KUMAR,
MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE),
LAGGERE SUB-DIVISION, R.R.NAGAR ZONE,
BBMP, KOOTIGEPALYA, NEAR BUDDHA PARK,
BENGALURU-560 091.
8. V.MURTHY,
MAJOR BY AGE,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT OFFICER
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE),
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
OFFICER OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
MAHADEVAPURA,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 048.
9. G.NARASIMHA NAIK,
MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE), EATATES,
RR NAGAR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT
COMMISSIONER, RR NAGAR ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU-560098.
10. S.CHANDRASHEKAR,
MAJOR BY AGE,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE),
ADVERTISEMENT, RR NAGAR,
OFFICE OF THE
JOINT COMMISSIONER, R.R.NAGAR ZONE,
IDEAL HOMES, BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 098.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI.PAVAN KUMAR.M.N., ADV. FOR R-2, R-5, R-6 & R-8;
R-3, R-4, R-7 & R-10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI.K.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH (i) OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 03.07.2018
(UNDER ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND (ii)
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 03.07.2018 (UNDER
ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION) BOTH ISSUED BY THE
R-1 AND DIRECTING THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE CASES OF
PETITIONERS FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT
REVENUE OFFICER AND PROMOTE TO THE SAID CADRE
FORTHWITH WITH EFFECT FROM 03.07.2018 AND GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
IN W.P.No.3915/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. N. KRISHNA,
S/O LATE NALLAPPA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
GOODSHED ROAD, BANGALORE-53.
2. SRI. RAJANNA
S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
AEROHALLI SUB-DIVISION
BEL LAYOUT, BANGALORE-91.
3. V.MURTHY
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
JEEVANABHIMA NAGAR SUB DIVISION
BABASB COLONY
HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-98
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V.SRINIVAS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
B B M P, N.R.SQUARE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
B.B.M.P. NR SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560001
3. R.KRISHNA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560001.
4. M.H.SWAMY
S/O LATE HOMBALE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER,
RAJAJINAGAR SUB DIVISION,
WEST ZONE, BBMP
BANGALORE -560010.
5. SHARANAMMA
S/O NOT KNOW TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
6. N.RAMESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQAURE, BANGALORE - 560001.
7. V.VASANTH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
8. P.NIRANJANA MURTHY
S/O RAMALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSORS,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
CHIKKAPETE SUB DIVISION
THULASITHOTA, WEST ZONE, BBMP
BANGALORE -560053.
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
9. N.G.BASAVARAJU
S/O B.GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
HORAMAVU SUB DIVISION
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP
JAYANTHY CIRCLE, HORAMAVU
BANGALORE - 560113.
10 . A.E.RAJANNA
S/O ESHRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR
OFFICER OF THE REVENUE OFFICER,
BATARAYANAPURA SUB DIVISION,
THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND
YALAHANKA ZONE, BBMP,
BANGALORE - 560077.
11 . ADHINATH CHOWGALE
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
12 . SANTHOSH KUMAR EJJIRE
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGE ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
13 . CHANDRAPPA BEERAJJANAVAR
S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER,
K.R.PURAM SUB DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURAM ZONE, BBMP
BANGALORE - 560036.
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
14 . N.CHANRASHEKAR
MAJOR BY AGE
WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE) ADVERTISEMENT,
RR NAGAR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
RR NAGAR ZONE, IDEAL HOMES BBMP
BANGALORE - 560098.
15 . RAJAKUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQAURE, BANGALORE - 560001.
16 . MAHIB ULLA H.M.
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
17 . B.S.ANITHA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
18 . INDRAJITH LAMBANI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
19 . JANARDHAN RAJUR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
20 . KADRAPPA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
21 . G.V.NAGARAJU
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
22 . NETHRAVATHI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
23 . MANJUNATH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
24 . A.NALLAPPA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
25 . N.ANJANEYA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
26 . K.SHANKAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
27 . SURESH BABU
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
28 . RAMESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARVIND.M.NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH.N., ADVOCATE FOR
R-2, R-6, R-8 TO R-13, R-15, R-16, R-18 & R-19;
SRI.K.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE FINAL
SENIORITY LIST DATED 08.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.
IN W.P.No.10739/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.G.S.SIDDALINGAPPA,
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT REVENUE
OFFICER, MARATHAHALLI ZONE,
MAHADEVAPURA BBMP,
R/O.#227, OPP TO MARAMMA TEMPLE,
GUNJUR POST VIA VARTHUR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 087.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION
COMMITTEE-2 AND THE ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
5. R.KRISHNA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001.
6. M.H.SWAMY,
S/O LATE HOMBALE CHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
WEST ZONE BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 010.
7. SHARNAMMA,
W/O V.NARASHIMAMURTHY,
AGED AOBUT 43 MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
8. N.RAMESH,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,BENGALURU-560 001.
9. V.VASANTH,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
10. P.NIRANJANA MURTHY,
S/O RAMALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O ARO,
CHIKKAPETE SUB-DIVISION,
THULASITHOTA, WEST ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 053.
11. N.G.BASAVARAJU,
S/O B.GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O ARO,
HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION,
JAYANTHY CIRCLE, HORAMAVU,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 113.
12. A.E.RAJANNA,
S/O ESHRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O ARO,
BATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND,
YALAHANKA ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 077.
13. ADHINATH CHOWGALE,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUAR, BENGALURU-560 001.
14. SANTHOSH KUMAR EJJIRE,
S/O CHANDRABASAPPA EJERI,
AGED ABOUT 37 MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
15. CHANDRAPPA BERAJJANAVAR,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O ARO,
K.R.PURAM, SUB-DIVISION,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 036.
16. N.CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O/ ARO
(INDEPENDENT CHARGE) ADVERTISEMENT
R.R.NAGAR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
R.R.NAGAR, ZONE, IDEAL HOME BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 098.
17. RAJAKUMAR,
S/O BABARAO,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R. SUQARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
18. MHIB ULLA H.M.
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
19. B.S.ANITHA,
W/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
20. INDRIJITH LAMBANI,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGLAURU-560 001.
21. JANARDHAN RAJUR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
22. KADRAPPA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
23. G.V.NAGARAJU,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
24. NETHRAVATHI,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
25. MANJUNATH,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
26. A.NALLAPPA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
27. N.ANJANEYA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
28. K.SHANKAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
29. SURESH BABU,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
30. RAMESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
31. B.VITTALAIAH,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.
32. S.MAHESH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 092.
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
33. DODDASHAMACHARI,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
ESTATE YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 063.
