Karnataka High Court
Sri.Sharanabasappa H.Subedar vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2025
-1-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
®
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO. 8224 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SHARANABASAPPA H.SUBEDAR
S/O LATE HANUMANTH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
GULBURGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED (VIGILANCE),
KALABURAGI 585 103.
RESIDING AT NO. 1/949/18/1/68,
RING ROAD, RAM MANDIR, TILAK NAGAR,
KALBURGI 585 102.
2. SRI. K. BASAVARAJ,
S/O. LATE LAKSHMANRAO,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
signed by PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
Location: INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION,
HIGH COURT
OF KALABURAGI 585 105.
KARNATAKA RESIDING AT NO. 17-4-9/11,
NEW KEB COLONY, MANHALLI ROAD,
BIDAR 585 403.
3. SRI. BASAVESHWAR,
S/O. MALLINATH HIRA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CYBER, ECONOMICS AND NARCOTICS
CRIME POLICE STATION,
-2-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
KALABURAGI 585 102.
RESIDING AT RUDRAWADI POST,
ALANDA TALUK, KALBURGI 585 314.
4. SRI. PRABHU D. T.,
S/O LATE DEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
UDUPI SUB DIVISION, UDUPI 576 101.
RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 5 167,
KMS BUILDING, BESIDE PRANAV HOSPITAL,
HANDADI, BRAHMAVARA,
UDUPI 576 213.
5. SRI. MAHESHWARGOUDA,
S/O. LATE SIDDANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DCRE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE EAST,
SHANTHI NAGARA, BMTC COMPLEX,
BANGALORE 560 027.
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NANDI NAGARA,
KOPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT 583 231.
6. SRI. VISHWANATH KULKARNI,
S/O. LATE GIRIMAJI RAO KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
HUNAGUND SUB DIVISION,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,
BAGALOKOT 560 073.
RESIDING AT OFFICIAL QUARTERS,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
HUNAGUND SUB DIVISION,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,
BAGALOKOT 560 073.
7. SRI. MALLESH DODDAMANI,
S/O. FAKKIRA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KUDLIGI SUB DIVISION,
-3-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT 583 135.
RESIDING AT OFFICIAL QUARTERS,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KUDLIGI SUB DIVISION,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT 583 135.
8. SRI. H. S. MARULI,
S/O. SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PRESENTLY UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING TO
STATE INTELLIGENCE,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT LV 59,
ZUARI GARDEN CITY,
HULIKERE VILLAGE,
KRS MAIN ROAD, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571 438.
9. SRI. P. RAVIPRASAD,
S/O. LATE K. PRABHUDEVA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
VIJAYANAGARA SUB DIVISION,
MYSORE 570 030.
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT MB 504,
GOLDEN GRAND APARTMENT,
TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPURA,
BANGALORE 560 022.
10. SRI. SHEELAVANTHA HOSAMANI,
S/O. SANNABALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
HOSPETE , VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT 583 225.
PERMANENTLY RESIDING NO. NO. 100,
GUBBI COLONY, KALABURGI 585 105.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH.K, ADVOCATE)
-4-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 002.
3. SMT. ANUSHA G,
D/O. GANESHA K S,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED (VIGILANCE), CRESCENT ROAD,
BNGALURU 560 001.
RESIDING AT NO. 138, 4TH MAIN,
NARAMMA ASHRAMA, JNANABHARATHI POST,
BENGALURU 560 056.
4. SRI. MANOJ KUMAR M.E,
S/O. M. A. EREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
JC NAGAR SUB DIVISION,
R.T NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 032.
RESIDING AT NO. A310, G CORPS,
MAHALAKSHMI APARTMENT,
BLOCK-C, SAHAKARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 092.
5. SRI. CHANDAN KUMAR N,
S/O. NEELAKANTA H,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
VIJAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 1ST STAGE,
-5-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 079.
RESIDING AT NO. 04,
1ST FLOOR, AMULYA CHANDRA ENCLAVE,
9TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 065.
6. SRI. PAVAN N.,
S/O. NAGARAJAIAH T C,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
SUBRAMANYAPURA SUB DIVISION,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU 560 078.
RESIDING AT NO. 47, SHIVALAYA,
2ND CROSS, 6TH MAIN,
7TH BLOCK, NAGARABAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU 560 072.
