Dismissed

Ravi S/O Appun Devappa v. Superintending Engineer(Ele)

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023WP/102124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a seniority list and promotions based on circulars in a writ appeal. Counsel noted that a co-ordinate bench had declared such circulars invalid. Due to lack of fresh departmental promotion committee, petitioners withdrew the petition, which was disposed of with liberty to approach the court against any future list based on regulations.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Petitioners at liberty to question any fresh seniority list not in accordance with binding Regulations.

Ravi S/O Appun Devappa Vs Superintending… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14826 WP No. 102124 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 102124 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAVI S/O. APPUN DEVAPPA AGE: 42, OCC: OPERATOR, R/O. INDUVALLI SIGGA POST, TQ: SOURABLE, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA, POST AT: HONNAVARA SUB DIVISION, GERESOPPA, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶10

MANJUNATH S/O. BANGARAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SUPERVISIOR (OVERSER), R/O. SIDAPUR SUB-DIVISION, SIDDAPUR TOWN SECTION, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶11

SHRIDHAR S/O. BALEENDRA NAIK, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: METER READER, R/O. BHATKAL SUB-DIVISION, BHATKAL, DIST: KARWAR.

¶12

Digitally signed MOHANKUMARB SHELAR byMOHANKUMARB SHELARDate: 2023.12.20 16:14:51 +0530

¶13

ROHITDAS S/O. KRISHNA DEVALKAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: OPERATOR, R/O. DIVISION STORE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶14

SANDEEP S/O. SHADDU MIRASHI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: METER READER, RAMNAGAR SECTION SUB-DIVISION, R/O. DANDELI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE), O AND M CIRCLE OFFICE,

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14826 WP No. 102124 of 2022

¶20

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, BUILDING, #258/2, AYYAPPA NAGAR, HUBBALLI ROAD, SIRSI (U.K) 581401.

¶21

MANAGING DIRECTOR O & M CIRCLE OFFICE, HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED BUILDING 258/2, AYYAPPA NAGAR, HUBBALLI ROAD, SIRSI (U.K)-581401.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUAHSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 PASSED IN ORDER BEARING NO. A.I.M(V)/ULENI/HISA-1/KA-20/2021-22/CYS-225 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AGAINST THE SENIORITY LIST ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.06.2022 BEARING NO. A.I.M(V)/ULENI/HISA-1/KA-19/2022-23/CYS-67 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D SO FOR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE POSITION OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

¶29

respondents jointly submit that in view of the subsequent development, namely the order dated 11.10.2023 passed in

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14826 WP No. 102124 of 2022

¶31

WP No.14057/2019 and connected matters, the seniority list and promotions made by the respondent-Corporation based on impugned Circulars in the said writ petition have been held to be invalid. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken a view that the seniority list and promotions are to be based on the Regulation, not based on the circular.

¶32

It is also brought to the notice of this Court by both the counsel for the petitioners and respondents that subsequent to the order, the Departmental Promotion Committee is not constituted and no seniority list is prepared. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that, under these circumstances, the petitioners do not press the petition. The petitioners are at liberty to question the fresh seniority list, if it is not in accordance with the binding Regulations.

¶33

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

CHS

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Ravi S/O Appun Devappa v. Superintending Engineer(Ele)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi S/O Appun Devappa v. Superintending Engineer(Ele)

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

Shri.Ashok Bhimappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vinayaka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vanaja D W/O Dr. Vinayka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanamanth S/O Laxman Biradar Patil Vs Balappa S/O Venkappa Biradar Patil

Kamalakshi W/O Sridhar Gunaga Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Vs Shri G Prakashmurthy S/O Gangadarappa