[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shashikala P vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 28209 of 2023
Reserved on : 19.01.2026
Pronounced on : 11.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 28209 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SHASHIKALA P.,
W/O K. V. LOKESH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT,
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally ...PETITIONER
signed by
VINUTHA B S (BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P. H., ADVOCATE)
Location:
High Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
5TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
5TH FLOOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
-2-
WP No. 28209 of 2023
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. P. MALLESH,
S/O MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT,
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING ORDER/ENDORSEMENT BEARING No.SAKANI/
SIBBANDI-3/CR/2016-17 DATED 25/02/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-
A14 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
K.V. ARAVIND, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No. 3307/2022,
has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated
14.07.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, "the Tribunal").
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as a Typist on 11.07.1997 and was subsequently
promoted to the cadre of Stenographer on 26.11.2007.
Respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Typist on 31.01.2000 and
was promoted to the cadre of Stenographer on 19.12.2008.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 was promoted to the cadre of
Office Superintendent on 17.10.2014.
3.1 The petitioner sought promotion to the cadre of Office
Superintendent with effect from 17.10.2014, i.e., the date on
which Respondent No. 3 was promoted to the said post. It was
contended that the promotion of Respondent No. 3 was
contrary to the Gradation List dated 18.01.2021. The petitioner
further asserted that promoting Respondent No. 3 to the cadre
of Office Superintendent without considering the petitioner,
who was senior, was improper.
3.2 An endorsement dated 25.02.2021 was issued, setting
out the reasons for promoting Respondent No. 3 prior to the
petitioner and rejecting the petitioner's claim for retrospective
promotion from the date on which Respondent No. 3 was
promoted. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner
preferred an application before the Tribunal.
3.3 The Tribunal, upon consideration, held that Respondent
No. 3 had acquired eligibility for promotion in the year 2014,
whereas the petitioner acquired such eligibility only in the year
2017. It was observed that, as on the date when Respondent
No. 3 was promoted as Office Superintendent in the year 2014,
the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the said cadre.
On these grounds, the Tribunal rejected the application.
4. Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that, as per the seniority list, the petitioner
is senior to Respondent No. 3. It is contended that the
promotion of Respondent No. 3 without considering the
petitioner amounts to a violation of the seniority list. It is
further submitted that deputation of the petitioner to undergo
one year's training as First Division Assistant (FDA), which is a
pre-condition for promotion to the cadre of Office
Superintendent, was not within the petitioner's control.
According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was never
deputed to undergo the requisite training as FDA, and
therefore, she cannot be faulted for non-fulfilment of the said
requirement.
4.1 It is contended that the denial of promotion in such
circumstances has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that these material aspects
have not been duly considered by the Tribunal while rejecting
the application.
5. Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that
though the petitioner was senior to Respondent No. 3 at the
time of entry into service as a Typist, promotion to the cadre of
Stenographer was granted strictly in accordance with the
applicable seniority.
5.1 It is further submitted that the next promotional post is
that of Office Superintendent and that promotion to the said
cadre is subject to completion of one year's training as FDA.
Learned counsel contends that Respondent No. 3 acquired the
requisite eligibility for promotion in the year 2014, whereas the
petitioner acquired such eligibility only in the year 2017.
5.2 In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the
petitioner cannot contend that a junior has been wrongly
promoted or claim promotion from the date on which
Respondent No. 3 was promoted. It is further submitted that
upon the petitioner acquiring eligibility in the year 2017, a
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened in the
same year and the petitioner was immediately promoted as
Office Superintendent.
5.3 With these submissions, the learned Additional
Government Advocate contends that the writ petition is devoid
of merit and accordingly prays for its dismissal.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
7. The petitioner was appointed as a Typist on 11.07.1997
and was promoted as a Stenographer on 26.11.2007. There is
no dispute that promotion to the cadre of Stenographer was
effected in accordance with seniority. The controversy arises
with regard to promotion to the cadre of Office Superintendent.
7.1 It is admitted in the pleadings by the petitioner that, as
per the Cadre and Recruitment (C & R) Rules, completion of
one year's training as FDA is a compulsory qualification for
promotion to the cadre of Office Superintendent. The
requirement of possessing the said qualification, in addition to
seniority, is not in dispute.
7.2 The contention of the petitioner is that Respondent No. 3,
being junior, was promoted overlooking her seniority. The said
contention cannot be accepted. When completion of one year's
training as FDA is a mandatory qualification for promotion to
the higher cadre of Office Superintendent, eligibility for
consideration depends not merely on seniority, but also on
possession of the requisite qualification.
7.3 Respondent No. 3 acquired the necessary qualification in
the year 2014 and was accordingly promoted to the cadre of
Office Superintendent. The petitioner completed one year's
training as FDA only on 27.03.2017. Upon acquiring the
requisite qualification, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre
of Office Superintendent under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil
Services Rules, 1957 (KCSR).
7.4 Subsequently, a DPC was convened in the year 2019, and
the petitioner's promotion to the cadre of Office Superintendent
was regularised by converting the earlier promotion under Rule
32 into a promotion under Rule 42 of the KCSR.
7.5 When the petitioner acquired the requisite qualification
for promotion only in the year 2017, whereas Respondent No. 3
had acquired such qualification in the year 2014 and was
promoted upon such acquisition, the petitioner cannot
legitimately contend that a junior was promoted overlooking his
seniority. As on the date on which Respondent No. 3 was
promoted, the petitioner did not possess the prescribed
qualification and was, therefore, not eligible for consideration.
In such circumstances, no grievance can be sustained on the
ground that a junior was promoted.
7.6 In that view of the matter, the contention urged by the
petitioner is untenable. The Tribunal, having duly considered
these aspects, has rightly rejected the application. The
endorsement issued by the authorities, assigning reasons on
the aforesaid lines, is also justifiable and does not warrant
interference.
8. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal
warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
