Disposed

Shreenivas K Devarushi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2022WP/613/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the Tribunal's rejection of an application for seniority fixation. The Court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to seek clarification on prior administrative proceedings and a specific prayer, as they had not been considered by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings to clarify prior proceedings and seek the relief at Prayer No.6(2).

Shreenivas K Devarushi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.613 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHREENIVAS K. DEVARUSHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O KALLAPPA DEVARUSHI OCC:ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE KARWAR, R/O LAKSHMI NILAYA NR. B.K. COLLEGE BUDDHA NAGAR, CHIKODI BELGAUM – 591 201.

¶11

….PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETAY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION PALACE ROAD

¶16

¶17

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, MAJALLI KARWAR – 571345.

¶19

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VIDHANA SOUDHA PARK ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

….RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:10.11.2021 PASSED IN THE APPLICATION NO.3589/2019 BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE –B AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL SENIORITY LIST ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WIDE NOTIFICATION DATED: 16.07.2018 BEARING NO. DTE 17 EST (10) 2017 DUE TO WRONG FIXATION OF SENIORITY IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED PRODUCED WIDE ANNEXURE – A21 QUASH THE OFFICE ORDER DATED:03.08.2021 IN GECK/65/SIBBANDHI/2011-12/273 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED WIDE ANNEXURE – E AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents.

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2021 whereby, the Tribunal has been pleased to reject the application No.3589/2019.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that a Notification came to be issued by the 4^th respondent- Karnataka Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in the Government Polytechnic. That the petitioner who was the applicant was successful and he came to be appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Technical Education at Government Polytechnic, Soraba Taluk, Shivmoga District, on 27.11.2010. Admittedly, the said notification and appointment was under the 2006 Cadre and Recruitment Rules.

¶29

¶30

It is relevant to note that in the year 2008

¶31

another notification came to be issued by the 4^th respondent and the said notification was under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2008. That the notification was in respect of posts of Assistant Professors in the Government Engineering Colleges. The petitioner was also successful in the said selection process and came to be appointed in the Government Engineering College on 12.04.2011. That pursuant to the same, the petitioner appears to have made a representation on 14.10.2011 and 15.08.2012 praying that his past services between the period 27.01.2010 and 11.04.2011 rendered in the Government polytechnic to be counted for the purposes of his seniority and other benefits.

¶32

The Government after considering the representation, by Order dated 29.02.2016 was pleased to dispose of the representation by placing reliance on Sections 252 (b) and 20(f) and Government Order dated 05.03.2011. While so doing,

¶33

representation, by Order dated 29.02.2016 was

¶34

¶35

the Government deemed it fit only to accord protection of pay and leave and consideration of the said period for the purpose of fixing his seniority had not been considered. The said endorsement disposing his representation has not been called in question.

¶36

The second respondent published a seniority list on 16.07.2018 and while so publishing the seniority list, the second respondent has not taken into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner pursuant to his earlier order of appointment. Hence, the petitioner has approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) being aggrieved by the seniority list.

¶37

The Tribunal after appreciating the matter on merits and after hearing the parties has been pleased to reject the application.

¶38

The provisions of Rule 6(a) were pressed into service before the Tribunal as well as before us.

¶39

¶40

The Tribunal after examining the Rule 6(a) and Rule 252(b) has been pleased to hold that the Rules are inapplicable in view of the fact that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules had undergone a change and that the earlier selection and appointment was pursuant to 2006 Rules and the subsequent appointment as Professor is under 2008 Rules. The Tribunal has further held that the Government has by proceedings dated 29.02.2016 and 18.03.2016, rejected the claim and that the rejection has not been called in question and on that ground also, the petitioner is estopped from canvassing otherwise.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶42

contend that what was sought prior to the proceedings dated 29.02.2016 and 18.03.2016, was protection of

¶43

pay and that alone has been considered and the petitioner had not sought for fixation of Seniority and that subsequently, the petitioner has made several representations seeking re-fixation of Seniority after taking into account his previous service and that one of

¶44

¶45

the prayers in the application before the Tribunal is for a direction to consider his representations.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

¶47

reliance on the ruling of the learned single Judge rendered in Writ Petition No.5903/2015. On perusal of the said ruling, we find that the petitioner therein has challenged the endorsement rejecting the request. In the instant case, as noted supra, there is no specific rejection of his claim for counting all past service and further, there is no challenge to the endorsements. In that view of the matter, the said ruling in our opinion is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶48

In our opinion, the said contention and the relief sought for would have to be viewed in the background of the proceedings dated 29.02.2016 and 18.03.2016. The said proceedings are required to be clarified and that the same can be done only in a manner known to law. Apparently, though relief for

¶49

¶50

consideration of representation is sought for, the same appears to have not been appreciated by the Tribunal. That apart, as pointed out by the Tribunal, it was incumbent on the petitioner to either mount a challenge the proceedings dated 29.02.2016 and 18.03.2016 or ought to have had the same clarified. The same is viewed as a stumbling block by the Tribunal. That apart, we note that the said proceedings are silent as to the issue before the Tribunal, i.e., counting of past service rendered by the applicant before his appointment as an Assistant Professor.

¶51

In that view of the matter, we are of the

¶52

view that instant writ petition can be disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings as permitted in law and have the proceedings dated 29.03.2016 and 18.03.2016 clarified. That apart, we reserve liberty to the petitioner to seek the relief at Prayer No.6(2) which apparently has not been considered by the Tribunal.

¶53

¶54

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

RU/bnv

Shreenivas K Devarushi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreenivas K Devarushi 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Sathish M.R. Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Venkatesh S

Sri D G Jagachandra Vs Sri D G Jagannatha Setty

Sri B S Shivalingaiaha Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Sri Somashekar M S

Smt Kusuma Kumari S Vs the State of Karnataka