Karnataka High Court
Smt Poornima G vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.13897/2022 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.9090/2022 (S-KSAT)
IN W.P. No.13897/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. POORNIMA .G
D/O SRI. GURAPPA .K
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE
FOREST OFFICER
RESEARCH RANGE, HOSKOTE
BANGALORE RURAL-562114.
Digitally signed 2. SRI. N. SHASHIDAR
by RUPA V S/O SRI. G.S. NARAYANA NAIK
Location: High AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
Court of WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICERR
karnataka OFFICE OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER
THIRTHAHALLI TERRITORIAL RANGE
SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION, THIRTHAHALLI
DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
3. SRI. S.M. MADHU
S/O SRI. S.R. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
PT UNIT, OFFICE OF THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KOPPA RANGE, KOPPA DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
4. SRI. SHAFI AHAMAD
S/O SRI. SHABUSAB
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
KOPPA TERRITORIAL RANGE
KOPPA, DISTRICT-CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADV., A/W
SRI. G. NATARAJ, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
(HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)
ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARAM
18TH CROSS, BENGALURU-560003.
3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
CHIKKAMAGALUR CIRCLE
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
4. SRI. MANJUNATH B.M.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER (PROTECTION)
OFFICE OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SHRINGERI RANGE, SHRINGERI-577139
DISTRICT-CHIKKAMAGALURU.
5. SRI. B.M. MANOHAR NAIK
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
N.R. PURA SECTION
OFFICE OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER
N.R. PURA RANGE, N.R. PURA-577134
DISTRICT-CHIKKAMAGALUR.
6. SRI. SURESH T.D.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WORKING PLAN AND SURVEY AND DEMARKATION
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
OFFICER OF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST S AND D
CHIKKAMAGALUR CIRCLE
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
7. SRI. SUHAS K.T.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE DOREST OFFICER, A O F F
(DEPUTED TO KOTTIGEHARA CHECKING POST)
OFFICE OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER
MOODIGERE RANGE, MOODIGERE-577132
DISTRICT-CHIKKAMAGALURU.
8. SRI. R. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
MOODIGERE SECTION
OFFICE OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER
MOODIGERE RANGE, MOODIGERE-577132
DISTRICT-CHIKKAMAGALURU.
9. SRI. S. SHIVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
WORKING PLAN AND SURVEY AND DEMARKATION
OFFICE OF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
WORKING PLAN S AND D CHIKKAMAGALUR CIRCLE
CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101.
10. SRI. VARUN C. SHETTY
AGED 35 YEARS
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SEETUR SECTION
OFFICE OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER
N.R. PURA RANGE, N.R. PURA-577134
DISTRICT-CHIKKAMAGALUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR, AAG A/W
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA AND
SRI. MANJUNATH B, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR R4, R6 TO R9
R5 AND R10 ARE SERVED)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
APPLICATION NO.4134, 4137, 4138, 4140 IN APPLICATION NO.4132
TO 4140/2020 DATED 20/12/2021, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE
SAID APPLICATIONS AS PRAYED FOR & ETC.
IN W.P. NO.9090/2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)
ARANYA BHAVAN
MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS
BENGALURU-560003.
3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
CHIKKAMANGALORE CIRCLE
OFFICE OF CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
CHIKKAMANGALORE-577101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, AAG A/W
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA AGA AND
SRI. B. MANJUNATH, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI. ANILKUMAR N.R.
S/O RAJANNA N.M.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST
OFFICER/SURVEYOR
SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE
RANGE TALUK AND DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572101.
2. SRI. AREEF
S/O UMMARABBA K.H.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE
FOREST OFFICER/ SURVEYOR
GOVERNMENT TIMBER DEPARTMENT
N R PURA, N R PURA TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALORE DISTRICT-577134.
3. SRI, ALL FARMAN
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
RANGE FOREST OFFICE
CHICKAGRAHARA RANGE
NARASIMHARAJAPURA
CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-577134.
