Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahabaleshwar S S/O Doddabasappa S vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2024
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
-1-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO.103457/2024(S-KAT) C/w
WRIT PETITION NO.107924/2023(S-KAT)
WRIT PETITION NO.103456/2024(S-KAT)
IN WP.NO.103457/2024
BETWEEN:
JAGADISH
TR 1) SRI. Y. VISWESWARA REDDY,
Digitally signed by
JAGADISH T R S/O. LAXMIKANTH REDDY,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, BMC,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001,
2) SMT. SAVITHRI S., D/O. NAGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS ESTATE OFFICER,
CITY CORPORATION, KALBURGI-585 105.
3) SRI. SURESH, S/O. MALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE-I,
RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR-584 101.
4) SRI. AMRESH PAMMAR, S/O. PANDURANGA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE-I,
BAGALKOT-587 101.
5) SRI. SHRIDHAR MUNDALAMANI,
S/O. SHIVAYANAYAMANA MUDALAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 401.
6) SRI. SIDDESH M., S/O. NAGAPPA M.,
-2-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
TAHASILDAR GRADE - I, TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
7) SMT. SANTOSH RANI, W/O. MALLIKARJUN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS ELECTION TAHASILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
YADAGIRI- 585 201.
8) SRI. MADHURAJ, S/O. BASAPPA KUDALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
BASAVAKALYANA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR 585 327.
9) SMT. VARSHA WODEYAR, D/O. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONARATE,
VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560052.
10) SMT. NEELA PRABHA, D/O. SHIVASHARANAPPA BABLAD,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILADAR, GRADE-I,
GURMMITKAL, YADGIR - 585 214.
11) SMT. KAVITHA R., W/O. DASHRATH V. S.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE-I,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
-3-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
3) SMT. HALEEMA, D/O. ABDUL HAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PENSIONS)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY-583 101.
4) SMT. GHOUSIYA BEGUM,
D/O MD NOORUDDIN KHAJI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY - 583 101.
5) SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
S/O. LATE K. GURURAJ RAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE-I,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, HOPPAL - 583 277.
6) SRI. SRINIVAS MURTHY,
S/O. VENKATESH RAO KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILADAR,
GRADE-II, GADAG-582 101.
7) SRI. AMARESH BIRADHAR,
S/O ANNARAO BIRADER,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
YADGIR-585 201.
8) SRI. VISHWANATH H., S/O. H. SHRISHALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
SIRAGUPPA, BELLARY-583 121.
9) SRI. U. NAGARAJA, S/O. U. RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ELECTION TAHASILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
10) SMT. V. RENUKA, D/O. R. CHINNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE-II,
-4-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI DISTRICT - 583 101.
11) SRI. VINAYA KUMAR PATIL, S/O. SHIRAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BAGALKOTE TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOT - 586 101.
12) SRI. GURUSIDDAYYA, S/O. SHEKARAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS COUNCIL SECRETARY,
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 590 016.
13) SMT. MAHIBOOBEE, W/O. MAHIBOOBSAB,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
14) SRI. ASHAPPA, S/O. LATE BHIMANNA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM, KALABURGI - 585 222.
15) DR. HAMPANNA, S/O. SANGANNA SANJJAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
YADGIR DISTRICT, YADGIR - 585 202.
16) SRI. MAHABALESHWAR S., S/O. DODDABASAPPA S.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
SPECIAL CELL, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
17) SRI. MANJUNATH K., S/O. MALAYYA K,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
KORATAGERE, TUMUR DISTRICT - 572 129.
18) SRI. ANNARAO, S/O. SIDDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING TAHASILDAR, GRADE -I,
WAITING FOR POSTING, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
-5-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
19) SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O. CHANDRAKALADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING TAHASILDAR, GRADE -I,
WAITING FOR POSTING, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
20) SRI. NAGAYYA, S/O. SIDRAMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER,
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KALABURGI DISTRICT - 585 101.
21) ANIL KUMAR G., S/O. VENKATESHA G.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
SANDURTALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT - 581 119.
22) SMT. SHRUTI K., W/O. AMITH KUMAR MALIPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
SINDHANUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 128.
23) SMT. SHARANAVVA, D/O. DYAMAPPA KARI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
HUVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT - 583 219.
