Allowed

Sri.a.v.Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2021WP/16735/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ petition, quashing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order which had denied him a promotional post. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in relying on the petitioner’s failure to file objections against a revised seniority list, given that the State’s own delay in submitting the petitioner’s original representation caused the defect.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Official Memorandum restored; Respondents directed to reconsider third respondent for promotion and publish seniority list.

Sri.a.v.Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.16735 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

Sri A.V. Prasad S/o late Dr A Sreeramulu aged about 54 years, presently working as Assistant Regional Transport Officer RTO Central, HSR Layout Bengaluru-560 102 R/At No.5 29th Main BTM 2nd Stage Bengaluru-560 076

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

(By Sri S M Chandrashekar, Senior Counsel for Sri Pavan G N Advocate and Sri K V Lakshmanachar, Advocate)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Karnataka Department of Transport M S Building Bengaluru -560 001 Represented by its

¶14

¶15

Principal Secretary.

¶16

The Commissioner of Transport and Road Safety I Floor, BMTC Complex K H Road Bengaluru-560 027

¶17

Sri Rajkumar S/o Shivappa Aged about 49 years, Working As Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector Regional Transport Office Yelahanka Bengaluru -560 064 R/at No.114, 2nd Main, 11^th Cross, ‘A’ Sector Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru-560 064.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

(By Sri B Rajendra Prasad, HCGP for R1 and 2; Sri Basavaraja Patel G K, Advocate for R3)

¶20

This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 03^rd September, 2021 made in Application No.1654 of 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Bengaluru, Annexure-A and etc.

¶21

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, INDIRESH J., made the following:

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed challenging Order dated 03^rd September, 2021 in Application No.1624 of 2021 connected with Application No.1375 of 2021 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), allowing the application by setting aside the Official Memorandum dated 06^th April 2021, issued by the second respondent insofar as it relates to the third respondent therein.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, parties in this writ petition are referred to with respect to their status before the Tribunal.

¶26

The brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that the third respondent herein filed Application before the Tribunal, contending that he has been appointed as the Motor Vehicle Inspector by the Official respondents and thereafter, he was promoted to the cadre of Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Local Cadre as per Official Memorandum dated 10^th March, 2016. Annexure-A2 is the

¶27

¶28

promotion list to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer in the Hyderabad-Karnataka local cadre and the second respondent has conducted Departmental Promotion Committee on 11^th November, 2020 (Annexure-A3) in respect of 10 posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officer in Hyderabad-Karnataka Region and thereby, promotion was considered only for four persons denying promotion to the Applicant (respondent No.3 herein). Thereafter, the Applicant made a representation dated 20^th November, 2020 (Annexure-A5), to the respondentauthorities and pursuant to the same, respondent-authorities issued endorsement dated 22^nd January, 2021 stating that the promotion to the applicant would be considered in the next Departmental Promotion Committee. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed Application No.1375 of 2021 before the Tribunal to set aside the endorsement dated 22^nd January, 2021. During the pendency of the above application, the second respondent has issued Official Memorandum dated 06^th April, 2021 (Annexure-A7), promoting one Sri Eeranna and the petitioner herein to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer and immediately thereafter, the applicant has made

¶29

¶30

representation dated 08^th April, 2021 to the second respondent stating that the petitioner herein is a residual cadre and therefore, the petitioner herein cannot be considered under the Hyderabad-Karnataka Local cadre. Being aggrieved by the same, the Applicant has filed Application No.1624 of 2021 before the Tribunal, challenging the Official Memorandum dated 06^th April 2021, insofar as it relates to the promotion to the cadre of ARTO with a direction to respondent authorities to include the applicant’s name for promotion as ARTO in the HyderabadKarnataka Local cadre.

¶31

After service of notice, respondents entered appearance and filed reply statement, denying the claim made in the Application. The Applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the respondents as per Annexure-D. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 03^rd September, 2021, allowed the applications and thereby set aside the impugned Official Memorandum dated 06^th April, 2021, however, liberty was reserved to the official respondents to publish the provisional Seniority List of Senior

¶32

¶33

Motor Vehicle Inspectors reflecting the name of the third respondent and to publish the final seniority of Senior Motor Vehicle Inspectors of Hyderabad-Karnataka local cadre, after inviting objections from the interested parties and thereafter effect promotion to the cadre of Assistant Regional Transport Officer. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03^rd September, 2021 passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent has preferred this writ petition.

¶34

We have heard Sriyuths S.M. Chandrashekar, learned senior counsel for Pavan G.N. and K.V. Lakshmanachar, Advocates for the petitioner, B. Rajendra Prasad, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; and Basavaraja Patil G.K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶35

Sri S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is senior to the applicant as ARTO and the petitioner had exercised option for benefit under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India for consideration to the post of ARTO in the Hyderabad-Karnataka

¶36

¶37

Local cadre, however, the official respondent has not transmitted the said representation/Form made by the petitioner at the relevant period and thereafter, it was communicated to the second respondent on 26^th February, 2021 belatedly, and therefore, the name of the petitioner has been rightly included in the Seniority List of Senior Motor Vehicle Inspectors (HyderabadKarnataka Local cadre) in between Sl.No.18 and 19 with effect from 10^th March, 2016, by Official Memorandum dated 10^th March, 2016. He further contended that the petitioner has joined the service as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the year 1994 whereas the respondent No.3 herein has joined the service in the year 2009 and therefore, the petitioner is senior to respondent No.3 herein in the said cadre and as such, the said aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference in this petition.