4. SRI. DEEPAK J.S.
S/O JAYAKUMAR H.K.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST
OFFICER/ SURVEYOR
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
WORKING PLAN AND SURVEY
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
5. SRI. RAGHU U.N.
S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
RANGE FOREST OFFICE
KOPPA RANGE, KOPPA
KOPPA TALUK,
CHIKKAMGALURU DISTRICT-577126.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR C/R1 TO R5)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 02.09.2021 PASSED IN THE APPLICATION Nos.6659-
6663 OF 2020 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-C
TO THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 20.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
W.P.No.9090/2022 is filed by the State of Karnataka and
others challenging the order dated 02.09.2021 passed in
Application Nos.6659-6663/2020 by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Tribunal') wherein the applications filed by the respondents
were allowed, impugned order dated 29.08.2020 passed by the
petitioner No.3 was quashed, petitioner No.3 was directed to
re-do the seniority list of the Deputy Range Forest Officers-
cum-Surveyors (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRFO') in
accordance with the Special Committee report dated
23.02.2020 and the letters issued by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2
dated 27.05.2020 and 06.06.2020.
2. W.P.No.13897/2022 is filed by four of the
applicants challenging the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
Application Nos.4134, 4137, 4138 and 4140 of 2020 by the
Tribunal wherein their applications were partly allowed,
impugned seniority list dated 29.08.2020 issued by petitioner
No.3 was set aside sofar it relates to assigning of rankings to
the respondents over applicant No.1 in the said proceedings,
Petitioner No.3 was directed to consider revising of the seniority
list dated 29.08.2020 by assigning appropriate ranking to
applicant No.1 above the private respondents therein subject to
extant rules relating to quota, reservation and verification of
the actual dates on which the applicants and respondents
therein come to occupy the posts of DRFO.
3. The State Government filed objections to the
applications before the Tribunal contending that the seniority
list prepared and published by Chikmagalur Circle is as per the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
B.K.Pavitra Vs. Union of India1. It was averred that there is
no material change in the eligibility date assigned to the
applicants, the authority has considered the ratio as prescribed
for direct recruitment and promotion and published the final
1
AIR 2019 SC 2723
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
seniority list after considering the objections filed to the
provisional seniority list. It was further averred that the
applicants have not filed any objections to the provisional
seniority list and the final seniority list was prepared
considering the recommendation of the Committee constituted
pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of B.K.Pavithra Vs. Union of India. It was also averred
that as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Forest
Department, 50% posts have to be filled by way of direct
recruitment and 50% by way of promotion in the cadre of
DRFO. It was contended that the final seniority list dated
11.10.2019 was revised considering the representations /
objections of many DRFOs. It was further contended that the
State Government constituted a Committee headed by the Prl.
Chief Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru to consider the
anomalies in the final seniority list dated 11.10.2019. The
Committee submitted its report on 23.03.2020 along with
recommendation and based on such recommendation, revised
seniority list was published vide order dated 29.08.2020. They
sought for dismissal of both sets of applications.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
4. The Tribunal allowed Application Nos.6659-
6663/2020 directing the respondent No.3 to re-do the seniority
list in accordance with the Special Committee Report dated
23.03.2020 and letters of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The
Tribunal partly allowed the Application Nos.4132-4140/2020 by
setting aside the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 sofar it relates
to assigning of ranks to respondents over applicant No.1 and
directed to re-do the same. Being aggrieved, the State
Government as well as some of the applicants in Application
Nos.4132-4140/2020 have filed these writ petitions.
5. Sri.Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State submits that the Tribunal
committed grave error in allowing Application Nos.6659 to
6663/2020 solely on the ground that the final seniority list
dated 29.08.2020 was prepared neglecting the Committee's
report. It is submitted that the Tribunal, in its order dated
02.09.2021 at paragraph 5 extracted five paragraphs stating
them to be the Committee's finding. Whereas, they were not
the findings of the Committee, but the objections filed by the
DRFOs before the Authority. Based on such incorrect
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
extraction, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the final
seniority list is prepared and published on 29.08.2020 ignoring
the Committee's recommendation. Hence, the order of the
Tribunal is required to be set at naught. It is further submitted
that the respondents in W.P.No.9090/2022 have not filed any
objections to the provisional seniority list published on
22.07.2020 and now they cannot turn around and say that the
final seniority list is in violation of the recommendation of the
Special Committee. It is also submitted that the respondents
are unable to demonstrate as to how the seniority list prepared
by the Authority affects their seniority. It is also submitted that
the Tribunal ought to have rejected the applications for non-
joinder of the necessary parties as the respondents have not
arrayed other DRFOs who are above the applicants. Learned
Additional Advocate General submits that sofar as
W.P.No.13897/2022, the Tribunal has recorded detailed
reasons that the petitioners admittedly joined the services later
than the contesting respondents except the applicant No.1. It
is averred that the petitioners claim to consider their seniority
retrospectively has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal relying
on various judgments. He seeks to allow the writ petition filed
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
by the State and dismissal of W.P.No.13897/2022. In support
of his contentions he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers Association v State of Maharashtra &
Others2.