24) SMT. MOHAN KUMARI, D/O. K. SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
ATALJI JANA SNEHI KENDRA,
K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.
25) SMT. RENUKAMMA,
D/O. SHANKREPPA KODAMANALLI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 104.
26) SMT. ANJUM TABASSUM LASHKARI,
W/O. MOHAD WASIM,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
HUMNABAD, BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 330.
27) SRI. YERRISWAMY P. S., S/O. SHARANAPPA
-6-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
CHANNIGIRI, DAVANEGERE DISTRICT -577 213.
28) SMT. NAGAMMA, D/O. SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
KALABURGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2,
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND AND
SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR R3 TO R10,
NOTICE TO R11 TO R28 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN
APPLICATION NO.10669-10676/2021 AND APPLICATION NO.10691-
10698/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN REVIEW APPLICATION
NO.2007-2035/2023 (ANNEXURE-B) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE APPLICATION NO.10669-10676/2021 AND APPLICATION
NO.10691-10698/2021 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 10
(ANNEXURE-C), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WP.NO.107924/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. RENUKAMMA,
D/O. SHANKREPPA KODAMANALLI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 104.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
-7-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
2) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3) SMT. HALEEMA, D/O. ABDUL HAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
BALLARI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
(PENSIONS), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY - 583 101.
4) SMT. GHOUSIYA BEGUM,
D/O MD NOORUDDIN KHAJI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS TAHSILDAR GRADE - I,
TALUK OFFICE, KAMPLI, BALLARI DISTRICT
PRESENTLY WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY - 583 101.
5) SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
S/O. LATE K. GURURAJ RAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
KURUGODU TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE-I,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL - 583 277.
6) SRI. SRINIVAS MURTHY,
S/O. VENKATESH RAO KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WAS WAITING FOR POSTING,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILADAR, GRADE - II,
GADAG - 582 101
7) SRI. AMARESH BIRADHAR,
S/O ANNARAO BIRADER,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
YADGIR-585 201.
-8-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
8) SRI. VISHWANATH H.,
S/O. H. SHRISHALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS TAHASILDAR FRADE - I,
TALUK OFFICE, HOSPET, BALLARI,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
SIRAGUPPA, BELLARY - 583 121.
9) SRI. U. NAGARAJA, S/O. U. RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
TALUK OFFICE, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ELECTION TAHASILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
10) SMT. V. RENUKA, D/O. R. CHINNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - II,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI, BALLARI DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE-II,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI DISTRICT - 583 101.
11) SRI. VINAYA KUMAR PATIL, S/O. SHIRAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BAGALKOTE TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOT - 586 101.
12) SRI. GURUSIDDAYYA, S/O. SHEKARAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS COUNCIL SECRETARY,
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 590 016.
13) SMT. MAHIBOOBEE, W/O. MAHIBOOBSAB,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
14) SRI. ASHAPPA, S/O. LATE BHIMANNA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM, KALABURGI - 585 222.
-9-
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
15) DR. HAMPANNA, S/O. SANGANNA SANJJAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
YADGIR DISTRICT, YADGIR - 585 202.
16) SRI. MAHABALESHWAR S., S/O. DODDABASAPPA S.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
SPECIAL CELL, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
17) SRI. MANJUNATH K., S/O. MALAYYA K,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
KORATAGERE, TUMUR DISTRICT - 572 129.
18) SRI. ANNARAO, S/O. SIDDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING TAHASILDAR, GRADE -I,
WAITING FOR POSTING, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
19) SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O. CHANDRAKALADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING TAHASILDAR, GRADE -I,
WAITING FOR POSTING, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
20) SRI. NAGAYYA, S/O. SIDRAMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER,
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KALABURGI DISTRICT - 585 101.
21) ANIL KUMAR G., S/O. VENKATESHA G.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
SANDURTALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT - 581 119.
22) SMT. SHRUTI K., W/O. AMITH KUMAR MALIPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
SINDHANUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 128.
23) SMT. SHARANAVVA, D/O. DYAMAPPA KARI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
- 10 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
HUVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT - 583 219.
24) SMT. MOHAN KUMARI, D/O. K. SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
ATALJI JANA SNEHI KENDRA,
K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.
