Karnataka High Court
Sri M Paramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.2139 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.1793 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
IN WRIT PETITION No.2139 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHANKARA M.C.
S/O CHIKKA BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
ARASIKERE RANGE
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103
2. SMT. LATHA K.
W/O MANJUNATHA H.S.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
GANDHINAGAR RANGE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 006
3. SMT. SUMA M.R.
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA M.N.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101
-
2
4. SMT. DIVYASHREE B.H.
D/O
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 042
5. SMT. S. VANAJAKSHI
D/O LATE G. SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
GUBBI RANGE-562 106
6. SRI. ABUBAKAR
S/O ABDULGANI MUJAWAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
RANGE-30, NO.1354, 60 FT ROAD
'D' BLOCK, AECE LAYOUT
KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ADITHYA R. CHAKRAGIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
II FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK
BMTC, K.H. ROAD
SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
-
3
3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOGA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
4. SRI. S. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SHEKARAPPA S.K.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
RANGE No.6, SUBRAMANYANAGAR
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 001
5. SRI. K. RAJASAHEB
S/O MAHABOOB SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-04
BENGALURU-560 026
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SMT. SINCHANA M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION
Nos.3726 AND 3727/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.1793 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. PARAMESH
S/O MARIDASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-
4
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
RAJAJINAGAR RANGE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 004
2. SRI. BASAVARAJ KARAMANNAVAR
S/O DYAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 007
3. SMT. SUMANA V PATEL
D/O P.M. VASANTHA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
BTM LAYOUT RANGE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 008
4. SRI. HIDDAYATH ULLA K.K.
S/O KHALEEL K.B.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 008
5. SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI G.B.
D/O BAVANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR RANGE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 005
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
Ms. M.L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE)
-
5
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
II FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK
BMTC, K.H. ROAD
SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
3. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOGA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
4. SRI. S. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SHEKARAPPA S.K.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
RANGE NO.6, SUBRAMANYANAGAR
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 001
5. SRI. K. RAJASAHEB
S/O MAHABOOB SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-04
BENGALURU-560 026
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE
-
6
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION
No.3726 AND 3727/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The question raised for consideration before us in these
writ petitions is whether a group of persons who had
challenged the order of their placement in a select list,
unsuccessfully, through the whole hierarchy of forums upto
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, can be permitted to raise the
same challenge on their placement in the seniority list
prepared on the basis of the said select list.
2. Shorn of details, the facts are as follows:-
By the official memorandum dated 31.07.2002, the
third respondent called for applications to 254 posts of Sub-
Inspectors in the Excise Department by direct recruitment.
On 06.02.2004, the final select list was notified by the third
respondent as per the Karnataka Excise Services
(Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 in which the
-
petitioners' names were also notified under different
categories. The petitioners have accordingly reported for
duty in May, 2004.
3. Challenging this final list, two applicants - Mr.
Gururaj Rayakar and Mr. Madhusudhan Reddy approached
the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.323/2003 and connected
matters to contend that the final select list notified was in
excess of the reservation policy and that they were more
meritorious and thus ought to have been included in the
final select list. Since various candidates approached
different forums, 9 posts were kept vacant subject to the
outcome of those litigations. An additional select list was
published by the third respondent on 05.04.2005, wherein
the names of the fourth and fifth respondents were also
included, pursuant to which they reported for duty. On
14.10.2009, the petitioners as well as the fourth and fifth
respondents were promoted to the post of Inspector of
Excise.
-
4. While so, the Apex Court disposed of the
aforementioned Writ Petition on 06.05.2010 and this order
was modified on 21.09.2010 directing the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioners therein in terms of
Rajesh Kumar Daria reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785.
5. Thereafter, the fourth and fifth respondents along
with one Mr. Rachayya Hiremath preferred Applications
No.5613-15/2011 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to
extend the benefit of the Apex Court's order and re-do the
selection list by preparing the seniority in accordance with
merit. Pursuant to the order of the Apex Court, the third
respondent published the revised final and additional
selection lists on 28.09.2011 in the cadre of Sub-Inspector
of Excise.