34. K.SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.
35. H.N.BASAVARAJU,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
36. S.M.SHANTHALA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
YESWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.
37. M.RAVIKUMAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
WELFARE, R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.
38. RAJAPPA,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
CHIKKAPETE SUB-DIVISION,
THULASITHOTA,
WEST ZONE, BBMP,
BENGALURU-560 053.
39. KRISHNA.R.THASILDAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
D E O NORTH, BENGALURU-560 064.
40 S.K.MOHAN RAM,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
V R S ASSESSOR,
O/O BBMP, BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI.K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R--2 TO R-4;
SMT.LASHMY IYENGAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.
N.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6, R-8,
R-10 TO 15, R-17 TO R-21;
R-7, R-9, R-16 & R-13 ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021, PETITION AGAINST R-37
IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AND NOTICE TO R-5, R-22 TO
R-32, R-34 TO R-36 & R-38 TO R-40 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED DPC PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES, THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION
COMMITTEE-2, BBMP BENGALURU DATED 15.02.2020 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H, ETC.
IN W.P.No.5188/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.G.NAGARAJ, S/O LATE GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DY.CONTROLLER OF
FINANCE (WEST) BENGALURU.
2. SRI.K.N.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O LATE NARASIMHA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MPED)
BENGALURU-560 002.
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
3. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.N. S/O LATE NANJAPPA.V
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ELE)
BENGALURU-560 002.
4. SRI.R.MANJUNATH, S/O LATE A RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE AEE, HOMBEGOWDANAGAR,
SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 011.
5. SRI.GURUSHANTHAPPA.D.C,
S/O LATE CHIKKANNAD.L.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
DASARAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560 057.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.CHANDRAKANTH.R.GOULARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, REP BY COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SEPCIAL COMMISSIONER (ADMN)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY COMMISSIONER, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN)
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ADMN)
BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA
PALIKE, REP BY COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRINCE ISSAC, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI.ARAVIND.M.NAGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER BEARING No. DATED 04.02.2021
PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-R AS
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND IN VIOLATION OF THE
ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN W.P.No.7116-
7117/2013 DATED:18.12.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE
ORDER MADE IN CCC No.534-535/2015 DATED 17.11.2015
VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE RANKING OF THESE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, ETC.
IN W.P.No.10879/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.M.G.NIRANJAN, S/O LATE H.GOWRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O, C.V.RAMANA NAGARA,
BENGALURU EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU.
2. SRI.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O MOHAMMED AMIR ALI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O, PULIKESHINAGARA,
BENGALURU EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU.
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
3. SRI.H.DEVARAJ, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O, UTTARAHALLI
BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE,
BENGALURU.
4. SRI.NARASIMHALU, S/O PEDDIGA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O, C.V.RAMANNAGARA,
BENGALURU EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU.
5. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA.S.K.,
S/O S.KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O, PULIKESHINAGARA,
BENGALURU EAST ZONE,
BENGALURU.
6. SRI.MANJUNATH.N, S/O NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O H S T LAYOUT,
BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,
BENGALURU-78.
7. SRI.SRINIVAS, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE,
BENGALURU.
8. SRI.S.ANJANEYA, S/O SUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O, J.P.NAGARA,
BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE,
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
BENGALURU.
9. SRI.SRIDHARA, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE,
A R O, BYATARAYANAPURA,
YELAHANKA ZONE,
BENGALURU.
10. S.THIMMAIAH, S/O SUBBARAJULU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEAS,
O/O ARO BEGUR, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,
BENGALURU.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED FINAL GRADATION LIST ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED;08.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC.
IN W.P.No.18471/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE K.V.KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO,
BBMP,
HOMBEGOWDA NAGAR-560029,
BENGALURU.
2. SRI.S.RENUKA,
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ARO SHANTHI NAGAR BBMP,
OOD MADIVALA CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE,
MARUTHI NAGAR-560 068
BENGALURU.
3. SRI.NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ARO GANDHINAGAR, BBMP,
BENGALURU-53.
4. SRI.GANGADHARA,
S/O ALTE BARADAPPA,
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF ARO, HSR LAYOUT,
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
5. MAHEEBULLA H.M.,
ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP,
B.T.M.LAYOUT-560 068
BENGALURU.
6. B.N.ANITHA,
ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP,
ANJANAPURA-560 108
BENGALURU.
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
7. JANARDANA RAJOOR,
ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP,
DOMMALURU-560 007.
BENGALURU.
8. N.PRAKASH,
ASSESSOR,
OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP,
MARATHAHALLI-560 037
BENGALURU.
DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED:30.11.2022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4;
SRI.H.J.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-7;
R-6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED:30.11.2022, WP AS AGAINST R-8
IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FINAL GRADATION LIST ISSUED BY THE R-2 THE
COMMISSIONER, BBMP, BENGALURU BEARING No.12(1)
PR/104/04-05/19-20 DATED.08.11.2019, ANNEXURE-E, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
WP No. 1130 of 2020
And Connected Matters
ORDER
1. The struggle for seniority between the direct
recruits and the promotees working in the Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ("the BBMP", for short) in
the cadre of First Division Assistants, and their
consequential promotions and seniority in the promotional
cadres is the subject matter of challenge, in this batch of
writ petitions.
2. The following facts are not in dispute.
3. The recruitment to various posts in the BBMP
are governed by the City of Bangalore Municipal
Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment
Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "C & R
Rules"), which were framed on 03.03.1971.
4. Under these Rules, the posts of First Division
Assistants ("FDA") are required to be filled up by direct
recruitment and by promotion from the post of Second
Division Assistant ("SDA"), in the ratio of 50:50.
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
5. On 13.08.2012, a provisional gradation list of
the FDA appointed between the periods 01.01.1988 and
01.08.2012 was published.
6. After considering the objections filed by the
FDAs who were aggrieved by their assigned rankings, a
final gradation list was issued on 28.11.2013.
7. In this final gradation list, the five petitioners in
W.P. No.39961/2016 were assigned rankings from 256 to
277. These petitioners had been initially appointed as
SDAs between 31.12.1994 and 02.12.1995, and were
promoted to the cadre of FDA on 18.01.2018.
8. As the petitioners (who were the promotees)
had been promoted on 18.01.2008, which was about nine
months before the private respondents had been directly
recruited under the notification dated 04.10.2008 and in
the final gradation list dated 28.01.2013, they (the
promotees) were assigned rankings from 256 to 277,
while the private respondents i.e., direct recruits were
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
assigned rankings from 281 to 351. In other words, the
promotees to the cadre of FDA were considered as seniors
to the directly recruited FDAs.