25) SRI. Y. VISWESWARA REDDY,
S/O. LAXMIKANTH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, BMC,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001,
26) SMT. SAVITHRI S., D/O. NAGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS ESTATE OFFICER,
CITY CORPORATION, KALBURGI - 585 105.
27) SRI. SURESH, S/O. MALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
28) SRI. AMRESH PAMMAR, S/O. PANDURANGA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
BAGALKOT - 587 101.
29) SRI. SHRIDHAR SHEKHAR REDDY MUNDALAMANI,
S/O. SHIVAYANAYAMANA MUDALAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 401.
30) SRI. SIDDESH M., S/O. NAGAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 101.
31) SMT. SANTOSH RANI, W/O. MALLIKARJUN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS ELECTION TAHASILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
- 11 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
YADAGIRI- 585 201.
32) SRI. MADHURAJ, S/O. BASAPPA KUDALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
BASAVAKALYANA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR - 585 327.
33) SMT. VARSHA WODEYAR, D/O. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT
COMMISSIONARATE,
VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560052.
34) SMT. NEELA PRABHA,
D/O. SHIVASHARANAPPA BABLAD,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILADAR, GRADE - I,
GURMMITKAL, YADGIR - 585 214.
35) SMT. KAVITHA R., W/O. DASHRATH V. S.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101.
36) SMT. ANJUM TABASSUM LASHKARI,
W/O. MOHAD WASIM,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
HUMNABAD, BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 330.
37) SRI. YERRISWAMY P. S., S/O. SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
CHANNIGIRI, DAVANEGERE DISTRICT -577 213.
38) SMT. NAGAMMA, D/O. SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
KALABURGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2,
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND AND
SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR R3 TO R10,
NOTICE TO R11 TO R38 DISPENSED WITH)
- 12 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN
APPLICATION NO.10669-10676/2021 AND APPLICATION NO.10691-
10698/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN REVIEW APPLICATION
NO.2007-2035/2023 (ANNEXURE-B) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE APPLICATION NO.10669-10676/2021 AND APPLICATION
NO.10691-10698/2021 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 10
(ANNEXURE-C), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WP.NO.103456/2024
BETWEEN:
1) SRI. MAHABALESHWAR S., S/O. DODDABASAPPA S.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
SPECIAL CELL, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2) SRI. MANJUNATH K., S/O. MALAYYA K.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
KORATAGERE, TUMUR DISTRICT - 572 129.
3) SRI. ANNARAO, S/O. SIDDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING TAHASILDAR, GRADE -I,
WAITING FOR POSTING, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4) SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O. CHANDRAKALADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING TAHASILDAR, GRADE -I,
WAITING FOR POSTING, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
5) SRI. VINAYA KUMAR PATIL, S/O. SHIRAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BAGALKOTE TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BAGALKOT - 586 101.
6) SRI. GURUSIDDAYYA, S/O. SHEKARAYYA,
- 13 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS COUNCIL SECRETARY,
MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590 016.
7) SMT. MAHIBOOB,
W/O. MAHIBOOBSAB,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
8) SRI. ASHAPPA,
S/O. LATE BHIMANNA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM, KALABURGI - 585 222.
9) DR. HAMPANNA,
S/O. SANGANNA SANJJAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
YADGIR DISTRICT, YADGIR - 585 202.
10) SRI. NAGAYYA, S/O. SIDRAMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER,
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
KALABURGI DISTRICT - 585 101.
11) SRI. ANIL KUMAR G., S/O. VENKATESHA G.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
SANDURTALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT - 581 119.
12) SMT. SHRUTI K.,
W/O. AMITH KUMAR MALIPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
SINDHANUR,
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 128.
13) SMT. SHARANAVVA,
D/O. DYAMAPPA KARI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
HUVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT - 583 219.
- 14 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
14) SMT. MOHAN KUMARI, D/O. K. SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
ATALJI JANA SNEHI KENDRA,
K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3) SMT. HALEEMA, D/O. ABDUL HAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PENSIONS)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY-583 101.
4) SMT. GHOUSIYA BEGUM,
D/O MD NOORUDDIN KHAJI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY - 583 101.
5) SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
S/O. LATE K. GURURAJ RAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE-I,
KUSHTAGI TALUK, HOPPAL - 583 277.