7. SRI. OMPRAKASH T. A,
S/O. ANJANNAPPA T P,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KUNIGAL SUB DIVISION,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 130.
RESIDING AT NO. 13,
TARAHUNASE VILLAGE AND POST,
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU 562 157.
8. SMT. PRIYADARSHINI ISHWAR SANIKOP,
D/O. ISHWAR MALLAPPA SANIKOP,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
MARATHAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE CITY 560 037,
RESIDING AT MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA,
RAMANAGARA, 2ND MAIN,
NEAR NTTF, DHARWAD 580 001.
9. SRI. JAWEED INAMDAR,
S/O. WAJER BEGH INAMDHAR,
-6-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SHORAPUR SUB DIVISION,
YADAGIRI DISTRICT 585 220.
RESIDING AT SHEGUNASHI POST,
BABALESHWAR TALUK,
VIJAYAPUR 586 125.
10. SRI. BHARATH S. REDDY,
S/O. T SRIRAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BYATARAYANAPURA SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU 560 092.
RESIDING AT NO. 928/787/1,
SANJEEVAPPA MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKABOMMASANDRA, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU 560 065.
11. SRI. JAGADEESHA K. S,
S/O. SADASHIVAIAH B,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NELAMANGALA SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 123.
RESIDING AT KARNAKUPPE VILLAGE,
NIDAVALALU POST, HEBBUR HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKUR 572 120.
12. SMT. TABARAQ FATHIMA,
D/O. S IKRAMULLAH MAHAMOOD,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CID, CARLTON HOUSE,
49, PALACE ROAD, RACE COURSE,
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 001.
RESIDING AT NO. 8, GROUND FLOOR,
4TH MAIN, HEBBAL BINNY ROAD,
GANGANAGAR, RT NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU 560 032.
13. DR. GANA P KUMAR,
-7-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
D/O. PRASANNA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
DAKSHINA KANNADA 575 006.
RESIDING AT NO. 306,
DOLLARS COMFORT APARTMENT,
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, RMV 2ND STAGE,
NAGASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE,
SANJAYNAGARA, BENGALURU 560 094.
14. SRI. SHIVANAND KATAGI,
S/O. KALLAPPA KATAGI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CEN, POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD DISTRICT 580 008.
RESIDING AT BAILUR POST,
CHENNAMMANA KITTUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT 591 115.
15. SRI. PRASHANT G MUNNOLLI,
S/O. GURUSIDDA B MUNNOLLI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ATHANI SUB DIVISION,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT 591 304.
RESIDING AT BASAVA NILAYA,
KANCHAVEERA NAGARA, MUTAGI EXTENSION,
BELAGAVI 591 124.
16. SRI. SHIVANAND N MADARAKHANDI,
S/O. NANDABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DANDELI SUB DIVISION,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581 325.
RESIDING AT UKKALI POST,
BASAVANABAGEWADI TALUK,
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT 586 102.
-8-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
17. SRI. NARASIMHA V. TAMRADHWAJA,
FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POLICE ACADEMY, MYSURU 570 019.
RESIDING AT POST MALANAYAKANAHALLI,
RANEBENNUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT 581 119.
18. SRI. PRAVEEN M, S/O MANJANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MAGADI SUB DIVISION,
DANUSH BUILDING, TAVAREKERE TOWN,
BENGALURU 562 130.
RESIDING AT PARVATHAIAHANA PALYA,
SONDEKOPPA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU 562 130.
19. SRI. UMASHANKAR M. H,
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA M. K,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BANASAWADI SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU 560 043.
RESIDING AT NO. VA016,
PRUKSHA VILLA S NIMBEKAIPUR,
BENGALURU EAST 560 049.
20. SRI. SHANTHAVEERA. E,
S/O. ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
STATE INTELLIGENCE BRANCH,
BENGALURU 560 001.
RESIDING AT MATRUSHI NILAYA,
NEAR SAJJE HANUMAN TEMPLE,
-9-
WP No. 8224 of 2025
JAMAKHANDI 587 301.
21. SRI. MANOJ KUMAR NAIK,
S/O. DHANSINGH NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,
MANGALURU CITY 575 001
RESIDING AT TEACHERS COLONY,
ROPPA POST, PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU 561 202.