9. The direct recruits, being aggrieved by this
gradation list, preferred writ petitions before this Court in
W.P. Nos.7116-7117/2013.
10. During the pendency of said writ petitions, the
Establishment and Administrative Reforms Standing
Committee of the BBMP ("the Standing Committee")
passed a resolution on 04.02.2013, in which it was
recorded that there existed certain deficiencies in the final
gradation list dated 28.01.2013. The Standing Committee,
in light of the deficiencies and the objections raised by the
employees, ultimately resolved to consider the objections
of the erstwhile employees of the Town Municipal Council,
who had been absorbed into the BBMP by keeping them
outside the seniority and to finalise the seniority of the
employees of the BBMP afresh, and until then, their
promotions were required to be withheld.
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
11. This Court, thereafter, on 18.12.2014,
proceeded to dispose of W.P. Nos.7116-7117/2013 holding
that the seniority list dated 28.01.2013 was not in
conformity with the law and was required to be re-done,
and there was a need to direct the BBMP to implement the
resolution dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Standing
Committee. Accordingly, this Court allowed the writ
petitions and directed the BBMP to give effect to the
resolution dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Standing
Committee, immediately.
12. It is also pertinent to state here that the 22
direct recruits had also preferred W.P. Nos.51-72/2014
challenging the seniority list dated 28.01.2013. However,
these petitions, by an order dated 03.07.2015, were
dismissed as certain objections had not been complied
with.
13. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on
18.12.2014 in W.P. Nos.7116-7117/2013, the BBMP
- 62 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
proceeded to issue a provisional seniority list of FDAs. This
provisional seniority list was in respect of all the FDAs who
had been appointed between 03.03.1971 and 01.01.2015.
14. In this provisional seniority list, the BBMP
sought to apply the guidelines stated in the Government
Order ("GO") dated 05.07.1976 (based on the decision
rendered in V.B. Badami's1 case, by the Supreme Court)
and the GO dated 14.12.1987 (based on the decision
rendered in Gonal Bhimappa's2 case, by the Supreme
Court).
15. This provisional seniority list sought to classify
and calculate the vacancies between the direct recruits
and promotees, as indicated in the 2 aforementioned GOs
i.e., by defining Block Periods. As per the 2 GOs, the Block
Periods, were required be from the date on which the
Rules were promulgated and the dates on which direct
recruitments were first made, and the other Block Periods
V.B. Badami and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors., 1980 AIR 1561.
Gonal Bhimappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 2359.
- 63 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
were to be for the periods between the dates on which
direct recruitments were subsequently made.
16. The BBMP classified and calculated the
vacancies into eight Block Periods.
17. The initial Block Period was the "No Rule Period"
i.e., the period during which there were no statutory rules
governing the recruitment, which was between 01.09.1966
and 03.01.1971.
18. The first Block Period was from the date on
which the statutory rules were promulgated i.e.,
03.03.1971, till the date on which the first direct
recruitment was made i.e., on 10.10.1971. Similarly,
seven other Block Periods were classified, which were the
periods between which direct recruitments were made.
19. In the provisional gradation list, the BBMP
placed all the promotees (the petitioners in the aforesaid
writ petitions i.e., W.P. No.39661/2016) below the direct
recruits. In other words, the direct recruits, who had been
- 64 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
appointed as FDAs directly under the notification dated
04.10.2008 i.e., 9 months after the petitioners were
promoted on 18.01.2008 as FDAs, were considered as
seniors to the promotees. This was on the ground that the
promotees had occupied posts in excess of the posts
earmarked under the 50% quota for promotees.
20. The promotee-petitioners filed objections to the
said gradation list contending that it was impermissible for
the BBMP to place them below the direct recruits, since it
was an admitted fact that they were all promoted on
18.01.2008, whereas the direct recruits were recruited
subsequently on 04.10.2008 and onwards.
21. Despite the objections raised by the petitioners,
the BBMP proceeded finalise the gradation list and
proceeded to issue the final gradation list on 09.09.2015.
22. In this final gradation list, the placement of the
promotee-FDAs (such as petitioners) below the directly
recruited FDAs (private respondents) was maintained.
- 65 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
23. This final gradation list was accompanied by
seven explanations.
24. The 2nd explanation stated that, the local
candidates, the erstwhile employees of the Town Municipal
Council which were merged with the BBMP, the employees
who had sought for change of cadre and the employees
appointed on compassionate appointment were considered
as direct recruits in the respective Block Periods, and their
appointment were finalized.
25. Similarly, the 3rd explanation stated that the
daily wage employees who had been regularized were also
considered under the direct recruitment quota.
26. The fourth explanation stated that the GO dated
05.07.1976 was applied in the matter of classifying and
calculating the vacancies between the direct recruits and
the promotees. The said explanation reads as follows:
- 66 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
"4. ¢£ÁAPÀ 05/07/1967gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¸ÀASÉå:r¦JDgï
48 J¸ïJ¸ïDgï 75 gÀ°è ¨ÁèPï CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀĪÀ
GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¸Àà¶ÖPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ>ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
"For purposes of classifying and calculating the
vacancies between direct recruits and promotees on
the basis of the quota fixed in the cadre and
Recruitment Rules, the period which will form a
block will be from the date of commencement of the
Cadre and Recruitment Rules to the dates on which
direct recruits were first appointed unless in the
mean while, there was any amendment to the
Rules, in which case the block will be the period
commencing from the date of commencement of the
rule to the date of amendment and thereafter from
the date of amendment to the date of recruitment
of direct recruits and the vacancies in both the
blocks will have to be taken into account"
CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀiÁªÀiÁªÀ½ eÁjUÉ
§AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 03.03.1971 jAzÀ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁr DzÉñÀ
ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀªÀgÉ«UÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ MAzÀÄ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw¬ÄAzÀ
ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁr DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ
¢£ÁAPÀzÀªÀgÉ«UÉ ¨ÁèPï CªÀ¢üUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹ F ¨ÁèPï CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è
®¨sÀåªÁUÀĪÀ jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è
¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ PÉÆÃmÁzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÁßV ªÀVÃðPÀgÀt ªÀiÁr, ¨sÀwð
ªÀiÁqÀ>ÁzÀ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß,
ªÀVÃðPÀj¸À>ÁzÀ jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À «ÄwUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À
eÉõÀ×vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À>ÁVzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ F »AzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
01/01/1990 PÉÌ EgÀĪÀAvÉ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ
C£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¸À>ÁVgÀĪÀ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ>É
- 67 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
¥ÀjUÀt¸À>ÁVgÀĪÀ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ½UÉ ¨ÁèPï
CªÀ¢üUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ±ÉÃ.50gÀµÀÖ£ÀÄß £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÁUÀÆ
±ÉÃ.50gÀµÀÖ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À>ÁVzÉ.
5. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02/09/1994gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ
C£ÀĸÁgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/01/1990PÉÌ EgÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ
zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄÄ
HfðvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÉêÁ eɵÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ
ªÉÄÃ>É £ÉÃgÀ ªÉêÀÄPÁw ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¥ÀjUÀt¸À>ÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21/06/1971 jAzÀ
27/09/1971gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/07/1972 jAzÀ
07/08/1972gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02/05/1973 jAzÀ
06/11/1973gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03/07/1974 jAzÀ
27/08/1974gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24/01/1975 jAzÀ
12/12/1975gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20/06/1977 jAzÀ
10/07/1977gÀ ªÀgÉ«UÉ ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼À°è £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw
DzÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À>ÁVzÀÄÝ, F £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÉÃ
¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼Éà CxÀªÁ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ
¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðUÀ¼À°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼É JA§ §UÉÎ ¤RgÀªÁzÀ ªÀiÁ»w
®¨sÀå«®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸Á°£À°è ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼À°è £ÉÃgÀ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ D ¸Á°£À°è PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ
£ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À>ÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ¨ÁèPï
CªÀ¢üUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À>ÁVzÉ."
27. As could be seen from the above, the
classification and calculation of the vacancies was made as
per the GO dated 05.07.1976 and accordingly, rankings
were assigned as per the quota prescribed for the direct
recruits and promotees in the C & R Rules.
- 68 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
28. The fifth explanation, which would be relevant
for these cases, indicated the manner in which the eight
Block Periods had been created, and said explanation
reads as follows:
"5. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02/09/1994gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ
C£ÀĸÁgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/01/1990PÉÌ EgÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ ¥Àx
æ ª
À ÀÄ zÀeð
É
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄÄ HfðvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸Àzj
À
¸ÉêÁ eɵÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÀÄzÉÝU¼
À £
À ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ
ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ºÀÄzÉÝU¼
À £
À ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸
 ¯
À ÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀgAÀ vÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21/06/1971
jAzÀ 27/09/1971gÀ ªÀg«
É UÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/07/1972 jAzÀ 07/08/1972gÀ
ªÀg«
É UÉ ¢£ÀAPÀ: 02/05/1973 jAzÀ 06/11/1973gÀ ªÀg«
É UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
03/07/1974 jAzÀ 27/08/19740gÀ ªÀg«
É UÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24/01/1975 jAzÀ
12/12/1975gÀ ªÀg«
É UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20/06/1977 jAzÀ 10/07/1977gÀ
ªÀg«
É UÉ ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀU¼
À °
À è £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀU¼
À £
À ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ,
F £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÉà ¸ÀAzÀ¨ð
sÀ zÀ°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼ÃÉ
CxÀªÁ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sð
À UÀ¼°
À è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝU¼
À É JA§ §UÉÎ ¤RgÀªÁzÀ
ªÀiÁ»w ®¨sÀå«®èzÃÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸Àzj
À ¸Á°£À°è ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀU¼
À °
À è
£ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀU¼
À £
À ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ D ¸Á°£À°è PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ
£ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀª£
À ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ¨ÁèPï CªÀ¢U
ü É
¥ÀjUÀt¸
 ¯
À ÁVzÉ."
29. As could be seen from the above explanation,
the BBMP has clearly stated that direct recruitments had
been made on different dates and it was not clear as to
whether the direct recruitments had been done at one go
- 69 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
or on different dates and therefore, the last of the dates
on which the direct recruitment was made, was considered
as the last date of direct recruitment for the purpose of
classifying and calculating the vacancies in the Block
Periods.
30. It may also be pertinent to state here that the
seventh Block Period spanned between 11.09.1977 and
04.10.2008 i.e., for a period of more than thirty-one
years. This fundamentally indicated that for this period of
thirty-one years, there had been no direct recruitments to
the post of FDAs at all and it was only on 04.10.2008 that
direct recruitment of the private respondents i.e.,
respondent Nos.3 to 112 had been made.
31. The 6th explanation also stated that the 8th
Block Period was being treated as an Open Block Period,
since the 125 excess promotions that had been in the
earlier Block Periods were to be adjusted and only after
the adjustment was completed by filling up the 125 posts
in the DR quota could the 8th Block Period be closed.
- 70 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
32. The 9th explanation stated that the details of
the classification of the vacancies and the number of posts
were being enumerated by an Annexure, titled
'Annexure-I'. This Annexure-I described the 'No rule
period' and the eight Block Periods, and also indicated the
number of posts which were available for direct recruits
and promotees.
33. The above-mentioned Annexure-I is reproduced
herewith for the sake of clarity and better understanding:
C£ÀħAzsÀ-1
§ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-01-2015PÉÌ EgÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ¥Àr¸À>ÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À
CAwªÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¨sÀwð ¥Àæw ¨ÁèPï£À°è
¤UÀ¢vÀ
¨ÁèPï CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è GzÀ㫹zÀ jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉÆAiÀÄÝ
C£ÀÄ¥ÁvÀ
C£ÀÄ¥ÁvÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ
¹ & Dgï
¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ
¥ÀæPÁgÀ
E>ÁSÉ ºÀÄzÉÝ
MlÄÖ C.D ¥ÀgÀUÀt¸À
¨ÁèPï CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §zÀ
ºÀÄzÉÝ £ÉêÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÁV
EvÀgÉ >ÁªÀ
UÀ¼ÀÄ PÁw gÀĪÀ MlÄÖ £ÉÃ. ªÀÄÄA £ÉÃ. ªÀÄÄA £ÉÃ. ªÀÄÄA £ÉÃ. ªÀÄÄA
E>ÁSÉ uÉ £ÉÃ. §rÛ £ÉÃ. §rÛ £ÉÃ. §rÛ £ÉÃ. §rÛ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À
«°Ã£Áw
¸ÀASÉå
A B C D (A-(B+
C+D))
No. 01-09-1966
Rule jAzÀ 10 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Period 03-01-1971
03-03-1971
1 jAzÀ 14 00 14 50% 50% 07 07 08 06 +01 -01
07-08-1972
11-10-1971
2 jAzÀ 31 00 31 50% 50% 15 16 12 09 -03 +03
06-11-1973
- 71 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
08-08-1972
3 jAzÀ 04 00 04 50% 50% 02 02 03 01 +01 -01
06-11-1973
07-11-1973
4 jAzÀ 09 00 09 50% 50% 04 05 04 05 00 00
27-08-1974
28-08-1974
5 jAzÀ 32 00 32 50% 50% 16 16 21 11 +05 -05
12-12-1975
13-12-1975
6 jAzÀ 46 00 46 50% 50% 23 23 08 38 -15 +15
10-09-1977
11-09-1977
7 jAzÀ 545 22 38 01 484 50% 50% 242 157 327 -85 +85
04-10-2008
05-10-200
8 jAzÀ 186 11 00 00 175 50% 50% 87 88 42 133 -45 +45
*********
TOTAL 877 33 38 01 795 50% 50%
34. As could be seen from said Annexure, there was
no occupation of the promotees in excess of their quota in
the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th Block Periods, and only in the 2nd, 5th,
6th, 7th and 8th Block Periods was there an encroachment
of the promotees into the direct recruitment quota to the
extent of 3+15+85+45 i.e., a total of 148 posts.