6) SRI. SRINIVAS MURTHY,
S/O. VENKATESH RAO KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILADAR,
GRADE-II, GADAG-582 101.
- 15 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
7) SRI. AMARESH BIRADHAR,
S/O ANNARAO BIRADER,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
YADGIR - 585 201.
8) SRI. VISHWANATH H., S/O. H. SHRISHALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
SIRAGUPPA, BELLARY - 583 121.
9) SRI. U. NAGARAJA, S/O. U. RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ELECTION TAHASILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
10) SMT. V. RENUKA, D/O. R. CHINNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE-II,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI DISTRICT - 583 101.
11) SRI. Y. VISWESWARA REDDY,
S/O. LAXMIKANTH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, BMC,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001,
12) SMT. SAVITHRI S., D/O. NAGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS ESTATE OFFICER,
CITY CORPORATION, KALBURGI - 585 105.
13) SRI. SURESH, S/O. MALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
14) SRI. AMRESH PAMMAR, S/O. PANDURANGA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
BAGALKOT-587 101.
15) SRI. SHRIDHAR MUNDALAMANI,
- 16 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
S/O. SHIVAYANAYAMANA MUDALAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 401.
16) SRI. SIDDESH M., S/O. NAGAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
TAHASILDAR GRADE - I,
TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 101.
17) SMT. SANTOSH RANI, W/O. MALLIKARJUN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS ELECTION TAHASILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
YADAGIRI- 585 201.
18) SRI. MADHURAJ, S/O. BASAPPA KUDALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
BASAVAKALYANA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR - 585 327.
19) SMT. VARSHA WODEYAR, D/O. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT
COMMISSIONARATE,
VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560052.
20) SMT. NEELA PRABHA,
D/O. SHIVASHARANAPPA BABLAD,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILADAR, GRADE - I,
GURMMITKAL, YADGIR - 585 214
21) SMT. KAVITHA R., W/O. DASHRATH V. S.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101.
22) SMT. RENUKAMMA,
D/O. SHANKREPPA KODAMANALLI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHASILDAR,
HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 104.
23) SMT. ANJUM TABASSUM LASHKARI,
- 17 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
W/O. MOHAD WASIM,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
HUMNABAD,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 330.
24) SRI. YERRISWAMY P. S.,
S/O. SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
CHANNIGIRI,
DAVANEGERE DISTRICT -577 213.
25) SMT. NAGAMMA, D/O. SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, GRADE - I,
KALABURGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2,
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.M.
DHARIGOND AND SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADVOCATES
FOR R3 TO R10)
(NOTICE TO R11 TO R25 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN
APPLICATION NO.10669-10676/2021 AND APPLICATION NO.10691-
10698/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN REVIEW APPLICATION
NO.2007-2035/2023 (ANNEXURE-B) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE APPLICATION NO.10669-10676/2021 AND APPLICATION
NO.10691-10698/2021 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 10
(ANNEXURE-C), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 18 -
WP.No.103457/2024
C/W WP.No.107924/2023
WP.No.103456/2024
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
16.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE S.G.PANDIT)
In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are
before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India questioning correctness and legality of order dated
23.12.2022 passed in Application Nos.10669-10676/2021
and Application Nos.10691-10698/2021 by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench (for short,
'the Tribunal at Belagavi') and the order dated 04.12.2023
passed in Review Application Nos.2007-2035/2023 by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for
short, 'the Tribunal at Bengaluru'); and to dismiss the
applications filed by respondents No.3 to 10.
2. The parties would be referred to as they stood
before the Tribunal at Belagavi. Petitioners herein were the
- 19 -
respondents and respondents No.3 to 10 herein were the
applicants before the Tribunal at Belagavi.
3. Applicants were, initially, appointed as First
Division Assistants between 27.11.1997 to 07.04.2003.
Applicants No.1 to 4 were promoted as Sheristedars on
03.04.2008 and applicants No.5 to 8 were promoted to the
post of Sheristedars on 31.01.2009. Further, applicants
were placed in independent charge of the post of Tahasildar
Grade-II under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services
Rules, 1957 on 01.01.2015. Thereafter, DPC was convened
for consideration of their promotion to the post of
Tahasildar Grade-II on 16.07.2016 and they were promoted
as Tahasildar Grade-II on 25.07.2016. Whereas the
respondents, who are the petitioners herein, are directly
recruited Tahasildars Grade-II having been appointed on
23.09.2017 in pursuance of the Notification issued in the
year 2014. The ratio/quota fixed to fill up the post of
Tahasildar Grade-II is 50% by direct recruitment and 50%
by promotion from the cadre of Sheristedar.
