Karnataka High Court
Sri.M. Veerabhadrappa vs The Managing Director on 16 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1648-DB
WA No. 1605 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1605 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M.VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
DEPUTY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
B M T C, CENTRAL OFFICES,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by H K HEMA
Location: High 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Court of
Karnataka K S R T C, CENTRAL OFFICES,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027
2. CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER
K S R T C, CENTRAL OFFICES,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1648-DB
WA No. 1605 of 2024
3. SRI SATHISH RAJU J
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
DEPUTY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
N W K R T C, CENTRAL OFFICES,
HUBBLI - 580 029
4. SRI SHARANABASAPPA BHAVIKATTI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
K K R T C,
GULBARGA - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 20.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE, IN WRIT PETITION NO.14435 OF 2024 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.14435 OF
2024 FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1648-DB
WA No. 1605 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. S.B.Mukkannappa for the
appellant.
2. The present appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the judgment and order
dated 20.09.2024 of learned Single Judge whereby, writ petition
No.14435 of 2024 of the appellant-petitioner came to be dismissed.
2.1 In the main petition, twin prayers were made by the petitioner.
The first prayer was to set aside the endorsement/communication
dated 18.04.2024 issued by the Chief Personnel Manager,
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation-respondent No.2
herein, whereby the grievance of the petitioner about his promotion
was not entertained. The said endorsement dated 18.04.2024
which figures on record, turned down the request of the petitioner
which was in the nature of grievance in respect of the consideration
of respondent Nos.3 and 4 for promotion to the post of Law Officer.
2.2 The second limb of the prayer was for directing respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to conduct the Departmental Promotion Committee
NC: 2025:KHC:1648-DB
meeting and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the
cadre of Chief Law Officer (Selection Grade-I) and extend
consequential monetary benefits.
3. Objecting to the promotional rights considered for respondent
Nos.3 and 4 herein, it was the case of the petitioner that the said
respondents were appointed and reported to the post on
30.11.1999, whereas the petitioner was appointed and reported to
the initial post on 10.02.2000. Thus, when appointed as Law
Officer, the petitioner was admittedly junior in terms of the
appointment and joining the duties compared to the said
respondent Nos.3 and 4.
3.1 According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were
allegedly not eligible to be given promotion as respondent No.3 did
not possess the requisite qualification as to the experience at the
time of his appointment to the post of Law Officer. As regards
respondent No.4 is concerned, what was alleged was that he had
been facing certain disciplinary action and it was the contention of
the petitioner that unless the said disciplinary proceedings were
concluded, the promotion could not be given to the said respondent
No.4.
NC: 2025:KHC:1648-DB
4. The petition was contested by respondent nos.1 and 2-
authorities and it is submitted that the petitioner had raised
grievance in respect of respondent No.4 belatedly, after the
appointment of respondent No.3. About the consideration of the
promotion of respondent No.4 is concerned, it was stated that
respondent No.4 was facing the disciplinary inquiry proceedings
which was still under progress. It was stated that when the
Departmental Promotion Committee would meet, it would consider
the case under a sealed cover process and as regards the
promotion given to respondent No.3 is concerned, it was a clear
case that it booked no irregularity.
5. While dismissing the petition, learned Single Judge took note
of the aspect that the grievance raised by the petitioner was at a
belated stage and the petitioner was due to retire within a short
period of eleven months. At such juncture, the petitioner
questioned the eligibility of respondent No.3 who was already long
back promoted.
5.1 Learned Single Judge further observed that respondent No.3
was factually found to have possessed all the requisite eligibility
criteria and that he was Senior to the petitioner, and therefore,
NC: 2025:KHC:1648-DB
respondent No.3 was given promotion to the only available vacant
post as Chief Law Officer.
5.2 Learned Single Judge was justified in viewing that the
promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the
grievance sought to be put forward by the petitioner was indolence
and belated attempt to question the eligibility which was even
otherwise not tenable.
6. No case is made out to interfere with the judgment and order
of the learned Single Judge in the appellate jurisdiction.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory
application that may be pending, would not survive and stands
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