35. The seventh Block Period i.e., the period from
1977 to 2008, during which no direct recruitments were
made, there was maximum encroachment of 85 direct
recruitment posts by the promotees.
- 72 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
36. Since the promotee-petitioners had been
promoted on 18.01.2008 i.e., in the 7th Block Period and
these promotions were in excess of their quota, they were
placed below the private-respondents who had been
directly recruited on 4.10.2008.
37. For the subsequent eighth Block Period, which
is treated as an open Block Period, out of the 87 posts
reserved for direct recruitment and 88 posts reserved for
promotees, only 42 posts had been filled up by way of
direct recruitment and 133 posts were filled up by way of
promotion. In other words, there was a shortfall in filling
up the quota earmarked for direct recruitments to the
extent of 45 posts and there was an encroachment of the
promotees into the direct recruitment quota by the grant
of 45 excess promotions to the promotees.
38. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 39961/2016 who
had been promoted on 18.01.2008 as FDAs much before
the private respondents had been recruited on
04.10.2008, have challenged this final gradation list dated
- 73 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
09.09.2015, principally on the ground that the Quota Rule
could not be applied by the BBMP, since it is glaringly
obvious that the Quota Rule had broken down completely.
It is their contention that the Rules were promulgated in
the year 1971 and the Quota Rule was never operated
ever since the promulgation of the Rules, and it is also an
admitted fact that there were no clear details regarding
the filling up of direct recruitment vacancies till 1977.
39. It is contended that from 1977 till 2008 i.e., for
a period of thirty one years, there was admittedly no
direct recruitment undertaken by the BBMP for the posts
of FDAs and it was, thus, obvious that the Quota Rule had
irretrievably broken down and consequently, the BBMP
could not have been applied the GOs dated 5.7.1976 and
14.12.1987 and prepare a gradation list by creating Block
Periods to classify and calculate the vacancies in order to
determine the inter se seniority of the FDAs.
40. The second batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.
Nos.4296/2018 & 9775/2018 are also filed by the
- 74 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
promotees who have been working as Managers and who
had been promoted from the cadre of FDA.
41. It is their case that they were appointed as
SDAs between the period 01.09.1989 and 11.05.1994, and
were promoted as FDAs on 10.05.2007 and nearly a year
thereafter, on 04.10.2008, the private respondents had
been directly recruited as FDAs and therefore, they could
never be considered as seniors to them.
42. They contend that they were also promoted to
the next higher cadre of Managers on 11.05.2010, which,
according to the C & R Rules, were required to be filled up
100% by way of promotion from FDAs and a seniority list
was also published on 28.12.2013, in which they had been
assigned seniority from the date on which they had been
accorded promotions.
43. They contend that on 25.07.2016 i.e., nearly
six years after they had been promoted, the private
respondents had been promoted as Managers and they
- 75 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
were therefore, without any doubt, juniors to them in the
cadre of Manager.
44. They are aggrieved by an order dated
17.07.2017, by which the private respondents, i.e.,
persons who had been recruited directly as FDAs and were
promoted on 25.07.2016 as Managers, have been granted
retrospective promotions with effect from 11.05.2010 on
the ground that their seniority had been refixed in the
feeder cadre of First Division Assistants (which is the
subject of the first batch of writ petitions) and they had
become eligible for promotion two years thereafter.
45. They are also aggrieved by the placement of
the said private respondents above them in the provisional
as well as the final seniority list published in the cadre of
Manager on 04.01.2018.
46. The direct recruits have also filed a petition in
W.P. No.56010/2018 challenging an order by which the
promotee-Mangers were placed in independent charge of
- 76 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
Assistant Revenue Officers on 03.07.2018, under Rule 32
of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules ("the KCSR"),
contending that they had been directly recruited between
the period 11.01.2008 and 23.10.2008, and they had all
been promoted as Assessors on 25.07.2016.
47. They also contend that the private respondents
(the promotees) were promoted as Assessors on
25.02.2015 and in the seniority list dated 10.01.2018,
they had been placed at Sl. Nos.406 to 436 and the
promotee-Assessors were placed at Sl. Nos.359 to 374,
and since they were given the eligibility year as 2010 by
virtue of the resolution dated 04.02.2013, they were
required to be considered as seniors to the promotee-
Assessors and in order to get over an seniority, an attempt
was being made to place them in independent charge
under Rule 32, though they did not possess the requisite
length of service.
48. The third batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.
Nos.1130/2020, 3915/2020, 10879/2021 & 18471/2022
- 77 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
are filed by the promotees challenging the seniority list of
Assessors dated 08.11.2019.
49. The petitioner in W.P. No.10739/2020 and the
petitioner in W.P. No.1130/2020 are one and the same. In
the first writ petition i.e., in W.P. No. 1130/2020, he has
challenged the seniority list of Assessors dated 08.11.2019
and has also sought a direction to the BBMP to prepare the
gradation list in the ratio of 7:5:1 as per the C & R Rules.
50. In the second writ petition, i.e., in W.P.
No.10739/2020, he has challenged the Departmental
Promotion Committee ("the DPC") proceedings dated
15.02.2010 and also the subsequent gradation list of
Assessors which has been published on 11.06.2021.