- 20 -
4. In pursuance of Article 371-J of the Constitution
of India, the State of Karnataka introduced Karnataka Public
Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-
Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013
Order'). In pursuance of the 2013 Order, Rules called
Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment
for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) (Organisation of Local
Cadres, Allotment and Transfer of Persons) Rules, 2013 (for
short, 'the 2013 Rules') were issued under Notification
dated 29.01.20214. Thereafter, local cadre for Hyderabad-
Karnataka Region was formed and the applicants were
promoted as Tahasildars Grade-II post under local cadre of
Hyderabad-Karnataka region, whereas the respondents
were also directly recruited as Tahasildar Grade-II on
23.09.2017 to the post under local cadre i.e., Hyderabad-
Karnataka Region. The respondents-authorities published
final seniority list of Tahasildar Grade-II of parent cadre
under notification dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure-A9) which
includes Hyderabad-Karnataka Region also, wherein the
applicants, who are promotees, are shown in Annexure-3 -
- 21 -
List of Officials who have not been given eligibility dates,
whereas the private respondents, the direct recruitees,
were shown at Sl. No.1882 onwards, mean to say that the
direct recruitees are shown as Seniors and above the
applicants-promotees. Thereafter, provisional seniority list
dated 05.06.2021 of the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II
relating to Hyderabad-Karnataka Region was published and
the applicants stated to have filed their objections. The
official respondents i.e., the State Government, finalized the
seniority list relating to post of Tahasildar Grade-II relating
to Hyderabad-Karnataka Region on 25.06.2021. In
pursuance of the said final seniority list, the private
respondents were promoted to the cadre of Tahasildar
Grade-I by order dated 05.07.2021. Challenging the final
seniority list dated 25.06.2021 of the cadre of Tahasildar
Grade-II relating to Hyderabad-Karnataka Region as well as
the order of promotion of private respondents dated
05.07.2021, applicants approached the Tribunal at Belagavi
in Application Nos.10669-10676/2021 and Application
Nos.10691-10698/2021. Though the private respondents
- 22 -
were served with notice, they remained absent before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the applicants and
official respondents, under order dated 23.12.2022 allowed
the applications, set aside the final seniority list dated
25.06.2021, of the Tahasildar Grade-II relating to
Hyderabad-Karnataka Region and also the promotion of
private respondents to the cadre of Tahasildar-Grade-I
dated 05.07.2021, against which the petitioners, initially,
approached this Court in W.P. No.103380/2023. The said
writ petition was disposed of on 26.09.2023 granting liberty
to the private respondents to approach the Tribunal by way
of review application since the petitioners remained absent
before the Tribunal at Belagavi. Subsequently, the
respondents filed Review Application Nos.2007-2035/2023
which was dismissed by order dated 04.12.2023.
Challenging the order dated 23.12.2022 passed in
Application Nos.10669-10676/2021 and Application
Nos.10691-10698/2021, and the order dated 04.12.2023
passed in Review Application Nos.2007-2035/2023, the
private respondents are before this Court.
- 23 -
5. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M.S.Bhagwat
for Sri. Satish K., learned counsel for the petitioners;
learned Senior Counsel, Sri. P.S.Rajagopal for Sri. Jayanth
Dev Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 10,
and the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri.
Madanmohan M.Khannur, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Perused the entire writ petition papers.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners/respondents would submit that the Tribunal
committed a grave error in quashing the Seniority list dated
25.06.2021 pertaining to the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II of
Hyderabad-Karnataka Region on the ground that the
objections of the applicants are not considered. Learned
Senior Counsel taking us through the seniority list, would
submit that the objections submitted by the applicants are
considered and thereafter final seniority list is published.
Further, learned Senior Counsel would submit that even
otherwise, considering the objections of the applicants
would be an empty formality since the applicants' challenge
to the seniority list of Tahasildar Grade-II relating to the
- 24 -
parent cadre is dismissed and rankings assigned to the
applicants and respondents in the said list has become final.