6. Applications No.5613-15/2011 were dismissed by
the Tribunal on 20.01.2017 on the ground of delay and that
the prayers sought therein would hinder the right accrued to
other parties. The fourth and fifth respondents thereafter
sought review of this order in Review Applications No.68-
-
71/2017, which came to be dismissed on 06.10.2017 with a
finding that there was no error apparent on the face of
record. These orders were challenged in W.P.Nos.3374-
76/2018, which came to be dismissed by an order dated
26.03.2018 on the ground that the fourth and fifth
respondents had approached the Court 14 years after the
final select list was notified on 06.02.2004. Challenging
these orders, S.L.P. (Diary) No.2846/2021 was preferred
before the Apex Court, but was later withdrawn by the
fourth and fifth respondents with liberty to pursue other
remedies available before the appropriate forum.
7. The fourth and fifth respondents once again
approached the Tribunal filing Applications No.2671-72/2020
challenging the final select list, which was dismissed on
27.01.2021 with an observation that the matter had already
attained finality and does not survive for consideration.
8. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the fourth
and fifth respondents preferred W.P.No.6282/2021 and this
Court also dismissed said writ petition on 14.06.2021,
-
following which the fourth and fifth respondents made
representations on 21.06.2021 seeking alteration in the
seniority list and thereby allot seniority as per merit. An
endorsement dated 23.07.2021 was issued by the second
respondent stating that since the fourth and fifth
respondents were recruited through the additional select list,
their seniority could not be considered on par with the
candidates selected in the final select list. Subsequently, the
fourth and fifth respondents approached the Tribunal in
Application Nos.3726-27/2021 challenging said endorsement
and sought a direction to consider their representations
favourably in terms of the order of the Apex Court.
9. By the order dated 29.10.2021, the Tribunal
allowed the applications and consequently quashed the
endorsement with a direction to the second respondent, in
consultation with the third respondent, to make necessary
corrections in fixation of seniority in accordance with merit
and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months.
The petitioners, aggrieved by this order proposing to
-
displace them from the seniority list, have preferred these
writ petitions.
10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners
contends that the private respondents had initially
approached the Tribunal filing Applications No.5613-15/2011
(Annexure-A11), seeking the following reliefs:-
" (i) Call for records,
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ
or directions to the 4th respondent to extend the benefits
of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.
(Civil) No.323/2003, dated 21.09.2010, to the applicants
and further direct the 4th respondent to redo the selection
list and forward the same to respondents No.1 to 3,
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or
direction to the respondents No.1 to 3, to prepare the
seniority/gradation list after considering and correcting
the marks secured by the applicants in their qualifying
examinations on par with Mr.Madhusudhan Reddy's case
and
(iv) Pass such other orders or directions deemed
to be just and necessary on the facts and circumstances
of the case, in the interest of Justice and equity.
INTERIM RELIEF:
Pending disposal of the aforesaid applications, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be
pleased to pass an interim order/directions, directing the
respondents to not to promote the officials on the basis of
-
erroneous selection list prepared by the respondent No.4,
in the interest of justice and equity."
11. The said application was rejected by an order
dated 20.01.2017 consequent on the rejection of their
prayer for condonation of delay. A review attempted against
this order was also dismissed. Thereafter W.P.Nos.3374-
76/2018 was filed, which was also dismissed. SLPs filed
against the said judgment were withdrawn with liberty to
approach the appropriate authority. Thereafter, the fresh
attempts were made to seek revision of seniority which was
not successful. Applications No.2671-72/2020 was again
filed which was also dismissed. Suffice it so say that all
attempts by the private respondents to challenge their
placement in the final select list and seniority list were
unsuccessful. The promotions to higher posts were made on
the basis of the seniority assigned on the basis of the final
select list, which was the subject matter of challenge. It is
thereafter when the final gradation list was issued, that the
issue is sought to be raked up again.
-
12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners has placed reliance on the following citations:-
• Sri. G. Krishnamurthy v. The Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru Region, by
Order dated 28.06.2024 passed in WA
No.348/2024 (CS-RES);
• C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining &
Another, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, Paras 9,
10, 11 & 14;
• Union of India & Ors. v. Chaman Rana, reported
in (2018) 5 SCC 798, Paras 10, 14-16;
• Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional
Member Board of Revenue, Bihar & Another,
reported in AIR 1963 SC 786, Paras 9 and 12;
• Burn & Co. v. Employees, reported in AIR 1957
SC 38;
• Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam
Dass (2) & Ors., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 374,
Paras 25, 26 & 28;
• T. N. Perumal Reddy v. The State of Karnataka
& Another, reported in ILR 1979 KAR 774, Paras
12, 14, 25 & 35;
• S.M. Yatheesha & Ors. v. Sri. Ramesh & Ors., by
Order dated 18.10.2021 passed in WP
No.13385/2021 (S-KSAT), Paras 6, 7 & 8;
-
• State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347,
Para 22.2; and
• Sri. Suresh K. & Another v. The State of
Karnataka, by Order dated 18.06.2021 passed in
WP No.29110/2018 (S-KAT), Paras 10, 11 & 12.
