Karnataka High Court
Mohd. Mohsin S/O Shaik Mahboob vs Principal Secretary And Ors on 8 October, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
WP No. 201097 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
WRIT PETITION NO. 201097 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
MOHD. MOHSIN
S/O SHAIK MAHBOOB,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR (WIRELESS) RTD.,
R/O: H.NO.5-993/30/50,
NEAR SBI BANK, RING ROAD,
MAKKA COLONY,
KALABURAGI - 585 104.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N (BY SRI AMEERAHAMAJA ABDULKADAR GUNNAPURA, ADV.,)
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KARNATAKA STATE,
NO.2 NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
WP No. 201097 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE (WIRELESS)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
TRANSPORT AND MODERNISATION,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE (WIRELESS), NO.1 M.G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
COMPUTER AND WIRELESS,
6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M.BIRADAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
a) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 02.11.2020 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A7,
FOR RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION AS ASST.SUB
INSPECTOR (RADIO MECHANIC) FROM 17.09.1984
INSTEAD OF 30.06.1988 AS HELD IN THE DECISION
OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI
B.GOPALSHETTIGAR VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 30.02.2007 IN
APPLICATION NO.4590/1997 (ANNEXURE-A9).
b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.5 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 02.11.2020 PRODUCED AS
PER ANNEXURE-A7 FOR RETROSPECTIVE
PROMOTION AS ASST. SUB INSPECTOR (RADIO
MECHANIC) FROM 17.09.1984 AS PER DIRECTION
GIVEN BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE LIGHT OF
KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICING (RPP & D) RULES
1973 AND RULE 4 OF KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES
(RPP & D) RULES 1978 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-
A9).
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
WP No. 201097 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application
No.3608/2021, whereby the said application was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a
retired Police Inspector approached the Tribunal seeking
direction for consideration of his representation dated
02.11.2020 for retrospective promotion to the post of ASI
(Radio Mechanic) on the basis of adhoc promotion given
under Rule 17(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General
Recruitment) Rules, 1977. The petitioner has approached
the Tribunal after a lapse of nearly 15 years and sought
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
for a Mandamus for retrospective promotion after he
retired from the service. The Tribunal, after considering
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected the
application. The Tribunal in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the
order observed as under and the same is extracted for
easy reference.
"4. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has not
at all approached this Tribunal as per the judgment
of the B. Gopal Shettigar from the year 2007 to till
the date of filing this application. He was already
promoted as a PSI from 30.10.1996 and the
applicant has discharged his duties as PSI till
19.02.2011. During this period, he never sought for
any promotion on the ground as mentioned in his
representation date 02.11.2020. Admittedly, the
applicant has approached this Tribunal after lapse of
nearly 15 years and sought for Writ of Mandamus, it
is total hit by principles of delay and latches. On this
ground alone, the application is liable to be rejected.
In support of our view, we have taken a shelter of a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Union of India & Others Vs. Chaman Rana
reported in 2018 (3) SLR:15 [arising out of SLP (C)
No.1118/2018 decided on 12.03.2018] wherein the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at para 9, 10 & 11,
as follows:
9. Manifestly, the cause action first arose
the respondents the date initial supersession
and again on the date when rejection their
representation was communicated them,
within reasonable time thereafter. Even the
plea based Dev Dutt (supra) considered, the
cause action based thereon accrued
12.05.2008. There has to be difference
between cause action and what perceived
materials support of cause action. Service
matters, especially with regard promotion,
there always an urgency. The aggrieved must
approach the Court at the earliest opportunity,
or within reasonable time thereafter as third
party rights accrue the meantime those who
are subsequently promoted. Such persons
continue work the promotional post,
ensconced their belief of the protection
available them service with regard to
seniority. Any belated interference with the
same bound to have adverse effect on those
already promoted affecting their morale in
service also. Additionally, any directions at
belated stage to consider others for promotion
with retrospective effect, after considerable
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
time bound have serious administrative
implications apart from the financial burden on
the government that would follow by such
orders of promotion.