It is submitted that the respondents are given ranking 1882
onwards i.e. direct recruitees, whereas the respondents
No.3 to 10 - promotees are not given ranking because of
non-availability of vacancies/quota for promotees. Further,
learned Senior Counsel would also submit that, under order
dated 26.04.2022, the applicants are assigned date of
eligibility as 26.04.2022 in the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II.
Further, learned Senior Counsel, referring to Rule 7 of 2013
Rules, would submit that, inter-se seniority as in the
original gradation list of the parent cadre shall be
maintained in the new gradation list of local cadre. When
the respondents/petitioners are assigned rankings in the
parent cadre seniority list of Tahasildar Grade-II, and when
the applicants i.e., the respondents No.3 to 10 herein have
not found their ranking due to non-availability of
promotional quota, they cannot claim seniority above the
private respondents in the seniority list of the local cadre.
Therefore, he submits that considering their objections
- 25 -
would be of no use and it would be an empty formality.
Further learned Senior Counsel would submit that the
Tribunal lost sight of the fact that providing an opportunity
for consideration of objection would be an empty formality
and only on the ground that objections are not considered,
quashed the seniority list which requires to be interfered.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners/respondents would further submit that seniority
list of parent cadre dated 23.03.2021 has become final and
the applicants' challenge to the said seniority list in
Application No.1438-48/2021 is dismissed and writ petition
filed against the said dismissal is also withdrawn. It is
further submitted that the applicants have suppressed the
fact of dismissal of challenge to parent cadre seniority list
dated 23.03.2021 and also eligibility date assigned to them
as 26.04.2022 before the Tribunal. If they had brought to
the notice of the Tribunal the above fact, the result would
have been otherwise.
- 26 -
8. Learned Senior Counsel for
petitioners/respondents would submit that the applicants
are excess promotees to the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II
and they have no place in the seniority list of Tahasildar
Grade-II relating to Hyderabad-Karnataka Region or in the
parent cadre. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel would
submit that the Tribunal, without application of mind,
proceeded to allow the application of the applicants.
9. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M.S.Bhagwat, in
support of his contention that, to consider the objections of
the applicants to the impugned seniority list would be an
empty formality, places reliance on the following judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
1) M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others1
2) Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others2
3) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and
Others3
(1999)6 SCC 114
(2007)4 SCC 54
(2021)19 SCC 706
- 27 -
Thus, learned Senior Counsel prayed for allowing the writ
petitions.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel, Sri.
P.S.Rajagopal for applicants/respondents No.3 to 10 herein
would submit that the impugned seniority list dated
25.06.2021 would not remotely indicate consideration of
objections filed by the applicants and it would only state
that the objections are considered in accordance with Rules
and final seniority list is published, which would not be
sufficient. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that
the impugned seniority list should, at least, indicate the
relevant objections and why those objections are not
tenable. Taking through Annexure-A20, the notification
dated 25.06.2021, learned Senior Counsel would submit
that not even one objection is noted and answered while
publishing the final seniority list of cadre of Tahasildar
Grade-II. Therefore, he supports the order passed by the
Tribunal.
- 28 -
11. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the
applicants are promotees and respondents/petitioners are
direct recruitees. He submits that the respondents were
directly recruited on 23.09.2017 whereas the applicants
were promoted on 25.07.2016 to the post of Tahasildar
Grade-II much prior to the appointment of respondents -
the direct recruitees. He further submits that promotion of
applicants were within the promotional quota and to
establish that promotion is within the quota, they had filed
objections which is not considered by the official
respondents while finalizing the seniority list. Learned
Senior Counsel would invite our attention to DPC
proceedings and points out that the promotion of the
applicants is within the quota provided for promotees.
Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the seniority list
published on 25.06.2021 relating to Hyderabad-Karnataka
Region of the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II is not prepared
in accordance with law, in that, the seniority list would not
indicate block period or vacancy position, and that while
preparing the final seniority list, guidelines laid down by the
- 29 -
State of Karnataka in pursuance of the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Badami's and Gonal Bhimappa's
case are not followed. Learned Senior Counsel would submit
that the objections to the seniority list would be of two
types: one would be relating to the rankings of individual
and other would be relating to manner of preparation of
seniority list. In the instant case, it is submitted that the
applicants had filed their objections pointing out that the
ranking assigned to them are not proper and also pointing
out that the seniority list is not in accordance with law,
which the official respondents have failed to consider. Thus,
the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Tribunal
is right in quashing the impugned seniority list with a
direction to consider the objections of the applicants.