51. W.P. No.5188/2021 is filed by the petitioners
who had been appointed on compassionate grounds and
were considered as direct recruits, challenging the final
gradation list of FDAs published (as on 01.01.2020),
contending that the DPC had resolved to promote them as
- 78 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
Assessors on 01.08.2018 and they had been placed higher
than certain FDAs, but in the final gradation list dated
04.02.2021, they had been placed blow and their ranking
was brought down at Sl. Nos.850 to 884.
52. Learned counsel appearing for the promotees,
as already stated above, contend that there has,
admittedly, been no direct recruitment virtually from the
time the C & R Rules were promulgated in 1971 and it was
strikingly clear that the Quota Rule had never been
operated upon and had, thus, broken down since its very
inception. They place reliance on the judgment rendered
by the Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-
II Engineering Officers Association3 to contend that the
BBMP had seriously erred in applying the GOs dated
05.07.1976 and 14.12.1987, and applying the Block
Periods for the purposes of classifying and calculating the
vacancies and to determine the inter se seniority between
the promotees and the direct recruits, in coming to the
Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of
Maharastra and others, (1990) 13 SCC 715.
- 79 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
conclusion that there was encroachment of the promotees
into the direct recruitment quota.
53. They contend that since there was no direct
recruitment for more than thirty-one years, it will have to
be held that the promotions made in excess of the quota
and by encroaching upon the direct recruitment quota
would have to considered as valid promotions and
consequently, the service rendered by such promotees
could not have been annulled by applying the Quota Rule
and thereby, alter their seniority.
54. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP as well
as the direct recruits contended that once the C & R Rules
prescribed a quota for the direct recruits and the
promotees, the same had to be adhered to. They contend
that merely because no direct recruitment was conducted
for more than thirty-one years, it cannot be held that the
Quota Rule had broken down.
- 80 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
55. They contend that the promotions granted to
the promotees in excess of their quota were only
fortuitous promotions and therefore, they cannot claim
any legal right on that basis for the proposed seniority.
They place reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta4 to contend that
the promotions made in excess of their quota would only
be fortuitous promotion and on the basis of the service
rendered by such fortuitous promotions, they cannot claim
seniority if they have occupied the seats of direct recruits.
They contend that the promotees could claim seniority
only from the date the post became available to them in
their quota and any services that they had rendered by
virtue of their promotion in excess of their quota cannot be
counted for the purpose of seniority.
56. It is also stated that since the seniority of the
directly recruited FDAs had been re-fixed by the final
gradation list and they were seniors to the promoted
Suraj Prakash Gupta & others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & others, AIR
2000 SC 2386.
- 81 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
FDAs, it had become necessary under the provisions of the
KCS (regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973
and the Rules framed under the Act to grant them
retrospective promotions.
57. In light of the arguments advanced, the points
that arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions
are:
(i) Whether the petitioners have established
that the Quota Rule had broken down as
envisaged in the decision rendered by the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
the case of Direct Recruit Class-II
Engineering Officers Association (supra) and
have also consequentially established that
their promotions were valid and they would
thus be entitled to reckon their seniority from
the dates on which they were promoted; and
(ii) Whether the private respondents (Directly
Recruited FDAs) can be granted retrospective
promotions as a result of the alteration of the
seniority in the cadre of FDAs, and thereby,
be placed in seniority above the FDAs who
- 82 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
had been promoted earlier to them in the
promotional cadres."
58. As stated above, the C & R Rules which were
framed in 1971 states that the post of FDAs would have to
be filled up by direct recruitment and by way of promotion
from the cadre of SDAs, in the ratio of 50:50. This
indicates that it was the intent of the Rules to ensure that
there was infusion of new talent in the FDA cadre and at
the same time, the cadre also contained SDAs whose
experience in the SDA cadre would benefit the FDA cadre,
and this would result in the FDA cadre having an ideal
blend of experience and youth.
59. Ideally, the BBMP was required to ensure that
the 50% of the posts in the FDA cadre were to be filled up
by way of direct recruitment and 50% of the posts were
filled up by promotion. However, it is not in dispute that
the BBMP did not undertake any direct recruitments from
1977 to 2008 i.e., for more than 31 years.
- 83 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
60. In the proceedings held on 31.08.2015, for the
purposes of consideration of objections to the provisional
gradation list, it is stated as follows:
"13. F PÀÄjvÀAvÉ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À®Ä ²æà zÉêÀgÁeï, ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ G¥À
PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¹D¸ÀÄEgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À>ÁV, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
ªÀÈAzÀzÀ eÉõÀ×vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀĪÁUÀ PɼÀºÀAvÀzÀ ªÀÈAzÀUÀ½AzÀ
eÉõÀ×vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀzÀ¥Àr¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÉà ªÉÄð£À ªÀÈAzÀUÀ¼À eÉõÀ×vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À>ÁV, G¥À
DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ)gÀªÀgÀÄ §ºÀ¼À »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw
¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼ÀAvÉ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ «ÄøÀ>ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀzÉà ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ
¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CAwªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀÝ »£Éß>ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw¬ÄAzÀ
DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ
GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀÝ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå 7116-7117/2013gÀ°è
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ 18-12-2014gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðj
ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ
vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ¥Àr¸À>ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ
£ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ ¤AzÀ£Á CfðAiÀÄÄ «ZÁgÀuÁ ºÀAvÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, vÀÄvÁðV
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á®£É ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÉÃgÀ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ «ÄøÀ>Áw C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¸À>ÁVgÀĪÀ
vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ËPÀgÀgÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ CAwªÀÄUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ, F ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¢éwÃAiÀÄ
zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥Àj²Ã°¸À®Ä
PÁ>ÁªÀPÁ±À ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄgÀÄ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ eÉõÀ×vÉAiÀÄ°è
DUÀĪÀ §zÀ>ÁªÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CAwªÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ
¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀ¥Àr¹
CAwªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À>ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. EzÀPÉÌ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
PÉÆñÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ vÀÄvÀÄð
PÀæªÀÄzÀ CUÀvÀå«zÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ.
- 84 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
wêÀiÁð£À: ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ ¤AzÀ£Á Cfð
zÁR>ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ vÀÄvÁðV WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¥Á°¸ÀĪÀ ¤nÖ£À°è ¸ÀPÁðj ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÉÃgÀ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw/ªÀÄÄA§rÛ «ÄøÀ>ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹ ºÉÆgÀr¸À>ÁVgÀĪÀ
vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ËPÀgÀgÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¢éwÃAiÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À
¸ÉêÁ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÃgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ
«ÄøÀ>ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄgÀÄ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è
DUÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ªÀiÁ¥ÁðqÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ CAwªÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ
eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀ¥Àr¹, £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
CzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸À®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¸À>Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
PÀæªÀÄ: C¥ÀgÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ)/G¥À DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ)"
61. It is clear from the above that the direct
recruitments were not undertaken for this huge period of
31 years and promotions were not done in adherence to
the quota specified in the C & R Rules and this was
because of the Government instructions in that regard. It,
therefore, also follows that it was impossible for the BBMP
to adhere to the Quota Rule in the matter of direct
recruitments.
