[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Zillapanchayath vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
Reserved on : 21.01.2026
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. 9590 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE ZILLAPANCHAYATH,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYOSRE 570 001,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
High Court of REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
Karnataka
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. SRI. K.SOMASUNDAR,
S/O LATE KRISHNABHAVI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
GRAMA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY GR.II,
SIDDAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
-2-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
R/O No.918, NARAYANA ASHRAMA ROAD,
HINKAL, MYSORE 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.3.2023 OF THE TRIBUNAL OF
BELGAUM IN APPLICATION No. 1938/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2024 PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL BENCH BENGALURU IN CTA No. 570/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B 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.Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. Ranganatha
S. Jois, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
-3-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.1938/2020
has filed the present writ petition, impugning the order dated
21.03.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").
2.1 The petitioner filed an application questioning the
endorsement dated 14.08.2019 at Annexure-A7, whereby the
request for promotion from Panchayath Secretary Grade-II to
Panchayath Secretary Grade-I was rejected. The petitioner also
sought a direction to the respondents to promote him as
Panchayath Secretary Grade-I with effect from 07.05.2016 by
operating the applicable quota.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as Grama Panchayath Secretary Grade-II in the year
2010 in Coorg District. At his request, he was transferred to
Mysore District by order dated 19.08.2014. Upon such transfer,
he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list published as
on 01.01.2016.
3.1 Promotion from Panchayath Secretary Grade-II to
Panchayath Secretary Grade-I is governed by the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules (C & R Rules), which prescribe a quota in the
ratio of 3:2 between Panchayath Secretary Grade-II and
-4-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
Second Division Accounts Assistants. For promotion to Grade-I,
the concerned official must have completed a minimum of five
years of service in the cadre of Grade-II, or three years in the
absence of eligible candidates with five years of service.
3.2 A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was
convened by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat,
Mysore, on 07.05.2016, wherein 28 Second Division Accounts
Assistants were promoted as Panchayath Secretary Grade-I
without operating the prescribed quota.
3.3 After a lapse of three years, the petitioner submitted a
representation questioning the non-operation of the quota
system. The said representation was rejected by the
Government on the ground that it was belated, having been
submitted three years after the DPC, and also on the ground
that no person senior to the petitioner had been promoted.
3.4 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Tribunal
seeking a direction to consider his promotion with effect from
07.05.2016. He also contended that his case ought to be
considered on par with that of Sri Naveen, who was earlier a
Grade-II Secretary and has since been promoted as Grade-I
Secretary.
-5-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
3.5 The Tribunal, taking note of the subsequent
developments, remitted the matter to the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Mysore District, for consideration of
promotion from Grade-II to Grade-I Panchayath Secretary in
accordance with the eligibility criteria and the C & R Rules in
force as on 07.05.2016.
3.6 Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Contempt Application
CTA No.570/2023 alleging disobedience of the order dated
21.03.2023. By the impugned order, the Tribunal granted
further time for compliance.
3.7 Both the aforesaid orders are assailed in the present writ
petition, which has been filed by the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayat.
4. Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submits that promotion to the post of Grade-
I Panchayath Secretary is to be effected in the ratio of 3:2 from
amongst Grade-II Panchayath Secretaries and Second Division
Accounts Assistants, in terms of the Government Order dated
17.09.2014. He further submits that, as per the seniority list
published as on 01.01.2016, the name of respondent No.2
appears at Sl. No.115.
-6-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
4.1 It is contended that the Departmental Promotion
Committee was duly convened and promotions were granted
strictly in accordance with entitlement and availability of
vacancies. Learned counsel submits that the promotion granted
to respondent No.2 on 06.10.2023 is in accordance with law
and is fully justified. It is further submitted that the Tribunal,
without properly considering the seniority position and eligibility
criteria, has committed an error in issuing directions to promote
respondent No.2 with effect from the year 2016.
4.2 Learned counsel further submits that the endorsement
dated 25.10.2023, whereby the claim for retrospective
promotion was rejected, has not been challenged and has thus
attained finality. In the absence of any challenge to the said
endorsement, it is not open to the petitioner to seek further
relief in the nature of retrospective promotion. It is therefore
contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is
unsustainable in law and is liable to be interfered with.
5. Sri Ranganatha S. Jois, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, submits that when the Departmental
Promotion Committee was convened on 07.05.2016, the post of
Grade-I Panchayath Secretary was required to be filled in the
-7-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
ratio of 3:2 from amongst Grade-II Panchayath Secretaries and
Second Division Accounts Assistants. He submits that
respondent No.2 was placed at Sl. No.115 in the seniority list.
The eligibility criteria for promotion require a minimum of five
years' service in the cadre, or three years in the absence of
candidates possessing five years' service.
5.1 Learned counsel contends that the seniors placed above
respondent No.2 were not eligible, as they had been appointed
during the years 2013-14 and had not completed the minimum
required period of service. It is further submitted that
respondent No.2 was appointed as Grama Panchayath
Secretary Grade-II in the year 2010 in Coorg District and had
completed the requisite qualifying service. He was placed lower
in the seniority list only on account of his inter-district transfer,
and as a condition of such transfer, he was placed at the
bottom of the seniority list in the transferee district as on the
relevant date.
