The Registrar General High Court Of ... vs Shri Neelappa Bover S/O Amarappa Bover
2025 Latest Caselaw 11134 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Registrar General High Court Of ... vs Shri Neelappa Bover S/O Amarappa Bover on 3 December, 2025

Author: R.Devdas

Bench: R.Devdas

                            -1-
                                  WA No.100278 of 2024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

                      PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI


           WRIT APPEAL NO.100278/2024 (S-PRO)

BETWEEN:

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.

                                          -     APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SRIRANGA SUBBANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.    SHRI. NEELAPPA BOVER,
      S/O. AMRAPPA BOVER,
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      R/O. NO.27, KUMARESHWAR NAGAR,
      DHARWAD-580 008.

2.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      VIDHAN SOUDHA,
                            -2-
                                    WA No.100278 of 2024




     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU-560 001,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.


3.   SRI. RAJENDRA TILGUL,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     OCC: SECTION OFFICER,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     KALABURAGI BENCH,
     KALABURAGI-585 103.
                                         -   RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE   JUDGE   IN   W.P.NO.101554/2021     (S-PRO)     AND
CONSEQUENTLY     DISMISS   THE   WRIT   PETITION,   IN   THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 19.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
         AND
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
                                 -3-
                                          WA No.100278 of 2024




                         CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, at the hands of the

Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka who was

respondent in the two writ petitions filed at the hands of

respondent No.1 herein, namely, Sri.Neelappa Bover. The

appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order dated

22.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.82377/2013 connected with W.P.No.101554/2021.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall

be referred to in terms of their ranking before the learned

Single Judge in the writ petitions.

3. The writ petition is filed in W.P.No.82377/2013

seeking to quash the impugned notification dated

09.04.2013 since it denies the petitioner's promotion to

the cadre of Section Officer, retrospectively with effect

from 31.07.2011, and W.P.No.101554/2021 is filed by the

petitoner being aggrieved of the final seniority list

published on 08.04.2021.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that

some of the employees of the High Court were aggrieved

of the 2009 amendment brought to the High Court of

Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment)

Rules, 1973. However, a Division Bench of this court in

W.A.Nos.1934-38/2011 disposed of the writ appeals with

specific observations that the vacancies that arose prior to

coming into force the various amended rules, which

remained vacant till then, shall be filled up as per the Un-

amended Cadre and Recruitment Rules and not as per the

Amended Rules, 2009. The learned Single Judge noticed

the petitioner's grievance is that in spite of pendency of

the writ petition filed by him, relating to promotion to the

cadre of Assistant Registrar, the Registrar General while

complying the directions issued by the Division Bench,

pushed down the petitioner to the cadre of Section Officer,

ignoring the fact that one Mohd.Khaja Muneerulla had

admittedly retired from service on 31.07.2011 and this

compelled the petitioner to assail the process of redoing

the seniority list by filing W.P.No.82377/2013. In the

meanwhile, a representation was given by the petitioner to

the Registrar General requesting to consider his case for

promotion under local cadre, claiming the benefit of Article

371J of the Constitution of India. The said representation

was rejected by the Registrar General by issuing an

endorsement, which was again challenged in

W.P.No.23891/2013. The endorsement was set aside with

a direction to reconsider the petitioner's case. It is noticed

that though the petitioner had challenged the action of the

Registrar General, pushing down the petitioner to the

cadre of Section Officer from 2011 to 2013, the Registrar

General, taking 2013 as petitioner's eligibility to the cadre

of Section Officer, promoted the petitioner to the post of

Assistant Registrar under the local cadre on 20.08.2015.

5. The petitioner assumed charge as Assistant

Registrar w.e.f. 20.08.2015. However, while implementing

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.K.Pavithra-I,

the petitioner was reverted to the post of Section Officer,

while promoting respondent No.3 from the post of Section

Officer to Assistant Registrar w.e.f 20.08.2015.