22. SRI. REENA SUVARNA. N,
W/O. RAGHAVENDRA S,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
WHITE FIELD SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE 560 036
RESIDING AT NO. 125,GAYATHRI NILAYA
11TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
BCC HBSC LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY 560 040.
23. SRI. RAVI D NAIK,
S/O. D V NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BAILAHONGAL SUB DIVISION,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT 591 102.
RESIDING AT POLICE QUARTERS,
NEAR BAILAHONGAL POLICE STATION,
BAILAHONGAL TALUK 591 102.
24. SRI. GOPI B. R,
S/O. RAJA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ALAND SUB DIVISION,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT 585 302.
RESIDING BEHIND BALAJI TALKIES,
HULIYAR HOBLI AND POST,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
- 10 -
WP No. 8224 of 2025
TUMAKUR 572 218.
25. DR. SANTHOSH K. M,
S/O. SOMASHEKARAIAH K. M,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CBI GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 032.
RESIDING AT NO. 1048, SRI GURU SAANIDHYA,
NEAR LOLASHANTHESWARA HIGH SCHOOL,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR, KOTTUR,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT 583 134.
26. SRI. MALLIKARJUN SALI,
S/O. SIDDAPPA SALI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
WESTERN RANGE,
MANGALURU 575 001.
RESIDING AT KALLAHANGARGA POST,
JEWARGI TALUK,
KALANURAGI 585 310.
27. SRI. SHARANAPPA,
S/O. KUNTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE,
TT AND RSI, R K HEGDE NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 077.
RESIDING AT JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION,
BENGALURU 570 006.
28. SRI. VENKATESH,
S/O. LATE AYYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SIRAGUPPA SUB DIVISION,
BALLARI DISTRICT 583 103.
RESIDING AT SIDDAMMA NIVASA,
BAPPURU ROAD, SINDHANUR,
RAICHUR DISTRICT 584 128.
- 11 -
WP No. 8224 of 2025
29. SRI. THIRUMALLESH,
S/O. I T JAMBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
VIJAYANAGAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 138.
30. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA H M,
FATHER S NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONERS,
MAJOR,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DCRE POLICE STATION,
OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
BENGALURU URBAN, BENGALURU 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI.P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B.O.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-8;
VIDE ORDER DATED:17.04.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
R-29 AND R-30 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON'BLE KSAT BANGALORE IN
RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 PASSED IN
A.No-5238-5263/2023 (ANNEXURE-A), ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, D K SINGH J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 12 -
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present writ petition has been filed by the
promotees to the Cadre of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police (for short, 'DySP') impugning the judgment and
order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the KSAT'), Bengaluru
in Application Nos.5238-5263/2023 filed by respondent
Nos.3 to 28, the direct recruitees of DySP of 2017 batch.
2. The DySP(s) had challenged the final seniority
list of cadre of DySP(s) dated 07.03.2022 on the ground
that the promoted DySP(s) recruited from the cadre of
Inspector of Police (Civil) had been promoted in excess of
their promotional quota. The challenge was also made on
the ground that the impugned seniority list dated
07.03.2022 was prepared in violation of the Government
Orders dated 05.07.1976 and 14.12.1987. The
recruitment and services of the DySP(s) are governed
under the Karnataka Gazetted Probationers (Appointment
by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1977. In the cadre of
- 13 -
DySP(s) (Civil), 20% of the vacancies are to be filled by
direct recruitment and 80% by promotion from the cadre
of Inspector of Police (Civil). Upto the year 2004 the ratio
of direct recruitment and promotion was 33 1/3 and 66
2/3.
3. The Supreme Court in the case of V.B.Badami
and Another Vs. State of Mysore and Others reported
in (1976) 2 SCC 901 had dealt with the question of fixing
the seniority between direct recruits and promotees and
held that the appointment in excess of quotas prescribed
would not bestow seniority. The seniority is to be reckoned
on confirmation only in the substantive vacancy;
temporary promotion to vacancy is reserved for the other
groups. Considering the provisions of the Mysore
Administrative Service (recruitment), Rules, 1957 framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, working out
the quota rule between the direct recruits and promotees,
the Supreme Court enunciated five principles namely:
i. Where the rules prescribe quota between
direct recruits and promotees, confirmation or
- 14 -
substantive appointment can only be in respect of
clear vacancies in the permanent strength of the
cadre.
ii. Confirmed persons are senior to those
who are officiating.
iii. As between persons appointed in
officiating capacity, seniority is to be counted on
the length of continuous service.
iv. 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.
v. If promotions are made to vacancies in
excess of the promotional quota, the promotions
- 15 -
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. The 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.