Further, learned Senior Counsel would submit that based on
the erroneous seniority list, the respondents/petitioners
herein could not have promoted to the next higher cadre of
Tahasildar Grade-I. Therefore, he justifies quashing of the
order of promotion of respondents/petitioners. Further,
learned Senior Counsel would submit that no prejudice is
- 30 -
caused to the respondents/petitioners by the impugned
order since the Tribunal has only directed to consider the
objections and the Tribunal has not decided the seniority or
rankings of the parties. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of
the writ petitions.
12. In reply, learned Senior Counsel,
Sri. M.S.Bhagwat submitted that preparation of seniority list
of local cadre is regulated by Rule 7 of the 2013 Rules
(Annexure-A6) and the Official Memorandums issued in
pursuance of the decisions in Badami's and Gonal
Bhimappa's case is not applicable. He also points out that
Rule 10 of 2013 Rules has over-riding effect on all other
Rules, hence, no Rule would have application for
preparation of seniority list, ranking in parent cadre shall
continue in the local cadre. Further, he submits that under
the impugned final seniority list dated 25.06.2021,
applicants and respondents are assigned rankings as
provided to them in the parent cadre. Therefore, he would
submit that consideration of objections would not arise.
Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petitions.
- 31 -
13. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels for the
parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only
point which falls for consideration is,
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the direction of the Tribunal to
consider the objection of the applicants and to
redo the seniority list would be an empty
formality?
14. The answer to the above point would be in the
negative, and consideration of objections filed by the
applicants to the provisional seniority list dated 05.06.2021
of the Tahasildar Grade-II would be in compliance with the
principles of natural justice and would not be an empty
formality as contended.
15. Admittedly, the respondents/petitioners herein
are direct recruitees to the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II
having been appointed on 23.09.2017, whereas the
applicants/respondents No.3 to 10 herein, are promotees to
the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II on 25.07.2016 from the
cadre of Sheristedar. A perusal of the final seniority list of
- 32 -
Tahasildar Grade-II dated 23.03.2021 of parent cadre
indicates that the respondents/petitioners herein, who are
direct recruitees, are assigned rankings from Sl.Nos.1899
onwards, whereas the applicants/respondents No.3 to 10
are not assigned any ranking and they are placed at
Annexure-3 in the list of officials who have not been
assigned date of eligibility. It is also a fact that the
applicants/respondents are assigned date of eligibility as
26.04.2022 subsequently under Notification dated
26.04.2022 to the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II. Admittedly,
the applicants have not challenged the said Notification
dated 26.04.2022 assigning them the date of eligibility and
their challenge to parent cadre seniority list of Tahasildar
Grade-II, dated 23.03.2021 has been dismissed by the
Tribunal and the writ petition filed against the said dismissal
was withdrawn before the High Court. Be that as it may.
16. In the above circumstances, the question would
be, whether the objection of the applicants/respondents
would have to be considered as directed by the Tribunal
under the impugned order.
- 33 -
17. Providing opportunity to file objections to the
provisional seniority list would be part of principles of
natural justice. An official, if aggrieved by ranking assigned
to him in the provisional seniority list, by filing objections
could point out as to why he needs to be assigned higher
ranking or if there is any mistake or if there is any flaw in
preparation of seniority list, he could file objection to
correct the same. Such tenable objections shall have to be
taken note of by the authority while finalising the seniority
list. Objections could be either with regard to the ranking or
with regard to the manner of preparation of seniority list.
Since the seniority list pertains to the post of Tahasildar
Grade-II, which shall be filled up 50% by direct recruitment
and 50% by promotion, it shall have to be prepared by
following quota rule. Therefore, in the instant case, the
objection could be either with regard to ranking assigned to
an individual or it could be with regard to the manner of
preparation of seniority list by following quota rule/block
period etc.
- 34 -
18. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M.S.Bhagwat
contended that Rule 7 of 2013 Rules governs preparation of
seniority list of local cadre, hence, no other Rules have
application. Prima facie, we are not inclined to accept the
said contention. But, it would be premature to examine
such contention at this stage.