62. It may also be pertinent to notice here that it is
not the case of the BBMP that the promotions granted to
- 85 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
the petitioners i.e., the promotees were either ad hoc or
temporary. In fact, the BBMP, in the statement of
objections filed in W.P. No. 4296/2018, has stated in
paragraph No.3 as follows:
"3. It is submitted that, it is true that the
petitioners entered the service of erstwhile
Bengaluru Mahangara Palike now known as BBMP
between 1/9/1989 and 11/05/1994 as Second
Division Clerks and it is also true that all the
petitioners were promoted to the cadre of First
Division Clerk with effect from 10/05/2007. It is
also true that these respondents were appointed by
way of Direct Recruitment to the services of the
BBMP as First Division Clerks by the order dated
4/10/2008. It is also true that the petitioners were
further promoted to the cadre of managers with
effect from 11/05/2010, without considering the
valid objections of these private respondents by
BBMP. It is not true and correct that the promotion
of the petitioners was on regular basis. It is not
correct that even in the feeder cadre to the post of
Manager, the petitioners were seniors to the private
respondents. The petitioners with the malafide
intention have suppressed the fact that they are
juniors to these respondents in the feeder cadre to
the post of Managers and the petitioners have no
- 86 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
where mentioned that they are juniors to the these
respondents as per the final gradation list dated
09/09/2015."
63. It is, therefore, clear from the above that the
petitioners-promotees were granted regular promotions,
though they were in excess of the entitlement to the quota
permissible for promotees.
64. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the
case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers
Association (supra) has, on consideration of the case law
relating the disputes between the direct recruits and the
promotees in the matter of seniority, has declared as follows:
"47. To sum up, we hold that:
(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post
according to rule, his seniority has to be counted
from the date of his appointment and not according
to the date of his confirmation.
The corollary of the above rule is that where the
initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according
to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the
- 87 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
officiation in such post cannot be taken into account
for considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by
following the procedure laid down by the rules but
the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly
till the regularisation of his service in accordance
with the rules, the period of officiating service will
be counted.
(C) When appointments are made from more than
one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for
recruitment from the different sources, and if rules
are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be
followed strictly.
(D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the
existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an
appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation.
In case, however, the quota rule is not
followed continuously for a number of years
because it was impossible to do so the
inference is irresistible that the quota rule had
broken down.
(E) Where the quota rule has broken down and
the appointments are made from one source
in excess of the quota but are made after
following the procedure prescribed by the
rules for the appointment, the appointees
- 88 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
should not be pushed down below the
appointees from the other source inducted in
the service at a later date.
(F) Where the rules permit the authorities to
relax the provisions relating to the quota,
ordinarily a presumption should be raised that
there was such relaxation when there is a
deviation from the quota rule.
(G) The quota for recruitment from the different
sources may be prescribed by executive
instructions, if the rules are silent on the subject.
(H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive
instruction, and is not followed continuously for a
number of years, the inference is that the executive
instruction has ceased to remain operative.
(I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy
Engineers as well as the officiating Deputy
Engineers under the State of Maharashtra belonged
to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers.
(J) The decision dealing with important questions
concerning a particular service given after careful
consideration should be respected rather than
scrutinised for finding out any possible error. It is
not in the interest of Service to unsettle a settled
position."
- 89 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
(Emphasis supplied)
65. As could be seen from the declaration of law
rendered by the Constitutional Bench, it is settled law that
where an initial appointment was only ad hoc and not
according to the Rules, and were also made as a stop-gap
arrangement, their officiation in such posts cannot be
taken into account while considering seniority.
66. It is also held that where the initial appointment
is not made by following the procedure laid down by the
Rules, but the appointee continues in the post
uninterruptedly till the regularization of his services, the
period of officiating service will be counted.
67. The Apex Court has also stated that if it
becomes impossible to adhere to the existing Quota Rules,
it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the
ends of that situation. It has also declared that in case the
Quota Rule is not followed continuously for number of
years for the reason that it was impossible to do so, the
- 90 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
irresistible inference would be that the Quota Rule had
broken down.
68. It has further held that if the Quota Rule has
broken down, the persons who were promoted in excess of
their quota cannot be pushed below the direct recruits who
had been appointed subsequently.
69. In light of this declaration of the Constitution
Bench, the issue to be examined is as to whether the
Quota Rule was not followed continuously for a
number of years because it was impossible to do so
and consequently, hold the Quota Rule had broken
down.
70. It would also have to be examined whether
the promotions made in favour of the petitioners
were ad hoc or a stop gap arrangement, or whether
they were in accordance with the Rules.
71. As already noticed above, in the proceedings
held on 31.08.2015 for considering the objections to the
- 91 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
gradation list, it has been clearly recorded that the BBMP
was unable undertake direct recruitments and adhere to
the Quota Rule due to Government instructions in that
regard. If, as a matter of fact, the Government has issued
instructions to the BBMP not to undertake direct
recruitments, it is obvious that it was impossible for the
BBMP to undertake direct recruitment even if it so desired.
72. It should also be noticed here that if the BBMP
was unable to undertake direct recruitment for more than
3 decades, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that
the Quota Rule was not followed continuously for a
considerable number of years. It should also be kept in
mind that the C & R Rules were framed in 1971 and from
1977 to 2008, i.e., for 31 years, the Quota Rule was not
followed continuously. In other words, virtually, from the
date of framing the Rules, the Quota Rule was not followed
at all and the inescapable conclusion that is required to be
drawn is that the Quota Rule had broken down.
- 92 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
73. The BBMP, in its counter, has admitted that the
promotees were promoted in excess of their quota in the
cadre of FDA and these promotions were made prior to the
recruitment of the private respondents, by way of direct
recruitment in the cadre of FDA.
74. It is also admitted that the promotees were
promoted prior to the direct recruitment in the cadre of
Assessor and also in the cadre of Manger.
75. In light of the fact that the Quota Rule was not
followed continuously for 31 years, it is absolutely clear
that the Quota Rule had broken down, as contemplated
under the decision rendered in the Direct Recruit's case
referred to above.