4. The Supreme Court further held that the
important principle is that as long as the quota rule
remains, neither promotees can be allotted to any of the
substantive vacancies of the quota of direct recruits nor
direct recruits can be allotted to promotional vacancies.
5. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of V. B. Badami (supra) the
Government promulgated the Government order dated
05.07.1976 for the purpose of classifying and calculating
- 16 -
the vacancies between direct recruits and promotees,
which would be on the basis of the quota fixed in the
Cadre and Recruitment Rules. The course of the period
which will form a block period will be from the date of
commencement of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules to the
date on which the direct recruits were first appointed,
unless in the meanwhile there was any amendment to the
Rules. In that case, the block period will commence from
the date of commencement of the Rules to the date of
amendment and thereafter from the date of amendment
to the date of recruitment of direct recruits, and vacancies
in both the blocks will have to be taken into account. The
vacancies that arise in a block period should be allocated
to the direct recruits and the promotees as per the quota
prescribed under the statutory prescription and if any
excess promotion during the block period is made, the
excess promotees should have to be accommodated within
the next block period below the direct recruits.
- 17 -
6. The Supreme Court in the case of GONAL
BIHIMAPPA Vs. STATE of KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
reported in 1987(SUPP) SCC 207 held that the seniority
and promotion of the direct recruits and promotees are to
be strictly observed. Where recruitment is from two
sources to a service, a quota rule can be applied fixing the
limits of recruitment from the two sources. The quota rule
has to be strictly enforced and it is not open to the
authorities to meddle on the ground of administrative
exigencies.
7. The Supreme Court was considering the Mysore
Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1957, which
remained operative till 1977 and the Mysore Recruitment
of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1959 as well as the
Karnataka Government Gazetted Probationers Posts
(Appointment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1966.
Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Administrative Service
(Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1977, was also under
consideration. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles
laid down in the V.B.Badami case (supra). Paragraphs 19
- 18 -
and 30 of the said judgment which are relevant are
extracted hereunder:
"19. The sixth contention was that the
respondents were appointed on temporary basis with
effect from October 26, 1962 against temporary posts
created for them and they could not claim seniority to
appellants for these reasons. Under Rule 5 of the Mysore
Government Servants Probation Rules, 1957 the
probationers are deemed to have satisfactorily
completed their probation on the issue of an order to
that effect. The respondents who were confirmed in
substantive vacancies could be confirmed only in
vacancies which might exist or arise after October 26,
1964 and not earlier. The respondents were confirmed
against substantive vacancies which arose from
September 12, 1960 onwards. Both the 1957
Recruitment Rules and the 1959 Probationers Rules
contemplate observance of quota rule at the time of
appointment and promotion. The question of
enforcement of quota rules does not apply at the time of
confirmation. The quota rule will only apply when the
vacancies are filled up either by direct recruitment or
promotion. The appellants are promoted prior to the
direct recruitment of the respondents, and therefore,
they are entitled to claim seniority.
30. The quota between promotees and direct
recruits is to be fixed with reference to the permanent
strength of 135 junior duty posts. Persons who were
allotted the junior duty posts under the States
Reorganisation Act are to be accommodated within the
- 19 -
permanent cadre strength of 135 posts. If they are in
excess of the number then the excess will have to be
accommodated in the promotional vacancies during the
subsequent period commencing from December 2, 1957
to September 10, 1959."
8. After the judgment in the case of GONAL
BIHIMAPPA (supra), the State Government issued
Official Memorandum bearing No.DPAR 43 SSR 87 dated
14.12.1987. After respondent Nos.3 to 28 were appointed
through competitive examination against the direct
recruitment posts in the cadre of DySP(s), the
Government published the provisional seniority list of the
DySP(s) on 30.11.2017. Respondent Nos.3 to 28 were
shown in block period-32. According to respondent Nos.3
to 28, in the previous block period - 31, there were 25
excess promotees who were appointed/promoted against
the direct recruitment quota post and at the end of 32nd
block period, the said excess was increased to 42.