5.2 It is therefore submitted that, in the absence of any other
eligible candidate and having satisfied the requirement of
minimum service in the cadre, respondent No.2 was fully
qualified for consideration and promotion.
-8-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
6. Sri.V. Shivareddy, leanerd AGA appears for respondent
No.1.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers.
8. The appointment of respondent No.2 as Grama
Panchayath Secretary Grade-II in the year 2010 in Coorg
District and his subsequent transfer to Mysore District by order
dated 19.08.2014 are not in dispute. It is also admitted that, as
a condition of transfer, respondent No.2 forfeited his seniority
in Coorg District and was placed at the bottom of the seniority
list in the cadre of Grama Panchayath Secretary Grade-II in
Mysore District.
8.1 The next promotional post is that of Panchayath
Secretary Grade-I. Under the C & R Rules, a quota of 3:2 is
prescribed for promotion from Grade-II Panchayath Secretaries
and Second Division Accounts Assistants. The DPC was
convened by the petitioner on 07.05.2016, wherein 28 Second
Division Accounts Assistants were promoted as Panchayath
Secretary Grade-I without operating the quota system.
-9-
WP No. 9590 of 2024
8.2 The said action was questioned after a lapse of three
years and the representation came to be rejected. The
endorsement dated 25.10.2023 rejecting the claim for
retrospective promotion has attained finality. The said
endorsement was issued in compliance with the directions of
the Tribunal in Application No.1938/2020 dated 21.03.2023.
8.3 Subsequently, contempt proceedings were initiated. The
Tribunal, by interim order, rejected the compliance affidavit
filed by the petitioner and, by order dated 05.04.2024, directed
filing of a fresh compliance affidavit in terms of its earlier order
dated 21.03.2023.
9. Upon consideration, we are of the view that the order
dated 21.03.2023 passed in Application No.1938/2020 and the
order dated 16.02.2024 passed in CTA No.570/2023 are
unsustainable.
9.1 Though respondent No.2 was appointed in the year 2010,
he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the cadre
maintained in Mysore District upon his transfer. When the DPC
was conducted for promotion to the post of Panchayath
Secretary Grade-I, the Grade-II Panchayath Secretaries placed
above respondent No.2 in the seniority list had not acquired the
- 10 -
WP No. 9590 of 2024
prescribed eligibility of rendering a minimum of five years
service in that grade. Respondent No.2, by virtue of his
appointment in the year 2010, had completed the requisite
qualifying service.
9.2 It is the contention of respondent No.2 that, since none of
the seniors above him were eligible, his case ought to have
been considered on the ground that he had completed the
minimum tenure of five years in the cadre, reckoning his
service in the earlier district. This claim proceeds on the
premise that service rendered in the parent district must be
taken into account for determining eligibility.
9.3 However, while directing consideration of promotion as on
07.05.2016, the Tribunal has failed to advert to the object and
purpose of placing respondent No.2 at the bottom of the
seniority list upon transfer. If seniority alone is the governing
factor, respondent No.2 has none in the transferee district. If
eligibility coupled with seniority is to be considered, though
respondent No.2 had acquired the requisite qualifying service,
he remained junior in the seniority list, and the implications of
the transfer condition could not have been disregarded.
- 11 -
WP No. 9590 of 2024
9.4 Having regard to the object and purpose of placing
respondent No.2 at the bottom of the seniority list upon inter-
district transfer, mere possession of the requisite qualifying
service cannot entitle him to march over his seniors in the
transferee district. If such a course is permitted, the very
purpose of assigning bottom seniority on transfer would be
defeated, and the settled seniority position and promotional
prospects in the district cadre would stand unsettled on account
of inter-district transfers.
10. It is also not in dispute that the endorsement dated
25.10.2023, issued in compliance with the directions of the
Tribunal, has not been challenged and has thus attained
finality. In the absence of any challenge to the said
endorsement, the Tribunal committed an error in entertaining
the contempt application and issuing directions which, in effect,
run contrary to the endorsement.
11. When the Tribunal had directed consideration of the
application for promotion to the post of Grade-I Panchayath
Secretary in accordance with the eligibility criteria and the C &
R Rules in force as on 07.05.2016, and an endorsement was
issued in compliance therewith, it was not open to the Tribunal,
- 12 -
WP No. 9590 of 2024
in contempt proceedings, to insist upon compliance in a
particular manner so as to secure a specific outcome. If
respondent No.2 was aggrieved by the endorsement dated
25.10.2023, it was open to him to challenge the same in
accordance with law. This material aspect has not been
adverted to by the Tribunal.
12. It is further to be noted that, in the interregnum, a DPC
was convened on 03.10.2023 and respondent No.2 has since
been promoted as Grade-I Panchayath Secretary. It is not the
case of respondent No.2 that any person junior to him has been
promoted prior to his promotion.
13. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view
that the orders passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in
law.
14. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2023 in
Application No.1938/2020 and the order dated
- 13 -
16.02.2024 in CTA No.570/2023 are hereby set
aside.
(iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