6. Sri.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents in W.P.No.9090/2022 submits that the case of the
contesting respondents before the Tribunal was that they were
working as DRFOs in the Forest Department and they were fully
eligible and qualified to be appointed as DRFOs. It is submitted
that they were appointed as DRFOs by direct recruitment on
20.08.2010 with unblemished service records from the last 10
years. It is further submitted that the State Government vide
notification dated 22.10.2001 carved out Chickmagalur Circle
from Shivamogga Circle for better administration without
creating new post. The Chickmagalur Circle was formed and it
became functional w.e.f 01.12.2001. At the time of carving the
Chickmagalur Circle there were 161 posts of DRFOs in
Shivamogga Circle which were taken out to form Chickmagalur
2
(1990) 2 SCC 715
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
Circle. Out of which, 35 direct recruit candidates, 97 promoted
candidates and 29 vacant posts were transferred to newly
created Chickmagalur Circle. It is also submitted that 29
vacant posts which were transferred to Chickmagalur Circle
belonged to direct recruitment quota and did not belong to
promotion quota. The Department initiated the process of
appointment of DRFOs on different dates from 2002 to 2010
and filled the posts respectively. It is contended that after the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavithra's
case, the State Government has constituted a Committee to
look into the irregularities in preparation of the seniority list.
The said Committee submitted the report with its finding. The
respondent-Department, without properly considering the said
recommendation, prepared the provisional seniority list dated
22.07.2020 and suddenly published final seniority list dated
29.08.2020 without considering the Committee's report and the
letters dated 27.05.2020 and 06.06.2020 of the respondent
Nos.1 and 2. It is further contended that the fourth applicant
before the Tribunal has submitted representation dated
02.09.2020 to respondent No.3 therein and requested to re-do
the seniority list as per the Committee recommendation. It is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
also contended that as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules
published on 29.08.1997, the ratio of 50:50 posts were
earmarked for direct recruitees and promotees and after
forming of new Chickmagalur Circle, 161 posts were transferred
from the Shivamogga Circle and the aforesaid ratio of 50:50 is
not maintained in preparing the final seniority list. In support
of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.B.Badami and others
Vs. State of Mysore and others3. He seeks to dismiss both
the writ petitions.
7. Sri.Raghavendra Gayatri, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in W.P.No.13897/2022, submits that the
petitioners were the applicants before the Tribunal and their
primary contention was that they were initially appointed as
Forest Guards between 1995 and 2003 and they were eligible
to be promoted as DRFOs during the years 2005 to 2010 as
there were clear promotional vacancies in the Department. It
is further submitted that they were posted by orders dated
11.11.2005, 23.10.2008, 27.05.2009, 14.09.2009 and
3
(1976) 2 SCC 901
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
30.09.2009 on independent charge of the post of DRFOs under
Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the KCSRs'). It is also submitted that as per
order dated 05.03.2016, officiating promotion to the said post
was given to applicant Nos.1 to 7 and vide order dated
25.06.2016 to applicant No.9 and themselves were holding the
said posts on substantive basis. It is contended that the
respondent-Department prepared the provisional seniority list
of DRFOs on 19.09.2019 and final seniority list on 11.10.2019
considering the date of their eligibility as 08.01.2007,
31.03.2012, 31.03.2012, 30.04.2012, 31.05.2012, 14.07.2012,
31.08.2012, 31.03.2013 and 29.12.2013. The said seniority
list was never challenged, hence that attained finality.