9. The State Government again published the
seniority list dated 03.07.2019 of the cadre of the
Superintendent of Police of Karnataka. According to the
respondents, though the Government had shown 22 block
- 20 -
periods from 05.02.1977 to 17.04.2018, but it did not
show the number of vacancies that had occurred during
these block periods and the allocation of vacancies for
direct recruitment and promotion. Without disclosing the
required details, the Government prepared the seniority
list.
10. On 28.07.2020, the Government published the
provisional seniority list of the cadre of DySP(s) for the
period from 05.02.1997 to 17.04.2018. Thereafter, on
05.08.2021, the final seniority list was published. Again on
21.07.2022, the Government had published the provisional
seniority list of the cadre of DySP(s) without taking into
consideration the vacancies in each block period of the
respective quota. In the provisional seniority list, the
Government had taken the block period from one direct
recruitment to another direct recruitment, and all the
persons who had been promoted during the said block
period and the persons who were directly recruited were
shown in the seniority list without considering the excess
promotion of the promotees. Some of the private
- 21 -
respondents have filed objections to the provisional
seniority list dated 27.01.2022 stating that the promotion
made in excess of the quota cannot be given seniority over
and above the direct recruits and the excess promotions
made in the respective block periods were to be brought
down when the subsequent direct recruitment took place.
Without considering the said objection, the Government
had published the final seniority list on 07.03.2022 and
the said seniority list came to be challenged before the
KSAT. After considering the material on record and the
submission advanced by the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State, who admitted that there
were certain discrepancies in the vacancy register which
had been maintained, the Tribunal has passed the
impugned order and allowed the application filed by
respondent Nos.3 to 28 and quashed the final seniority list
dated 07.03.2022 with a direction to the State to consider
the objections raised by the direct recruits and re-do the
seniority list in accordance with the guidelines issued in
the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976 and
- 22 -
14.12.1987. The Government authorities have also been
directed to publish blockwise vacancy position w.e.f 2012
along with revised vacancy in the each category of
promotion and direct recruitments quota. The authorities
were also directed not to issue any promotion from the
cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police to
Superintendent of Police on the basis of the impugned
seniority list dated 07.03.2022.
11. As per the Government order dated
09.10.2020, total cadre strength of DySP(s) is 423 out of
which, 60 are reserved for Hyderabad-Karnataka and 363
post for non Hyderabad-Karnataka. The blockwise
vacancies till 2012 were settled in terms of the direction of
the Tribunal in A.Nos.4382-4385/2011, 6445-6450/2011
and 6653 and 6656/2011 decided on 10.08.2012.
12. It may also be taken note of that 50 temporary
posts were created by the order dated 18.04.2007 for a
period of one year. These 50 posts ceased to exist on
17.04.2008. However, these 50 posts are considered as
permanent vacancies in the vacancy register.
- 23 -
13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners has submitted that as respondent Nos.3 to 28
did not question the seniority list dated 05.08.2021,
(Annexure-A8) it would not be open for them to question
the subsequent seniority list dated 07.03.2023. It is
further submitted that under Rule 10 of the Karnataka
Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957, the
Government has no power to revise the seniority and it
can only update as held by this Court in the case of
Ramaswamy G.T. & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors
reported in (1986) 1 Kant LJ 1.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the petitioners were promoted as DySP(s)
much anterior to the private respondents (3 to 28) entered
the cadre by direct recruitment. As the private
respondents never questioned the promotions of the
petitioners, they cannot question the seniority of these
promotee officers. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the cardinal principle of Seniority from the
- 24 -
date of substantive appointment has been taken into
consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned
order and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable
in law and is liable to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel
has further submitted that though the application for
condonation of delay was filed by the respondents along
with Application Nos.5238-5263/2023, however, the
Tribunal, without condoning the delay, has passed the
impugned order. Therefore, this impugned order is vitiated
in law and on this ground alone, it requires to be set aside.
Condonation of delay is a precondition for the Court to
exercise jurisdiction. If the application was not on time as
per the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act and
was not decided condoning the delay, it goes to the root of
the matter and the order impugned becomes
unsustainable.
