Karnataka High Court
Irappa S/O. Doddabasappa Awati vs The Divisional Controller on 21 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
WP No. 85725 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 85725 OF 2013 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
IRAPPA S/O. DODDABASAPPA AWATI,
AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS,
OCC: PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT ARTISAN,
R/O. DIVISIONAL WORK SHOP,
BELLARY, BELLARY DIVISION,
N.E.K.R.T.C. BELLARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.E.K.R.T.C/,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY.
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.E.K.R.T.C.,
SARIGE SADAN,
CENTRAL OFFICE, GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. C. BHUTTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A) WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
18/02/2012 BEARING NO. EKARASA/ BAVI/ SIBBANDI/ P4/
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
WP No. 85725 of 2013
3341/ 12 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D. B)
CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ABOVE ORDER ISSUE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION
FROM THE DATE ON WHICH I.B. SUNKAD HAS BEEN
PROMOTED TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ARTISAN FROM
24/10/1989 AND PAY THE DIFFERENCE OF SALARY. C) ISSUE
ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING
THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
a) Writ of Certiorari quashing the endorsement dated
18/02/2012 bearing No. EKARASA/ BAVI/ SIBBANDI/
P4/ 3341/ 12 issued by 1st respondent vide
Annexure-D.
b) Consequent upon quashing the above order issue
writ of Mandamus Directing the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from
the date on which I.B. Sunkad has been promoted to
the post of Assistant Artisan from 24/10/1989 and pay
the difference of salary.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
c) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the circumstances of the case
including the cost of this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde
appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti
appearing for respondents.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The petitioner is appointed as helper-B on
14.11.1981 and later was promoted as helper-A on
14.11.1987. In pursuant to the same recruitment process
another person by name I.B. Sunkad was appointed as
helper-B on 13.11.1981. But I.B.Sunkad was promoted as
helper-A two years after the promotion of the petitioner.
The petitioner was further promoted as Assistant Artisan
on 24.10.1989 and three years later I.B.Sunkad gets
promotion to the post of Assistant Artisan on 20.03.1992.
Till the said point the petitioner had no grievance. On
10.01.1997 I.B.Sunkad is promoted as Artisan and later to
the post of head mechanic, which is Chief Artisan with
effect from 04.03.2011. Here brings the problem. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
petitioner retires from service as an Assistant Artisan not
getting a promotion as an Artisan. The petitioner then
knocks at the doors of the respondent contending that he
is senior throughout the carrier and the said person
I.B.Sunkad could not have been promoted ignoring the
claims of the petitioner. Therefore, sought the same dates
on which the promotion was granted to I.B.Sunkad. The
said representation of the petitioner comes to be rejected
and rejection of which is challenged in the case at hand.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde appearing for
the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was senior
throughout and his claims has been ignored till the date of
his retirement and therefore the matter requires
reconsideration at the hands of the respondent.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti
appearing for respondents would submit that I.B.Sunkad
was the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. Pursuant
to the 85TH amendment of grant of consequential of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
seniority the I.B.Sunkad was promoted on 10.01.1997
ahead of the petitioner, owing to the vacancy position than
and the law that was prevalent at the relevant point in
time. The petitioner chooses not to challenge the
promotion granted to I.B.Sunkad for the post Artisan or
Chief Artisan at a later point in time, but sought his
promotion on par with I.B.Sunkad. That having been
appropriately turned down, there is no warrant for
interference in the submission of the counsel for the
petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsels
appearing for the parties and have perused the material
on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
dates, link in the chain of events are as afore-narrated.
The petitioner has been senior throughout, but I.B.Sunkad
appears to have stolen a march over the petitioner in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
year 1997 that is 10.01.1997 by grant of consequential
seniority to the petitioner. Consequential seniority as a
concept has been tweaked or has been diluted to water
down in subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, which
are not available at the time when the representation of
the petitioner was considered and rejected.
8. Therefore the case of the petitioners requires
reconsideration in the light of the law rendered by the
Apex Court in the aftermath of the rejection of the
representation. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash
the impugned endorsement and direct reconsideration of
the case of the petitioner strictly in consonance with law
bearing in mind the observations made in the course of
the order.
9. For the aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
(ii) The endorsement dated 18.02.2012 issued
by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D
stands quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands
of the Corporation to consider the case of
the petitioner in accordance with law
within three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RHR/-