6. The Government of Karnataka, in a bid to

protect the consequential seniority provided to the civil

servants belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes category, brought in an Act known as Karnataka

Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government

Servants Promoted on the basis of reservation (to the

posts in the Civil Servants of the State), Act, 2017. The

Act, 2017, provided a statutory mechanism to safeguard

the interest of the Government Servants belonging to

SC/ST community in terms of Sub-Article (4A) of Article 16

of the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the said

enactment, the Government Order dated 27.02.2019 was

issued along with several directions. In terms of Section

4(1)(a) of the Act of 2017, the consequential seniority

already accorded to the Government Servants belonging

to SC/ST who were promoted in accordance with the policy

of reservation in promotion provided for in the Reservation

Order with effect from 27.04.1978 shall be valid and shall

be protected and shall not be disturbed. Accordingly, it

was directed that, any Government Servant belonging to

SC/ST community, whose seniority was altered in the

seniority list prepared pursuant to the Government Order

dated 06.05.2017, his promotion reviewed, date of

eligibility was reverted to lower cadre, shall be posted

back with retrospective effect to the cadre held by him

immediately before such reversion. It was directed that he

shall continue to draw his pay, retrospectively from the

date on which he was reverted, in that cadre, in the same

scale of pay and at the same stage of pay at which he was

drawing his pay before his reversion to lower cadre. It was

also directed that, in case the post in the cadre held by

him immediately before his reversion is not vacant, he

shall be posted against a supernumerary post to be

created by the administrative department concerned.

7. Acting on the Government Order, the petitioner

was placed in the cadre of Assistant Registrar w.e.f.

20.08.2015, however, against supernumerary post. In the

notification dated 08.04.2021 at Annexure-R, although the

writ petitioner is shown to have been appointed to the post

of Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 20.08.2015, nevertheless, in

remarks column, it is stated that "the said officer has been

reposted to the post of Assistant Registrar which was held

by him immediately prior to his reversion as per

G.O.No.DPAR 186 SRS 2018 dated 27.02.2019 against

Supernumerary Post."

8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sriranga

Subbanna appearing for the appellant submitted that the

observations of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 18

of the impugned order that action of the appellant

reposting the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Registrar

through creation of supernumerary post clearly raises

concerns of discrimination and non-compliance of legal

directives as per B.K.Pavithra-II judgment, was uncalled

for. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that such

observation will paint a bad picture of the High Court. It is

never the intention of the High Court or Registrar General

to disobey the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The decision was taken having regard to the factual

aspect, more particularly, the fact that respondent No.3-

Sri.Rajendra Tilgul who was eligible for promotion from the

post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant Registrar

was to be posted as Assistant Registrar having regard to

the law laid down in B.K.Pavithra-I. The learned Senior

Counsel submitted that although respondent No.3 had

submitted his representation to permit him to forego the

promotion, nevertheless, the notification dated 16.01.2018

at Annexure-N was issued by the High Court in view of the

judgment dated 09.02.2017 in B.K.Pavithra-I and the

order dated 08.09.2017 in Contempt Petition (C)

No.1682/2017, at the hands of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

after publication of the final revised seniority lists, and as

a consequence, taking further consequential action

reverting such persons who were promoted to the post of

- 10 -

Assistant Registrars, they were reverted to the post of

Section Officers and in the same notification in Part-I of

the notification, respondent No.3-Sri.Rajendra Tilgul was

promoted as Assistant Registrar.

9. During the course of the arguments, learned

counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has

brought to our notice the notification dated 01.09.2014

bearing No.HCE 132/2014 (SS) identifying the number of

posts reserved for local persons on the establishment of

the High Court of Karnataka and submits that in the

Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka there are

three posts available for Assistant Registrar. It is therefore

submitted that even if respondent No.3-Sri.Rajendra Tilgul

was shown to have been promoted as Assistant Registrar

w.e.f. 20.08.2015, notwithstanding the fact that

respondent No.3 had exercised his right to decline

promotion and he never took charge as Assistant

Registrar, one post was always open for the writ

petitioner. Drawing the attention of this court to the

- 11 -