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that once the seniority list has attained finality,
subsequently, it cannot be tilted with or challenged. In
- 25 -
support of the said submission, he has placed reliance on
the following Judgments:
i. Ramaswamy G. T. & Ors Vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors reported in 1985 SCC OnLine
Kar 407.
ii. Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza Vs. Union of
India and Ors. reported in (1976) 1 SCC 599.
iii. V.Vincent Velankanni Vs. The Union of India
and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Sc
2642.
iv. M Rame Gowda and Others Vs. The State of
Karnataka and others decided on 17.03.2025 in
W.P.No.9552/2023.
16. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted
that once a promotion has attained the finality, the
seniority attached thereto cannot be unsettled, unless the
promotion order is set aside or quashed. In support of the
said submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh and
Others Vs. Devi Ratan and Others reported in (2010)
- 26 -
1 SCC 417. He has further submitted that mere
existence of a vacancy is not sufficient for an employee to
gain seniority and seniority cannot be reckoned
retrospectively from the date of such vacancy, as held in
the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and others
Vs. Dharamdeo Das reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Sc
1768. The direct recruits are entitled to seniority from the
date of their substantive appointment and they cannot
claim any seniority anterior to their actual entry into
service as held in the case of Union of India and
Another Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 254.
17. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondent - State has clearly conceded that
vacancy register was not properly maintained and there
were discrepancies in that regard. He has relied on the
Chart as submitted before the Tribunal at
paragraph - 18 of the impugned order in support of his
submission. He further submitted that, as certain
anomalies and discrepancies have crept in preparation of
- 27 -
the vacancy register, the same needs to be corrected.
Therefore, the State has agreed to examine the numbers
and take necessary action.
18. The submission on behalf of the State is that
the petitioners would also be entitled to put across their
view point while considering the objections raised by the
private respondents (3 to 28) to the final seniority list
dated 07.03.2022. In fact, the learned Additional
Government Advocate has supported the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal.
19. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
private respondents (3 to 28) has submitted that the final
seniority list dated 07.03.2022 was published in clear
violation of the Official Memorandums dated 05.07.1976
and 14.12.1987, which were issued pursuant to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
V.B. Badami (supra), 346 vacancies were wrongly shown
in the vacancy register. The 346 vacancies never arose in
the cadre and yet were treated as vacancies in the
vacancy register. These 346 vacancies have been taken
- 28 -
into account in the matter of allocation in the final
seniority list. As a result, excess promotions were granted
in favour of the promotees like the petitioners herein
which resulted in vacancy not being properly calculated in
these block periods. The cadre strength can be altered
only by way of amendment in terms of Sections 3 and 8 of
the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. However, 50
temporary posts were created by an order dated
18.04.2007 for a period of one year. These 50 posts
ceased to exist on 17.04.2008. However, these 50 posts
are considered as permanent vacancies in the vacancy
register. The persons promoted in excess of the promotion
quota are not entitled for seniority, inasmuch as, those
promotions may not be illegal but irregular. The persons
holding promotional post cannot claim seniority unless
their promotions come within their quota. It is the further
contention of the petitioners that the respondents having
not questioned the seniority list dated 05.08.2021, could
not have challenged the subsequent seniority list dated
07.03.2022 which is untenable on the facts of the case.
- 29 -
The submission is that the seniority list dated 05.08.2021
was shortlisted within five months of its publication except
the original seniority list dated 27.01.2022 as on
01.01.2021 came to be published. Respondent Nos.3 to 28
preferred their objections which were wrongly rejected and
ignoring the law and the objections, final seniority list
came to be published on 07.03.2022 as on 01.01.2021.
The seniority list dated 05.08.2021 as on 01.01.2021 was
never settled. Within five months, another seniority list
dated 27.01.2022 as on 01.01.2021 was published. It
cannot be said that the said seniority list dated
05.08.2021 cannot be re-opened inasmuch as the State
Government itself had re-opened the said seniority list.
20. In respect of the submissions regarding Rule 10
of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules,
1957, it is submitted that the present case is not the case
of updation or revision under Rule. All that the Tribunal
has directed is for correcting the errors committed by the
State. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
- 30 -
Case M.R. Sharma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
submits that the patent illegality in the decision can
always be corrected. In the instant case, the Government
has not maintained the vacancy register properly and the
promotions have been made outside their quota.
21. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly
admitted this mistake and submitted that after considering
the representation, corrective steps are to be taken. He
has further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex
court in the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs.
Ajith Kumar Kar and Others reported in (2008) 11
SCC 591 to submit that bona fide mistakes would not
confer any right on any party and it can be corrected. The
promotions made in excess of their quota may not be
illegal, but certainly they are irregular. The dispute is in
respect of the seniority and not in respect of promotions.
In the case of Gonal Bihimappa (supra), the Supreme
Court has drawn final distinction in paragraph 19.
- 31 -
22. The contention that without condoning the
delay, the Tribunal could not have admitted the
applications and disentitled the respondents for any relief
is untenable. The condonation of delay application was
filed along with the original application on 30.11.2023
seeking condonation of delay of 8 months and 10 days in
approaching the KSAT. The KSAT had issued notice on
both delay application and main application on
15.12.2023. After completion of the proceedings, the
matter was taken up for final hearing without formally
admitting the application. The learned KSAT heard the
parties on the delay applications during the final
arguments and the application now stands allowed vide
order dated 06.02.2025. It was an inadvertent mistake
which stands corrected now by passing a formal order
condoning the delay in approaching KSAT. The petitioners
were heard by the KSAT before condonation of delay vide
order dated 01.04.2025 and incorporated the same in the
final order dated 01.04.2025. A seniority list contrary to
the rules cannot be justified on the ground of delay in
- 32 -
approaching the Court as held in the case of Ajay Kumar
Shukla and Others Vs. Arvind Rai and Others reported
in (2022) 12 SCC 579.
23. We have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties.
24. There is no dispute that the promotions have
been made in excess of the quota prescribed for promotion
under the Rules. The question is that whether the excess
promotions made over and above the prescribed quota
would also carry the seniority. The Supreme Court in the
case of V.B. Badami (supra) has clearly held that
promotion in excess of quota would not entitle the
seniority. 50 promotions were made for a period of one
year by executive order dated 18.04.2007. These
temporary posts ceased to exist on 17.04.2008. However,
these 50 posts were considered as permanent vacancies in
the vacancy register. In the case of V.B.Badami (supra)
at paragraphs 29 and 30, it has been held as follows:
"29. In working out the quota rule, these
principles are generally followed. First, where Rules
- 33 -
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.
30. The quota between promotees and direct
recruits is to be fixed with reference to the permanent
- 34 -
strength of 135 junior duty posts. Persons who were
allotted the junior duty posts under the States
Reorganisation Act are to be accommodated within the
permanent cadre strength of 135 posts. If they are in
excess of the number then the excess will have to be
accommodated in the promotional vacancies during the
subsequent period commencing from December 2, 1957
to September 10, 1959."
25. The said judgment has been further reaffirmed
in Gonal Bihimappa (supra). In pursuance of the
aforesaid judgments, the Government has issued Official
Memorandums dated 05.07.1976 and 14.12.1987 and
therefore, it is the duty of the State to prepare the
seniority list in terms of aforesaid official memorandums.
26. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairly
admitted that there were discrepancies in maintaining the
vacancy register and the State is open to correct the
mistakes by taking into consideration the representations
made. The errors are always open to be corrected. No one
can claim a right on basis of an error/mistake occurred in
preparing the seniority list as held in the case of VSNL Vs.
Ajith Kumar Kar and Others (supra). Paragraph 46 of
the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
- 35 -
"46. It is well settled that a bona fide mistake
does not confer any right on any party and it can be
corrected. VSNL vide subsequent Office Order bearing
Ref. No. HQ-A/01-04/91-PE1 dated 18-10-1995 had
rectified its mistake appearing in earlier order dated 3-
9-1993 and the said office order was again modified by
another Office Order bearing No. HQ-8A/01-04/91-PE1
dated 19-12-1995 by which Para 2(A) of the Office
Order dated 18-10-1995 was modified to the extent as
stated in the earlier part of this judgment. The modified
order was a one-time exercise for choosing the
alternatives of settlement of pension and the pensioners
were required to submit their consent to the regional
heads in a prescribed format by 15-1-1996. The
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pension (DP & PW), New Delhi, issued
OM dated 22-11-1996 (Annexure P-14) which is the
nodal department of the Government of India for taking
policy decisions on pensionary matters sent clarificatory
order, a copy thereof was sent to the Ministry of
Telecommunications, Department of Communications,
dealing with the subject of payment of pension to the
employees of erstwhile OCS who were absorbed in
VSNL."
