Dismissed

Shivanna v. the Bbmp

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2020WP/9977/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a final seniority list placing the petitioner below a third respondent in the Principal cadre. The Court held the list was correct as seniority was based on entry into the Lecturer cadre, not the Assistant Master cadre.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition questioning the final seniority list dated 01.01.2018 was dismissed.

Shivanna Vs the Bbmp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9977/2018 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHIVANNA, S/O. LATE SRI. MARIGEDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS IN CHARGE EDUCATION OFFICER, ANNEXURE-3, N.R. SQUARE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 001 AND RESIDING AT NO.13, 9^TH CROSS, SREEGANDHANAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 099.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE (VC) )

¶10

AND

¶11

THE BBMP, N.R. SUARE, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, N.R. SQUARE, BBMP, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

SRI. S.P. HARISH KUMAR, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 49 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, BBMP P.U. COLLEGE, TASKAR TOWN, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 051.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI THIMMANNA BHAT, ADV. FOR R3 (PHYSICAL) SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 (VC))

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND TO QUASH THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 01.01.2018 (ANNEXURE-H) PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF PRINCIPALS AS ON 01.06.2017 (ANNEXURE-H), PUBLISHED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, TO THE EXTENT THE SAME RELATES TO THE SENIORITY OF THE PETITIONER AND 3^RD RESPONDENT AS THE SAME ARE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner in this writ petition has called in question

¶22

office orders dated 1.6.2017 and 1.1.2018- seniority lists, by which the petitioner is placed below the 3^rd respondent in the cadre of Principal.

¶23

¶24

Brief facts in filing of the petition are that, the petitioner joined the service of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBMP’ for short), as an Assistant Master on 02.12.1993 and was posted to Cleve Land Town High School, Frazer Town, Bengaluru, on 08.12.1993. It transpires that the petitioner was further promoted as Lecturer and posted to BBMP Junior College, Bengaluru, on 25.11.1997.

¶25

The 3^rd respondent was a Direct Recruit to the post of Lecturer on 28.02.1995 and was posted as a Lecturer at the BBMP Junior College, Srirampura.

¶26

Both the petitioner and the 3^rd respondents are promoted as Principals on 24.03.2006. The petitioner was posted as Principal at the Junior College, Bhiraveshwar Nagar and Respondent No.3 to the Junior College, Banappa Park, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed in charge as Education Officer of the BBMP w.e.f 07.01.2017.

¶27

The 2^nd respondent-BBMP had issued Provisional Seniority Lists in the cadre of Principal every

¶28

¶29

year from 2009 to 2012 and again in the year 2016. In all the seniority lists, the petitioner was shown as senior to the 3^rd respondent. A Provisional Seniority List was yet again notified on 1.6.2017 wherein the petitioner was shown placed at Sl. No.37 and the 3^rd respondent was placed above him at Sl. No.36. The petitioner has filed his objections to the said Provisional Seniority List and pointed-out that, for the last 10 years the petitioner was shown as senior to the 3^rd respondent in all the seniority lists provisionally issued by the BBMP.

¶30

The respondents on consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner, notified a final seniority list on 01.01.2018 wherein the petitioner was shown at Sl. No.37 and the 3^rd respondent at Sl. No.36. It is this seniority list that is questioned by the petitioner in the subject writ petition.

¶31

Heard Sri. Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel

¶32

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Thimmanna Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and Sri.

¶33

¶34

K.N. Puttegowda, the counsel appearing for Respondent

¶35

Nos. 1 & 2.

¶36

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the petitioner is ranked senior to the 3^rd respondent in all the seniority lists right from 2009 to 2017 and for the first time in 10 years, he is shown at Sl. No.37 and 3^rd respondent at Sl.No.36, which according to the petitioner is illegal. It is his further contention that he being senior in age, was rightly ranked as senior to the 3^rd respondent, in the earlier lists.

¶37

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for all the respondents would submit that, the 3^rd respondent is senior to the petitioner by sheer date of entry into service in the cadre of Lecturer and consequently in the seniority list of Principals taking account the date of entry into service as Lecturers, the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent have been given appropriate ranking. They would in unison contend that, the seniority lists notified from the year 2009 till 2017 were all provisional. It is for

¶38

¶39

the first time on 01.01.2018 a final seniority list was notified. Hence, there can be no illegality in the impugned office orders.

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶41

To consider the issue of seniority of the petitioner, vis-à-vis the 3^rd respondent, the date of entries into service of the two will have to be noticed. The petitioner joined the service of the BBMP as an Assistant Master on 08.12.1993. The next promotional cadre to the petitioner is that of a Lecturer. The 3^rd respondent joined the services as a Lecturer on 28.02.1995. Petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Lecturer on 25.11.1997. Thus, the 3^rd respondent entered the cadre of Lecturer two years prior to the petitioner being promoted to the cadre of Lecturer. The petitioner cannot claim to be senior to the 3^rd respondent by sheer date of entry into service in the cadre of Lecturer.

¶42

¶43

Both the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent

¶44

were promoted to the cadre of Principal on 24.03.2006. The order of promotion clearly mentions that the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are promoted owing to their seniority in the cadre of Lecturer. The seniority in the cadre of Lecturer is as stated therein above is in favour of the 3^rd respondent as he had entered the service of Lecturer two years before the petitioner. Even in the order of promotion at Annexure –C, the 3^rd respondent is placed above the petitioner, which is in accordance with the seniority.

¶45

The respondent-BBMP while notifying the Provisional Seniority Lists in the cadre of Principal placed the petitioner above the 3^rd respondent. This continued in all the Provisional Seniority Lists right up to 2017, and it is for the first time noticing the anomaly, a Provisional Seniority List dated 01.06.2017 was notified placing the 3^rd respondent above the petitioner and considering the objections filed by the petitioner, notified the final seniority

¶46

¶47

list on 01.01.2018 maintaining the position of the petitioner at Sl. No.37 and the 3^rd respondent, at 36.

¶48

The petitioner cannot claim to be senior to the

¶49

3^rd respondent even in terms of the order of promotion to the cadre of Principal as the very order clearly indicated that the promotion is given effect to in terms of the seniority obtained in the cadre of Lecturer. In the cadre of Lecturer, the petitioner is two years junior to the 3^rd respondent. Taking the date of entry into service as Assistant Master, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Lecturer on 25.11.1997. The 3^rd respondent had directly joined the cadre of Lecturer on 28.02.1995. Thus, when the 3^rd respondent was appointed as Lecturer, the petitioner was still in the lower cadre-Assistant Master. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned office order placing the petitioner below the 3^rd respondent.

¶50

All the seniority lists which the petitioner derives right from, are provisional. It is for the first time a final seniority list is notified in the year 2018 in the cadre of Principal. On a provisional seniority list, no right can be

¶51

¶52

claimed to the ranking assigned therein by any person as it is provisional and subject to correction. Thus, viewed from any angle, the orders impugned in the writ petition suffer from no error. The writ petition lacks merit and is

¶53

dismissed .

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

KGR*

Shivanna v. the Bbmp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanna v. the Bbmp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K S Nanjegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Shobhawwa W/O Shekar Pujaari Vs Tushar Uttam Nagavekar

Bhutali S/O Siddappa Bevannavar Vs Tushar Uttam Nagavekar

M Yashoda Vs State of Karnataka

Shri G.N. Nataraj Vs the Divisional Controller

The Karnataka State Housing Taluk Nadal Officers Vs State of Karnataka