Therefore, the question of preparing another seniority list dated
29.08.2020 would not arise and such exercise has drastically
altered the seniority of the petitioners compared to the private
respondents. He seeks to allow the writ petition by directing
the authorities to re-do the seniority list considering the
petitioners' date of eligibility and also taking into consideration
the date of their placement in independent charge of the said
post under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. In support of his contentions
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
he relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the High Court:
1. State of Karnataka And Others Vs. Sri.Seenappa
Gowda And Others4.
2. State of Karnataka And Another Vs. Tharanatha S And
Others5.
3. State of Karnataka And Another Vs. Sri Roopesh
Kumar P And Others6.
4. State of Karnataka And Others Vs. K M Kuttappa And
Others7.
5.A Janardhan Vs. Union of India And Others8.
6. K.T. Veerappa Vs. State of Karnataka And Others9.
7.Nagappa V State Of Karnataka10.
8. On careful evaluation of submissions of both side
and the materials on record, the point that arises for
consideration is "Whether the impugned orders in both the
petitions are sustainable in law?"
4
W.P.No.6218/17 decided on 6.7.21
5
W.P.No.17336/21 decided on 4.4.22
6
W.P.No.8163/21 decided on 13.6.22
7
W.P.Nos.9135/18 & 9263-9655/98 decided on 15.4.98
8
(1983) 3 SCC 601
9
(2006) 9 SCC 406
10
ILR 1986 KAR 3093
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
9. In Application Nos.6659-6663/2020, the applicants
have challenged the final seniority list dated 29.08.2020
Annexure-A8 prepared and passed by the respondent No.3-
Chief Conservator of Forest, Chikmagalur Circle for the period
from 01.02.2002 to 31.12.2019. The applicants further prayed
to re-do the seniority list in accordance with the Special
Committee report dated 23.03.2020 and the letters dated
27.05.2020 and 06.06.2020 of respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions recorded the
finding that respondent No.3 has prepared and published the
final seniority list on 29.08.2020 neglecting the Committee's
report. The Tribunal has extracted the recommendation of the
Committee at paragraph 5 of its order. Admittedly, the extract
of the Tribunal at paragraph 5 of its order is not the
recommendation of the Committee but it is extracted from the
objection filed by the DRFOs. The Tribunal, on such incorrect
premise, set aside the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 and
directed the authorities to re-do the same.
10. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that
the contesting respondents have been appointed as DRFOs by
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
direct recruitment on 20.08.2010. It is also not in dispute that
the State Government vide notification dated 22.10.2001,
carved out Chikmagalur Circle from Shivamogga Circle for
better administration without creating new posts. The material
on record indicates that the new Chikmagalur Circle was
formed which was functional w.e.f 01.12.2001 and at the time
of carving out the new Circle, posts of 161 DRFOs were drawn
from Shivamogga Circle and assigned to Chikmagalur Circle.
The records further indicate that at the time of carving out new
Circle, 35 DRFO posts were from the direct recruitment, 97
DRFO posts from the promoted candidates and 29 DRFO posts
were vacant. The respondent-Department initiated the process
for appointment of DRFOs from different dates between 2002
and 2010 and the vacant posts were filled.
11. The records also indicate that after the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavithra's case, referred to
supra, the State Government has constituted a Committee to
look into to the anomalies in preparing the seniority list. The
said Committee has submitted its report on 23.03.2020 and the
same was approved by the State Government on 27.05.2020.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
It is evident from the records that based on the
recommendation of the Committee, the State Government has
issued certain directions to the respondent No.3-CCF
Chikmagalur, to prepare the seniority list. Based on the report
of the Committee and the directions of the respondent Nos.1
and 2 to respondent No.3-petitioner herein, the provisional
seniority list was prepared and published on 22.07.2020. It is
also not in dispute that none of the applicants have filed
objections to the provisional seniority list dated 22.07.2020 and
thereafter, final seniority list came to be published on
29.08.2020. The final seniority list dated 29.08.2020 is
prepared strictly in consonance with the recommendation of the
Committee and the communications dated 27.05.2020 and
06.06.2020. Respondent No.3- CCF, Chikmagalur prepared the
final seniority list by showing detailed vacant posts in
accordance with block wise, commencing from 01.01.2000 to
31.12.2019.