19. Objections filed are to be considered by the
authorities before finalizing the seniority list. A perusal of
the impugned seniority list i.e., Notification dated
25.06.2021 (Annexure-A20) would not remotely suggest
consideration of objections by the State Government which
is the authority to finalise the seniority list. Mere statement
that objections are considered and seniority list is finalized
(¹éÃPÀÈvÀUÉÆAqÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àjòð¹ CAwªÀÄ eÉõÀ×vÁ
¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀæPÀn¸À)ÁVzÉ) would not be sufficient to
come to the conclusion that objections are considered on
application of mind. The Notification should indicate
consideration of objections, if not all objections, at least,
- 35 -
relevant objections. Consideration would mean application
of mind and consideration of all the relevant aspects.
20. When the provisional seniority list of the cadre of
Tahasildar Grade-II relating to Hyderabad-Karnataka
Region was published under the Notification dated
05.06.2021, the applicants/respondents herein filed their
objections in terms of Anenxure-A19, dated 12.06.2021 and
10.06.2021. A perusal of the objections would indicate that
the applicants have raised objection contending that
promotions are within quota and the seniority list is not
prepared in accordance with 2013 Rules and other relevant
Rules. Consideration of those objections would not be an
empty formality. The objections raised by the
applicants/respondents herein are tenable and are relevant
objections which needs consideration by the authority which
is empowered to finalise seniority list. Consideration of
objections would be an empty formality, if on consideration
of those objections, the position does not change. But, in
the instant case, since the post/cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II
is to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by
- 36 -
promotion quota rule, consideration of applicants'
objections would be relevant and necessary, that too when
promotees contend that their promotion is within quota.
21. The authorities, while considering the objections
of the applicants shall also take note of the fact that the
applicants/respondents herein have failed in their challenge
to the parent cadre list dated 23.03.2021 of the cadre of
Tahasildar Grade-II and also non-challenging the order
dated 26.04.2022 assigning the date of eligibility as
26.04.2022 in the cadre of Tahasildar Grade-II.
22. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents i.e., the petitioners herein to
contend that direction to consider the objection would be an
empty formality, would have no application to the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case. Those are the
cases where objections would not make any difference and
if considered also, there would not be any change in the
ultimate outcome. In the instant case, as observed above,
the objections need consideration as the dispute with
- 37 -
regard to seniority is between the direct recruitees and
promotees and that too when the applicants' claim that
their promotion is within the promotional quota. If the
authority on consideration of objection is of the opinion that
objections are tenable in law, the seniority or ranking of the
parties may vary.
23. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal while
quashing the seniority list dated 25.06.2021(Annexure-A20)
of the Tahasildar Grade-II also quashed the order or
promotion of the respondents. Normally, when the seniority
list is quashed with a direction to consider the objection to
redo the seniority list in accordance with law, the promotion
would not be quashed, but the direction would be issued to
reconsider the promotion or review the promotion on
revisiting the seniority list. Quashing of promotion would
adversely affect the administration and, as such, it would
always be proper to direct the authorities to review
promotions on finalization of the seniority list.
- 38 -
24. Since we have come to the conclusion that the
authorities are required to consider objections before
finalizing the seniority list, we deem it appropriate to afford
one more opportunity to both the applicants and private
respondents to file their objections, if any, to the
provisional seniority list of Tahasildar Grade-II, published
under Notification dated 5.6.2021 (Annexure-A18).
25. For the reasons recorded above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The above writ petitions stand disposed of in the
following terms:
a) The writ petitions insofar as quashing the notification
bearing No.e-RD 137 ASD 2021 dated 25.06.2021 with
a direction to redo the seniority list on consideration of
objections is rejected and order of the Tribunal is
confirmed.
- 39 -
b) The writ petitions insofar as quashing notification dated
05.07.2021 bearing No. KAM.E 361 ASD-2020
promoting the respondents to the cadre of Tahasildar
Grade-I in the local cadre of Hyderabad-Karnataka
Region is set aside with a direction to review the
promotion on redoing of seniority list as directed by the
Tribunal.
c) The applicants and the respondents are at liberty to file
additional objections, if any, to the provisional seniority
list dated 05.06.2021 (Annexure-A18) within fifteen
days from the date of uploading of the present order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMS
CT:VP