13. The learned counsel for the private respondents
contends that the earlier challenge was against an erroneous
select list, while the present challenge is against the
placement in the seniority list violating the specific
provisions of the rules for fixation of seniority. It is
submitted that it is only when a seniority list was prepared
and circulated that the objection could be raised for the first
time, and that nobody is prejudiced by the direction issued
by the Tribunal to consider the objections.
14. The learned counsel for the private respondents
has placed the reliance on following citations:-
• Rajeev Kumar & Another v. Hemaraj Singh
Chauhan & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 554,
Paras 15 & 16;
-
• Pavithra G.C. & Ors., v. State of Karnataka &
Ors., by Order dated 18.04.2023 passed in WP
No.5622/2023;
• Sunil G. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., by
Order dated 19.04.2023 passed in WP
No.7107/2023;
• A.H. Umesha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., by
Order dated 03.07.2023 passed in WP
No.13401/2023;
• Srimati Raj Lakshmi Dasi & Ors. v. Banamali
Sen & Ors., reported in AIR 1953 SC 33, Para 13;
• Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar (Smt),
reported in AIR 1966 SC 1332, Para 9;
• State of Maharashtra & Another v. National
Construction Company, Bombay & Another,
reported in (1996) 1 SCC 735, Paras 6 & 8;
• Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v.
Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai & Ors.,
reported in (2000) 6 SCC 301, Para 7;
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur,
reported in (1989) 1 SCC 101, Paras 11 & 12;
• State of U.P. & Another v. Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd. & Another, reported in (1991) 4
SCC 139, Paras 39 & 42;
-
• A-One Granites v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported
in (2001) 3 SCC 537, Paras 9-14;
• Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited &
Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
reported in (2011) 9 SCC 354, Paras 41-47; and
• Shanti Conductors Private Limited & Another v.
Assam State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in
(2016) 15 SCC 13, Paras 50, 60 & 74;
15. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
find that the private respondents had been appointed as
Sub-Inspectors of Excise, pursuant to their inclusion in the
additional select list in September, 2005. Admittedly, the
private respondents and the petitioners were promoted as
Inspectors of Excise in 2009. In the year 2011, the private
respondents had approached the Tribunal seeking revision of
the final select list and to prepare seniority/gradation list
after considering the marks secured by them in their
qualifying examinations on par with Madhusudhan
Reddy's case (supra). Thereafter, Applications No.2671 &
2672/2020 was again filed challenging the final select list,
which was dismissed on 27.01.2021 on the ground that the
matter had attained finality. The said order was also
-
challenged in W.P.No.6282/2021 which was also dismissed
on 14.06.2021. Thereafter, representations were made
seeking alteration in the seniority list which was dismissed
by endorsement dated 23.07.2021. The said endorsement
was challenged before the Tribunal in Applications No.3726-
3727/2021, which was considered by the Tribunal, from
which the writ petitions arise.
16. We are of the clear opinion that the direction
issued by the Tribunal to consider the objections to the
seniority list on the same grounds, which have attained
finality as against the private respondents, would lead to
clear miscarriage of justice.
17. The petitioners herein who have been appointed
long before the private respondents, pursuant to a selection
initiated in 2002, are entitled to sit back and consider their
seniority settled since no successful challenge has been
raised for nearly two decades. Requiring them to answer
the claims again and again would result in a travesty and
cannot be countenanced. Though the learned counsel
-
appearing for the private respondents would contend that
their claim for seniority is based on the statutory provisions
contained in Rule 5 of the Karnataka Government Servants
(Seniority) Rules, 1957 and that the earlier rounds of
litigation were only in respect of placement in the select list,
we notice that the very claim for reckoning of seniority on
the basis of merit considering the marks secured by the
applicants was specifically raised before the Tribunal in
Applications No.5613-15/2011, which had been considered
and rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of delay.
18. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.10.2021
passed in Applications No.3726 &
3727/2021 by the Tribunal is set aside.
(iii) Consequently, Applications No.3726 &
3727/2021 are dismissed.
-
Pending I.A.No.2/2022 for permission to prosecute the
case in W.P.No.2139/2022 and I.A.No.1/2023 for permission
to prosecute the case in W.P.No.1793/2022, are hereby
closed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
cp*