¶38

Per contra, Sri Basavaraj Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, argued that consequent to the introduction of Article 371-J to the Constitution of India, the

¶39

¶40

State Government framed relevant Act and Rules and provided opportunity to the employees hailing from Hyderabad-Karnataka region to exercise their option in order to include their names while preparing seniority lists of different cadres for HyderabadKarnataka Region and pursuant to same, the Applicant had exercised his option and therefore, his name was included in the Seniority list of Motor Vehicle Inspectors and Senior Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the Hyderabad-Karnataka local cadre and he further contended that the petitioner in this writ petition never opted for the same and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶41

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, reiterated the averments made in the reply statement filed before the Tribunal and contended that the petitioner belongs to reserved category of Hyderabad-Karnataka Local cadre and he is senior to the Applicant. He also submitted that the petitioner herein had also exercised option and made application in the prescribed form to the respondent-authorities however, same was not transmitted by mistake and the same

¶42

¶43

has caused delay, and finally, same was communicated to the second respondent on 26^th February, 2021 and therefore, the name of the petitioner herein has been included in the seniority list of Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector (Hyderabad-Karnataka local cadre) in between Sl.No.18 and 19 with effect from 10^th March, 2016 as per Annexure-R4 and therefore, he contended that there is no infirmity in the final seniority list.

¶44

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is not in dispute that the Applicant before the Tribunal was junior to the petitioner. Petitioner herein has joined service as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the year 1994, whereas the third respondent (Applicant before the Tribunal) has joined service in the cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector in the year 2009 and therefore, the Tribunal, upon perusal of the original record, had come to a conclusion that the petitioner herein has exercised his option for inclusion of his name in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Local Cadre on 24^th May, 2014, however, the respondent-authorities have failed to send the representation/form made by the petitioner herein opting benefit under Article 371-J of the Constitution of

¶45

¶46

India and therefore, the name of the petitioner was not included in the Seniority list of either in the list of Motor Vehicle Inspector or Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector that was published from time to time. The respondent-authorities noticed their mistake in not forwarding the representation/form made by the petitioner opting benefit under Article 371-J of Constitution of India in time, and have admitted that it was only on 26^th February, 2021 (Annexure-R3) that the option exercised by the petitioner herein was transmitted to the competent authority and immediately thereafter, took action to modify the ranking in the seniority list placing the petitioner in between Sl.No.18 and 19 and the said action on the part of the respondent-authorities modifying the raking in the seniority list, keeping the position of the petitioner higher in rank as against respondent No.3 herein is just and proper. However, the finding recorded by the Tribunal taking into consideration that the petitioner failed to file objection to the revised provision list, and as such, passed the impugned order denying promotion to the petitioner, is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, we find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel

¶47

¶48

appearing for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the Tribunal, denying promotional avenue to the petitioner after noticing the defect in not forwarding the representation/form by the Government immediately recourse to opting benefit under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India and therefore, quashing the Official Memorandum dated 06^th April, 2021 by the Tribunal is bad in law and accordingly, same is restored insofar as the petitioner is concerned. In the result, having allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the respondent No.3 herein for promotion afresh to any of the existing vacancies available in the cadre of Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector. Hence, the following:

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

Writ petition is allowed;

¶51

Impugned order dated 03^rd September, 2021 passed in Application No.1624 of 2021 by the Tribunal is quashed;

¶52

The Official Memorandum bearing No.¸ÁD/¹§âA¢1/ªÉÊªÀ-57/2015-16 dated 06^th April, 2021 (Annexure-

¶53

¶54

A7) in Application No.1624 of 2021 issued by the second respondent insofar as it relates to the petitioner is restored;

¶55

The official respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the respondent No.3 herein for promotion to any one of the existing vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Regional Transport Officer to be promoted from the cadre of Senior Motor Vehicle Inspectors;

¶56

The Official respondents are directed to publish the final seniority list of Senior Motor Vehicle Inspectors of Hyderabad-Karnataka Local Cadre in terms of Annexure-R13 dated 10^th March, 2021 in an expedite manner;

¶57

Compliance shall be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order;

¶58

In view of the disposal of the main matter, all pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

lnn

Sri.a.v.Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.a.v.Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

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

S M Yatheesha Vs Sri Ramesh

Chowgule and Company Private Limited Vs Union of India

Shri Shivasharanappa Vs Smt Shylaja

Sri Laxmana Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Sharadamba N

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S Oriental Trimex Ltd.