[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kavita D/O Basavarajappa Keralli vs The Director And Ors on 6 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
WP No. 202245 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 202245 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KAVITA D/O BASAVARAJAPPA KERALLI
W/O SIDDALINGAPPA BULLA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: LINEMAN,
SHARAN NAGAR, BEHIND S.B.TEMPLE,
SHAHABAD, TQ.SHAHABAD,
DIST.KALABURAGI-585228
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE DIRECTOR
by SACHIN KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
Location: HIGH CORPORATION LTD.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560032.
2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
KALABURAGI-585102.
3. PRINCIPAL MANAGER
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
WP No. 202245 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD., (O AND M) DIVISION,
POST.YADGIR-585201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, 1) ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THAT TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28.08.2019,
GIVEN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE- E-2. 2) TO
QUASH THE CONDITION IMPOSED AT SL NO. 6 IN THE
APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.07.2012, IN
NO.KA.NI.A(V)/YA/LE/SALE/HISA(SI)/12-13/3658-62, ISSUED
BY 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND FURTHER DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE
PETITIONER UNDER ORDINARY PENSION SCHEME. 3) ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, TO
CONSIDER THE SENIORITY OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE
DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF SIMILAR PERSONS WHO WERE
APPOINTED I.E. ON 07.04.1998 UNDER THE VERY SAME
NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.1997 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRSENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR PAYMENT
SALARY OF ARREARS FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION I.E
24.04.1998 TO 18.07.2012 AND GRANT ALL THE
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON PASSING THE
ABOVE ORDER. 4) OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ARISING
THERETO WITH AN INTEREST ON THE ARREARS AT 12% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION I.E 20.05.1997 TO
18.07.2012, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. 5) TO PASS OR
GRANT SUCH ORDERS OR ISSUE SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS
DEEMED FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
WP No. 202245 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court in this writ
petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or of any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing that to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated
28.08.2019 given to the 1st respondent vide Annexure-
E2.
(ii) To quash the condition imposed at Sl.No.6
in the appointment order dated 18.07.2012 in
No.Ka.Ni.A(v)/Ya/Le/Sale/Nisa(simple imprisonment)
12-13/3658-62, issued by 4th respondent vide
Annexure-D and further direct the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner under ordinary
pension scheme.
(iii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or
other appropriate writ or direction, directing the
respondents, to consider the representation given to
consider the seniority of the petitioner from the date of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
appointment of similar persons who were appointed i.e.
on 07.04.1998, under the very same notification dated
20.05.1997. By the petitioner for payment salary of
arrears from the date of notification i.e. 20.05.1997 to
18.07.2012 and grant all the consequential benefits
consequent upon passing the above order, to meet the
ends of justice.
(iv) Other consequential benefits arising thereto
with an interest on the arrears at 12% p.a. from the
date of notification i.e. 20.05.1997 to 18.07.2012 till
the date of payment.
(v) to pass or grant such orders or issue such
other directions deemed fit under the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and
equity.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. The petitioner had applied to the post of Assistant
Lineman pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent-
Corporation. In the said notification, one post of Assistant
Lineman was reserved for women category under general merit.
Smt. Saroja who was appointed to the post of Assistant
Lineman under women category, had not reported. Under the
circumstances, the petitioner who was the only other woman in
the additional list that was published by the respondent-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
corporation had made a request to appoint her to the post of
Assistant Lineman. The same was rejected by the corporation
and therefore, she had approached this Court in
W.P.No.5119/2001 which was allowed on 30.01.2003 and the
impugned endorsement was set aside and the Corporation was
directed to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the
post of Assistant Lineman in women category. As against the
said order passed in W.P.No.5119/2001, the Corporation had
filed an appeal in Writ Appeal No.2965/2003 and the Division
Bench of this Court on 12.06.2009 had dismissed the said writ
appeal.
4. The Corporation thereafter once again issued
endorsement dated 22.10.2009 rejecting the prayer of the
petitioner to appoint her to the post of Assistant Lineman under
the reserved category for women. The said endorsement was
questioned by the petitioner before this Court in
W.P.No.80616/2010 which was allowed by this Court on
06.04.2011. In the said writ petition this Court having set aside
the impugned endorsement dated 22.10.2009, observed that,
the petitioner shall be appointed to the post of Assistant
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
Lineman which is reserved for women category (general merit)
and which fell vacant due to non-joining of Smt. Saroja.
Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.80616/2010 the
petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Lineman for
women category on 18.07.2012.
5. In the appointment order dated 18.07.2012 there
were certain terms and conditions. The condition No.6 of the
appointment order dated 18.07.2012 states that, the petitioner
would be entitled for the new contribution pension scheme as
per the order of the Corporation dated 05.07.2007. Since, the
candidates who were appointed under the said notification in
response to which the petitioner had filed her application were
extended the benefits of the earlier pension scheme, it appears
that, the petitioner had made several representation to extend
the benefits of the earlier pension scheme even to her. The
petitioner also appears to have made repeated representation to
consider her seniority from the date of appointment of other
candidates under the notification dated 20.05.1997. The
grievance of the petitioner is that, the representations remained
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
unconsidered by the Corporation and it is under these
circumstances she is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated
the grounds urged in the petition submits that, in an identical
circumstances this Court in W.P.No.81728/2013 (S-Res) has
observed that, a candidate who was wrongly denied the
appointment is entitled to be placed along with other candidates
who were appointed under the very same notification and the
very same service conditions will apply even to the said
candidate.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents who
has filed his statement of objections submits that, the petitioner
was not appointed on merit and on the other hand, her name
was only found in the additional list, even in the additional list
her name was at Sl.No.7 which is the last name. Having
accepted the order of appointment, she now cannot turn around
and submit that she is also entitled for service benefits
extended to the candidates who were earlier appointed on
merits. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
8. The material on record would go to show that, the
petitioner in response to the notification dated 20.05.1997
published by the corporation had applied for the post of
Assistant Lineman (women category). Smt. Saroja who was
appointed to the said post against reserved category had
undisputedly not reported and therefore, the said post had
remained vacant. The corporation had published the select list
and the waiting list of candidates. In the waiting list there were
seven candidates and the petitioner's name is found at Sl.No.7.
