High Court of Karnataka dismissed this writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing the petitioner's promotion due to lack of vacancies. The Court held there was no merit to interfere.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.26676/2016 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN
SMT RAJESHWARI P MURTHY W/O Y G PRAKASH MURTHY, AGE 62 YEARS SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER - 8309447 RESIDING AT #68/1, RMV II STAGE, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BENGALURU - 94
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PREMNATH N.T., ADV.)
AND:
1 . THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, NO AN/III SECTION, ULAN BATAR ROAD, PALAM, DEHLI CANTT -110 010
2 . THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI – 110 001
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.GOWTHAM DEV C ULLAL, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEX-P DATED 29.09.2015 PASSED IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.170/00001/2015 BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.534/2013 AND UPHOLD THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2014 PASSED IN O.A.534/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-H DATED 01.07.2014 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner before this Court, a retired government servant, has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order passed in Review Application No.170/00001/2015 (The Controller General of Defence Accounts and anr., v. Smt.Rajaeshwari P.Murthy) arising out of OA.No.534/2013, decided on 29.9.2015.
3
name the place of posting, in case, an order of promotion is issued. The petitioner did submit her option on 12.7.2012, however, she was not promoted and in those circumstances, she preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The original application was allowed.
4
was approved by the Ministry on 27.6.2012. After approval, the first order of promotion of 22 officers was issued with immediate effect, 9 officers w.e.f., 1.7.2012 and 11 officers w.e.f., 1.8.2012. The second order was issued on 28.6.2012 and the last person promoted was at Sl.No.42 of the panel drawn by the DPC. The petitioner was at Sl.No.55 and no vacancy was available and there were persons over and above her in the panel and therefore, she could not be promoted till her retirement i.e., 31.7.2012. In those circumstances, the review application has been allowed.
5
with the order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SD/JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
nd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing the petitioner's promotion due to lack of vacancies.
Whether an employee's option for posting confers a right to promotion when vacancies are unavailable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Rajeshwari P Murthy
Controller General of Defence Accounts
Union of India
Satish Chandra Sharma
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