10. As far in P.S. back as Sadashivaswamy vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152,
considering a claim for promotion belated by
14 years, this Court had observed that a
period of six months or at the utmost a year
would be reasonable time to approach a court
against denial of promotion and that it would
be a sound and wise exercise of discretion not
to entertain such claims by persons who tried
to unsettle the settled matters, which only
clog the work of the court impeding it in
considering genuine grievances within time in
the following words:
"2..... A person aggrieved by an order of
promoting a junior over his head should
approach the Court at least within six
months or at the most a year of such
promotion. It is not that there is any
period of limitation for the Courts to
exercise their powers under Article. 226
nor is it that there can never be a case
where the Courts cannot interfere in a
matter after the passage of a certain
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
length of time. But it would be a sound
and wise exercise of discretion for the
Courts to refuse to exercise their
extraordinary powers under Article 226 in
the case of persons who do not approach
it expeditiously for relief and who stand
by and allow things to happen and then
approach the Court to put forward stale
claims and try to unsettle settled
matters. The petitioner's petition should,
therefore, have been dismissed in limine.
Entertaining such petitions is a waste of
time of the Court. It clogs the work of
the Court and impedes the work of the
Court in considering legitimate
grievances as also its normal work. We
consider that the High Court was right in
dismissing the appellant's petition as well
as the appeal."
11. Mere repeated filing of representations
could not be sufficient explanation for delay in
approaching the Court for grant of relief, was
considered in Gandhinagar Motor Transport
Society vs. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1954
Bombay 202, by Chief Justice Chagla,
observing as follows:
"(2)...... Now, we have had occasion to
point out that the only delay which this
Court will excuse in presenting a petition
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
is the delay which is caused by the
petitioner pursuing a legal remedy which
is given to him. In this particular case the
petitioner did not pursue a legal remedy.
The remedy he pursued was extra-legal
or extra-judicial. Once the final
government decision is of a given
representation is merely an appeal for
mercy or indulgence, but it is not
pursuing a remedy which the law gave to
the petitioner...
On reading the above judgment it is crystal clear that
even the applicant has sought for a direction to the
respondents to consider his case for retrospective
promotion, at such a belated passage of time all over
17-20 years, if such a direction is given, it would
bring a tsunami in the service resulting in the
administrative chaos apart from the final implication
by the government. The above judgment rendered in
Chaman Rana's case and the principles enunciated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is aptly applicable to
the present case as the applicant has approached
this Tribunal after lapse of 15 years therefore, on the
grounds of delay and latches, the application shall be
dismissed in limine.
5. So far as the relief claimed on the parity is
concerned, the application is also not maintainable.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
In view of the land mark judgment of Larger Bench
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2011 AIR
SCW 1556 in the case of Court in Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd vs Ghanshyam Dass & Ors reported on
17.02.2011, the relevant portion of the judgment at
para No.13 is as follows:
"13. The principle laid down in K.I.
Shephard (supra) that it is not necessary
for every person to approach the court
for relief and it is the duty of the
authority to extend the benefit of a
concluded decision in all similar cases
without driving every affected person to
court to seek relief would apply only in
the following circumstances:
a) where the order is made in a petition
filed in a representative capacity on
behalf of all similarly situated employees;
b) where the relief granted by the court
is a declaratory relief which is intended
to apply to all employees in a particular
category, irrespective of whether they
are parties to the litigation or not;
c) where an order or rule of general
application to employees is quashed
without any condition or reservation that
the relief is restricted to the petitioners
before the court; and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
d) where the court expressly directs that
the relief granted should be extended to
those who have not approached the
court."
In view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the case of the applicant doesn't
come within the parameter of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Tribunal
cannot issue any direction at a highly belated stage
to consider the representation of the applicant either
to consider his seniority or to the relief of promotion
on parity grounds. Therefore, application is liable to
be thrown out at the threshold without registering
the same. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Application is hereby rejected as not
maintainable."
3. Even in writ proceedings also the Apex Court in
the case of Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar
Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Others vs.
Ram Gopal reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225 held that
even though the limitation does not strictly apply to
proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of Constitution of
India, nevertheless, such a right cannot be enforced after
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
an unreasonable lapse of time. The relevant paragraph
No.11 is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
"11. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly
apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the
Constitution, nevertheless, such rights cannot be
enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time.
Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate
laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and
the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in
exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect
those who have slept over wrongs and allowed
illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed
to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their
convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be
treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple
occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit
limitations of time within which writ remedies can be
enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court
observed thus:
"17. It is also well-settled principle of law
that "delay defeats equity". ...It is now a
trite law that where the writ petitioner
approaches the High Court after a long
delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to
them on the ground of delay and laches
irrespective of the fact that they are
similarly situated to the other candidates
who obtain the benefit of the judgment."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5893-DB
HC-KAR
4. Since there is a long delay of 15 years and the
petitioner has not given any proper reason for delay in
approaching the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly rejected
the application. Therefore, we do not find any error or
illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
VNR
