A writ petition filed by the State challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order regarding the eligibility dates of Deputy Range Officers. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed. Upon disposal, a pending I.A. was disposed of.
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 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.17336/2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.RAJENDRAPRASAD, HCGP.)
AND:
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.03.2021, PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader.
culled out in detail by the Tribunal. The petitioners are the
3
State, by its Principal Secretary and the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chikkamagalur Circle who are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2021 rendered in Application Nos.4415 to 4417/2017 whereby, the Tribunal has been pleased to set-aside the order of the second respondent/second petitioner postponing the dates of eligibility of the applicants to 05.03.2016 from the earlier reckoned date of 12.06.2012.
4
Deputy Range Forest Officers in the form of officiating promotion. That the eligibility dates of the Deputy Range Foresters were to be reckoned from the dates on which they were placed in independent charge as Deputy Range Foresters. That the names of the applicants appeared at serial No.63, 64 & 72 and the dates of their eligibility was stated as 31.10.2008 and 02.12.2010 respectively. The Tribunal has extensively considered the facts involved in paragraphs No.6, 8, 9 and 10 and thereafter proceeded to appreciate the legal aspects of the matter in paragraph No.11 and examined the application of sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of the Karnataka State Civil Service (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension), Rules, 1978 (for short ‘PPP Rules, 1978) and the proviso to Rule 6 of the KCS (Seniority) Rules, 1957 and proceeded to hold that provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 2 of the PPP Rules, 1978, proviso to Rule 6 of the 1957 Rules were squarely applicable to the case of the applicants. It further held in paragraph No.14 that the confusion would not have arisen had the respondents/petitioners therein, had afforded an
5
opportunity to the applicants before modifying the dates of eligibility. It further held that some rights had accrued to the applicants on account of the placement promotion accorded to them while invoking Rule 32 and placing them in higher posts. In that view of the matter, the tribunal was pleased to allow the application and further was pleased to quash the order of the second respondent postponing the dates of eligibility or reckoning the dates of eligibility from 05.03.2016 instead of the dates on which, they were placed in independent charge of the posts and accorded promotions on 12.06.2012. The learned High Court Government Pleader would invite the attention to AnnexureA-11 to justify the challenge mounted to the order impugned before this Court.
detailing and fixing the seniority, it is apparent that the entire exercise of the re-fixing has commenced on account of the objection raised by the Social Welfare Officer, Chikkamagaluru District who has objected to not providing
6
reservation to an ST candidate. The note-3 would suggest that one Krishna Naika, the Deputy Range Forest Officer has failed to fill the information in the form regarding performance report in the year 2013-14 and the said employee has been absent for 444 days without permission on account of which, the placement promotion of the said employee has been temporarily withheld. That apart, note4 states that the post was to be reserved against roster point 29 and on account of non availability of candidate, the same has been continued as a backlog. The said AnnexureA-11 does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioners. Even as per their own documents, no suitable candidates or eligible candidates were available. Merely because roster point 29 has not been filled, would not be a ground to undo the otherwise well reasoned order of the Tribunal. The fact remains that the only eligible candidate had unauthorisedly absented himself for a period of 444 days without obtaining permission and further he has not furnished the requisite details to enable the respondents to accord promotion.
7
Writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.A. if any,
does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Chs CT-HR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal appealing against the eligibility date fixation for Deputy Range Officers is free from legal error.
Whether the absence of a suitable candidate or non-fulfillment by a rosterlicant invalidates the Tribunal's order.
Whether the petition for the quashing of the Tribunal's order has any merit.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Karnataka
Chief Conservator, Chikkamagalur Circle
Tharathna S
Halesh Kumar
Shekar H.D
G. Naren
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