76. As a consequence, the further dicta laid down in
the said case [Clause (e)] that when the Quota Rule had
broken down and appointments were made from one
source in excess of the quota and the same were made in
accordance with the Rules, the rule that the appointees
- 93 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
should not be pushed below the appointees who had been
appointed subsequently, would also stand attracted and
would be applicable in the present case.
77. As already held above, the BBMP admitted that
promotions had been given to the petitioners in excess of
their quota and it only contends that these promotions
were irregular and illegal, since they contravened the
quota. The fact that the petitioners were granted
promotions in accordance with their seniority and in
accordance with the Rules, though the promotions are in
excess of their entitled quota, is not in dispute.
Consequently, the petitioners cannot be pushed below the
private respondents-direct recruits in the seniority list.
78. There is yet another factor to be considered in
this case, in the context of the dicta at Clause (f) of the
aforementioned judgment, which states that where the
Rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions relating
to a quota, presumption should be drawn that here was
relaxation when there was deviation from the Quota Rule.
- 94 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
79. Rule 10 of C & R Rules reads as follows:
"10. Appointment by direct recruitment
or promotion in certain cases.- Notwithstanding
anything contained in these Regulations for
Recruitment specially made in respect of any post
the Commissioner or the Corporation may.-
(a) Recruit by direct recruitment to a post
reserved to be filled by promotion when he or it is
satisfied that the persons eligible to be considered
for appointment by promotion are in the immediate
Lower Grade not fit to be so appointed;
(b) Fill up by promotion any vacancy relating
to a post which is required to be filled by direct
recruitment provided an appointment under this
sub-clause shall not be continued for a period of
more six months except with the concurrence of the
Karnataka Public Service Commission."
80. As could be seen from said Sub-rule (b) of Rule
10, there is indeed a provision which permits relaxation of
the Quota Rule, though the relaxation in case of making
promotions into the quota earmarked for the direct
recruits is to normally not exceed 6 months. This power to
- 95 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
relax, in the context of the present case wherein the
Government had issued orders/directions not to undertake
direct recruitment for 31 long years, would have to be
considered as an exercise of this power of relaxation by
the Government in relation to the deviation from the
Quota Rule. Consequently, as laid down in Clause (f) of
the Direct Recruit's case (supra), it would become
imperative to draw the presumption that the power of
relaxation had been exercised, and consequently, the
promotions made in excess of the quota would have to be
held as valid promotions.
81. Reliance placed by the BBMP on the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta
(supra) would be of no avail, since the Apex Court was
dealing with a case relating to posts held by the
promotees therein on ad hoc basis or as a stop-gap
arrangement and the question of the Quota Rule having
broken down was not being considered.
- 96 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
82. Resultantly, the 1st question would have to be
answered in favour of the petitioner-promotees and it will
have to be held that the Quota Rule had not been followed
continuously for 31 long years and the Quota Rule had,
thus, broken down.
83. As a necessary consequence, it will also have to
be held that the promotions granted to the petitioners in
excess of their quota were valid and their seniority will
have to be counted from the dates on which they were
granted their respective promotions.
84. As a result of the above, the gradation list of
the FDAs dated 09.09.2015 is quashed, and the BBMP is
directed to re-do the seniority list without applying the
Quota Rule and assign seniority to the promotees from the
dates on which they were promoted.
85. As far as further promotions and the seniority
lists in the promotional cadre of Manager (which are the
subject matter of W.P. No. 4296/2018 and W.P. No.
- 97 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
9778/2018) is concerned. It is to be stated here that the
petitioners therein were promoted as Managers much prior
to the directly recruited FDAs and only by virtue of the re-
fixation of the seniority of these directly recruited FDAs in
the FDA cadre have they been given retrospective
promotions from the date on which they became eligible to
be promoted as Managers.
86. Since it has not been held that the seniority of
the promotee-FDAs is to be re-fixed from the date on
which they were promoted, as their promotions were valid,
the directly recruited FDAs will have to be placed below
them and they would, thus, not be entitled to claim
seniority on the basis of the applicability of the Quota
Rule. Consequently, the retrospective promotions granted
to them under the order dated 10.07.2017 shall stand
quashed. The promotions granted to them originally, shall
however, subsist.
87. The BBMP will have to thereby re-do the
seniority list in the cadre of Manager without granting the
- 98 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
directly recruited FDAs retrospective seniority and grant
them seniority only from the date that they were initially
promoted i.e., with effect from 25.07.2016.
88. In respect of the writ petitions which have been
filed challenging the seniority list in the cadre of Assessor
dated 08.11.2019, i.e., W.P. No. 1130/2020, W.P. No.
3918/2020, W.P. No. 10879/2021 and W.P. No.
18471/2022, it is to be stated here that the petitioners
were promoted as Assessors (re-designated post of Asst
Octroi Superintendents) from the cadre of First Grade
Revenue Inspectors, Revenue Inspectors and FDAs in the
ratio of 7:5:1, and as a consequence of the re-fixation of
seniority in the cadre of FDAs by the gradation list dated
09.09.2015, their respective seniority in the cadre of
Assessor has been altered. In light of this judgment, by
which the gradation list dated 09.09.2015 of FDAs,
wherein the seniority assigned to the directly recruited
FDAs has been quashed, the seniority of the petitioners
will have to be restored and they would have to be placed
- 99 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
above the directly recruited FDAs. Consequently, the BBMP
will also have to re-do the seniority of the assessors, in
light of this judgment.
89. W.P. No.56010/2018, which has been filed by
the direct recruits challenging the orders, by which the
promotees were placed in independent charge under Rule
32, will have to be dismissed, since it has now been held
that the promotions granted to the promotees in the cadre
of FDA cannot be found fault with.
90. W.P. No.5188/2021 filed by the direct recruits
i.e., the persons who had been appointed on
compassionate grounds cannot be granted promotion on
the basis of the DPC decision dated 01.08.2018, since the
right of the promotees to be placed above the direct
recruitees has been upheld by this order. Hence, said
petition is also dismissed.
91. Consequently, the second question is also
answered in favour of the promotees and it is held that the
- 100 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2508
And Connected Matters
directly recruited FDAs could not have been granted
retrospective promotions and they could not also be
assigned seniority over the persons who had been
promoted from the promotee cadre.
92. W.P. No.39961/2016, W.P. No.4296/2018, W.P.
No.9775/2018, W.P. No.1130/2020, W.P. No.3915/2020,
W.P. No.10739/2020, W.P. No.10879/2021 & W.P. No.
18471/2022 are allowed to the extent stated above.
93. W.P. No.56010/2018 & W.P.No.5188/2021 are
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