12. Annexure-1 to the official memorandum dated
29.08.2020 clearly indicates that 50% seats of DRFOs were ear
marked for direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
In other words, out of 161 DRFOs, 80 posts were for direct
recruitment and 81 posts for promotion. Considering the said
ratio and various recruitments from time to time, seniority list
is prepared by the respondent No.3. We are of the considered
view that the seniority list prepared by the respondent No.3 is
strictly in consonance with the Committee's recommendation
and instructions of the State Government and also on following
quota rule. Hence, same does not call for any interference.
13. The applicants in Application No.6659 to 6663/2020
failed to specify who were the candidates actually junior to
them and found place above them in the seniority list dated
29.08.2020 and how they are adversely affected by the said
seniority list, such particulars were not found in their pleadings
and submissions. The Tribunal ought to have rejected the
applications solely on the ground that the applicants have failed
to point out that their juniors have been placed above them in
the seniority list and they were not arrayed as parties to the
proceedings. It is trite law that the application is liable to be
rejected in the cases of non-joinder of the parties/persons who
would be affected by the judgment when there is a challenge to
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
the seniority list. We are of the considered view that the
Tribunal has clearly erred in setting aside the seniority list
dated 29.08.2020 issued by the respondent No.3 by wrongly
placing reliance on the objections filed by the DRFOs and not on
the recommendations and on this ground alone, the impugned
order of the Tribunal dated 02.09.2021 passed on Application
Nos.6659 to 6663/2020 is liable to be set aside.
14. V.B.Badami's case relied on by the learned
counsel for the contesting respondent has no application to the
facts and circumstances of the case as the applicants before the
Tribunal failed to establish as to how their seniority has been
affected and which junior candidates were placed above them.
Insofar as quota rule is concerned, Annexure-1 to the
memorandum dated 29.08.2020 clearly indicates that 50:50
ratio as contemplated in Cadre and Recruitment Rules has been
followed by respondent No.3 in preparing the final seniority list
and there is no break in quota rule as contended.
15. It would be useful to extract the Para 29 of the
V.B.Badami's case referred supra.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
"29. In working out the quota rule, these
principles are generally followed. First, where Rules
prescribe quota between direct recruits and
promotees, confirmation or substantive appointment
can only be in respect of clear vacancies in the
permanent strength of the cadre. Second, confirmed
persons are senior to those who are officiating.
Third, as between persons appointed in officiating
capacity, seniority is to be counted on the length of
continuous service. Fourth, direct recruitment is
possible only by competitive examination which is
the prescribed procedure under the rules. In
promotional vacancies, the promotion is either by
selection or on the principle of seniority-cum-merit.
A promotion could be made in respect of a
temporary post or for a specified period but a direct
recruitment has generally to be made only in
respect of clear permanent vacancy either existing
or anticipated to arise at or about the period of
probation is expected to be completed. Fifth, if
promotions are made to vacancies in excess of the
promotional quota, the promotions may not be
totally illegal but would be irregular. The promotees
cannot claim any right to hold the promotional posts
unless the vacancies fall within their quota. If the
promotees occupy any vacancies which are within
the quota of direct recruits, when direct recruitment
takes place, the direct recruits will occupy the
vacancies within their quota. Promotees who were
occupying the vacancies within the quota of direct
recruits will either be reverted or they will be
absorbed in the vacancies within their quota in the
facts and circumstances of a case."
In the instant case, the applicants have not raised specific
contention of breach of quota in their application before the
Tribunal and no objections were filed to the provisional
seniority list, if such plea of breach of quota rule is allowed at
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
this stage, it would cause great prejudice to the persons in the
list, without making them a party to the proceedings.
16. Insofar as W.P.No.13897/2022 is concerned, the
Tribunal, taking note of the pleadings and rival submissions,
recorded clear finding that the private respondents therein
have come to occupy the post of DRFO prior to applicant Nos.2
to 9 and thereby they are clearly senior to applicant Nos.2 to 9.