27. Similar view has been re-iterated in the case
of Union of India and Another Vs. Narendra Singh
reported in 2008 2 SCC 750.
28. We do not find any substance in the submission
of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the
- 36 -
seniority list dated 05.08.2021 as on 01.01.2021 became
final and therefore, the respondents were noticed entitled
to challenge the subsequent seniority list dated
07.03.2022. As noticed from the above facts, the seniority
list dated 05.08.2021 was a shortlived seniority list and
the Government itself, within a period of 5 months, came
out with another provisional seniority list dated
27.01.2022 as on 01.01.2021 and thereafter, published
the final seniority list dated 07.03.2022. The subject
matter is challenged before the KSAT. Therefore, the
submission that the seniority list dated 05.08.2021 had
attained finality has no force and we reject the contention
of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
29. Rule 10 of the Karnataka Government Servants'
(Seniority) Rules, 1957 would have no application to the
facts of the case when the State has admitted that errors
have been committed in maintaining the vacancy register
and when the final seniority list is under challenge. As the
seniority list dated 05.08.2021 was not settled, Rule 10 of
- 37 -
the Rules, 1957 has no application to the facts of the
present case.
30. We have perused the material available on
record, and the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respondents. It clearly depicts that the
Government admitted some discrepancy in the seniority
list and block period not stated in clear terms. In view of
the ration laid down in G.T. Ramaswamy's case (supra), it
is open to the Government to tinkering and re-do the
matter/seniority list.
31. Further, learned AAG also fairly submitted that
the State Government has already formed a committee to
do the whole list afresh. In view of the same, the
petitioners have not established any ground to invoke
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
32. Though the Tribunal had heard the condonation
of delay application along with the main application,
however, by an inadvertent mistake, separate order was
not passed on the application seeking condonation of delay
- 38 -
while passing the final order dated 06.02.2025. As such,
the said inadvertent mistake has been corrected by
passing the order dated 01.04.2025 condoning the delay
and the same has been incorporated in the order dated
01.04.2025. We therefore, do not find any substance in
the contention that separate order was not passed on the
application seeking condonation of delay when the final
order dated 06.02.2025 was passed and therefore, the
final order is vitiated. The inadvertent mistake has been
corrected and no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioners. Even otherwise, a seniority list prepared
contrary to the Rules cannot be justified only on the
ground of delay in approaching the Court as held in the
case of VSNL Vs. Ajith Kumar Kar and Others (supra).
Paragraph 30 of the said judgment, which is relevant, is
extracted hereunder:
"30. The Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department
of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare) vide Office
Memorandum dated 7-2-1990 in reply to the
Department of Telecommunications OM No. A-
13016/1/188-O.C. dated 22-1-1990 issued a
- 39 -
clarification relating to the settlement of pensionary
terms, etc. in respect of erstwhile OCS employees who
were absorbed in VSNL. In terms of this OM, it was
clarified very specifically that where the employees had
opted to retain the pensionary benefits under the
Central Government Rules, the emoluments drawn
under the PSUs shall be treated as emoluments for the
purpose of Rule 33 of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 and, accordingly, any emolument
drawn by the transferred employee will be taken into
account for the purposes of calculation of average
emoluments as per the clarification given in Note 10
below Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and it was
stated that such employees who had specifically opted
for Central Government pensionary benefits will be
entitled to the benefit of payment of pension based on
the emoluments drawn at the time of retirement from
the PSU."
33. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the
considered view that the impugned order does not suffer
from any illegality or perversity, which requires
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the
State itself has admitted the errors/mistakes in
preparing/maintaining the vacancy register, it is open to
take corrective measures. We deem it appropriate to leave
it to the State to take corrective measures for correcting
- 40 -
the vacancy register and thereafter, publishing the final
seniority list as directed by the KSAT.
34. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed, however, without costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RKA