Except the petitioner, there was no other woman candidate
either in the first list or in the waiting list and it is under these
circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.5119/2001 had set aside
the endorsement issued by the Corporation and had directed
the corporation to consider the candidature of the petitioner
against the reserved category. However, the challenge made to
the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
by the Corporation was unsuccessful and the Writ Appeal
No.2965/2003 filed by them was dismissed by the Division
Bench of this Court. Even thereafter, yet another endorsement
was issued by the Corporation once again rejecting the
petitioner's candidature vide endorsement dated 22.10.2009.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
The said endorsement was challenged by the petitioner before
this Court in W.P.No.80616/2010 and this Court on 06.04.2011
had set aside the said endorsement dated 22.10.2009 and
issued a positive direction to the corporation to appoint the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Lineman which is reserved for
women category (general merit) and which fell vacant pursuant
to the non-joining of Smt. Saroja. It is only thereafter, the
corporation issued an appointment letter to the petitioner on
18.07.2012 subject to certain terms and conditions. Aggrieved
by the condition No.6, the petitioner appears to have given
multiple representations to the Corporation and a request was
made to extend the benefits of the earlier pension scheme
which was prevailing when the other candidates were appointed
pursuant to the notification dated 20.05.1997. The petitioner
appears to have also made repeated representations to extend
the seniority and other service benefits from the date of
appointment of similarly situated persons who were appointed
pursuant to the notification dated 20.05.1997. It appears that,
even the said request was not considered by the corporation.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
9. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.81728/2013 disposed of on 24.11.2021 in the case of
Subhash Fakkirappa Mushannavar Vs. The Registrar, at
paragraph Nos.3, 7 and 8 has observed as follows:
3. After the petitioner joined the service in the
respondent - University, he was given an option to opt for
pensionary benefit under the notification dated 1.1.2006.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation with
the respondent - University to consider his appointment
with effect from the date of similarly situated persons,
who were appointed under the notification dated
05.10.2002. However, the said representation was
rejected on the ground that the petitioner was appointed
in the year 2010 and as such, the benefit of fixation of
seniority and pensionary benefit prior to the government
notification dated 1.1.2006 cannot be extended. Hence,
this writ petition.
4. xxxxxx
5. xxxxxx
6. xxxxxx
7. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the
notification dated 5.10.2002 petitioner submitted an
application to consider his case for appointment to the
post of peon, however, the same was not considered on
the ground that he has not secured minimum marks in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
the interview. This Court directed to consider the case of
the petitioner on the basis of the marks obtained by him
in the qualifying examination without reference to the
marks obtained in the interview. It is only thereafter the
petitioner was issued with an appointment order
appointing him to the post of peon. The appointment of
the petitioner as peon should be construed as one under
the notification dated 05.10.2002. Since the appointment
of the petitioner was in pursuance of the notification
dated 5.10.2002, the seniority as well as the pensionary
benefit should be extended from the date of appointment
of similarly situated persons, who were appointed under
the very same notification on 12.2.2003.
8. The contention of the University that the
petitioner having accepted the appointment order
unconditionally cannot seek for fixation of seniority as well
as pensionary benefits notionally. Petitioner after
obtaining the order of appointment has represented with
the University so as to set right the anomaly in the
appointment order and there is no bar for him to submit a
representation to consider his claim to which he is legally
entitled to in accordance with law. The respondent-
University was at fault in not appointing the petitioner on
12.2.2003 and due to the fault of the University, the
petitioner cannot be deprived of his claim to fix seniority
and continuity in service notionally. Hence, the
submission of the learned counsel for the University that
the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate is not
acceptable."
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
10. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner's name is
found in the waiting list published by the Corporation and she
was the only other women candidate in the list and therefore,
after Smt. Saroja had not reported pursuant to her
appointment, the Corporation ought to have considered the
request made by the petitioner for her appointment, but
unfortunately the Corporation had rejected the same.
11. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner had
initially approached this Court in W.P.No.5119/2001. Though
this Court had set aside the endorsement issued by the
Corporation and directed the Corporation to consider the case of
the petitioner for appointment for second time, the Corporation
had rejected the petitioner's candidature and it is under these
circumstances in W.P.No.80616/2010, this Court after quashing
the endorsement by the Corporation had issued a positive
direction to the Corporation to appoint the petitioner to the post
of Assistant Lineman in women category. Therefore, it is
apparent that, the Corporation had wrongly rejected the
petitioner's candidature who was otherwise entitled to be
appointed under the notification of 20.05.1997. Therefore, I am
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2203
HC-KAR
of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought
for in this writ petition.
12. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is partly allowed and the
respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the
representations at Annexures-E, E1 and E2, dated
22.02.2016, 13.10.2017 and 28.08.2019
respectively, submitted by the petitioner to consider
his case for fixation of seniority and other service
benefits notionally from the date of appointment of
the other candidates under the notification dated
20.05.1997 and pass appropriate orders on the same
as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SVH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