The Tribunal directed to re-consider the seniority of applicant
No.1 as the appointment of applicant No.1 was prior to some of
the contesting respondents before the Tribunal. The provisional
seniority list of DRFOs published on 23.02.2020 and the final
seniority list published on 29.08.2020 state the dates of
eligibility of the applicants as 08.01.2007, 31.03.2012,
31.03.2012, 30.04.2012, 31.05.2012, 14.07.2012, 31.08.2012,
31.03.2013 and 29.12.2013. The case of the petitioner is that
the date of eligibility must be the earlier dates as per the order
dated 12.06.2012. However, the respondent No.3 passed an
order dated 05.03.2016 wherein earlier orders including the
order dated 12.06.2012 have been modified resulting in the
modification of the dates of eligibility of the applicants. The
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
order dated 05.03.2016 has attained finality and there is no
challenge to the said order by the petitioners. Hence, the
petitioners cannot contend that their promotion is required to
be considered retrospectively.
17. Further, the respondent-State, considering the
objections filed by number of DRFOs constituted the Committee
and prepared the final seniority list on 29.08.2020 keeping in
mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
B.K.Pavithra's case. Admittedly, the petitioners joined as
forest guards and were placed incharge under Rule 32 of the
KCSRs to the post of DRFOs and vide order dated 12.06.2012,
they were stated to be eligible for promotion on the earlier
dates of being appointed under independent charge with
retrospective effect. However, the said order came to be
withdrawn by respondent No.3 on 05.03.2016 and the same
has attained finality without any challenge. Whereas the private
respondents before the Tribunal were the direct recruitees to
the post of DRFOs in the year 2010 much before the applicants
became eligible to be promoted as per the order dated
05.03.2016. Hence, they cannot claim seniority over the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
private respondents. Sofar as the claim of the petitioners to
seek the date of eligibility from the date of appointment under
Rule 32 of the KCSR's, the same would be against the settled
principles of law as such appointment under Rule 32 does not
confer any substantive right on them as that is only on ad hoc
basis.
18. This view is supported by the judgment of the co-
ordinate Bench in W.P.No.29307/2023 in the case of Sri.Ravi
Prakash and others vs. The State of Karnataka and
others disposed of on 06.03.2025. It would also be useful to
refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others11, wherein paragraph
47 reads as under:
"47. To sum up, we hold that:
(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post
according to rule, his seniority has to be counted
from the date of his appointment and not according
to the date of his confirmation.
11
(1990) 2 SCC 715
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
The corollary of the above rule is that where the
initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according
to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the
officiation in such post cannot be taken into account
for considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the
procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee
continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation
of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of
officiating service will be counted.
(C) When appointments are made from more than one
source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment
from the different sources, and if rules are framed in
this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly.
(D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing
quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate
rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case,
however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a
number of years because it was impossible to do so the
inference is irresistible that the quota rule had
broken down.
(E) to (K) xxxxx
(Emphasis supplied)
19. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding that
noticing the anomalies in the final seniority list dated
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
11.10.2019, the respondent No.3 published the revised
seniority list on 29.08.2020. The Tribunal considered the date
of appointment of the petitioners, date of promotion as DRFOs
and date of appointment of private respondents as DRFOs and
came to the conclusion that the petitioners are juniors to the
private respondents except applicant No.1 before the Tribunal.
The said finding of the Tribunal is strictly in consonance with
the pleadings and material available on record and the same
does not call for any interference. The judgments relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioners seeking retrospective
promotion would not help the petitioners for the simple reason
that the order altering the date of eligibility was done by
respondent No.3 vide order dated 05.03.2016 and the said
order was never challenged by the petitioners. Hence, the
judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners
referred supra have no application to the facts and
circumstances of the case.
20. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22059-DB
W.P. No.13897/2022
C/W W.P. No.9090/2022
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) W.P.No.9090/2022 is allowed. Order dated
02.09.2021 passed on Application Nos.6659-
6663/2020 by the Tribunal is set aside.
ii) I.A.No.1/2024 filed in W.P.No.9090/2022 stood
disposed of.
iii) W.P.No.13897/2022 is dismissed.
iv) I.A.No.1/2024 filed in W.P.No.13897/2022 stood
disposed of.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
