Disposed

Ishwargouda S/O Martandagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/105219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Revenue Inspector, sought a writ of mandamus for promotion to Shrestedar/Tahasildar. The Court held that such a matter is a 'service matter' under Section 2(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, requiring an alternative remedy under Section 15. The petition was disposed of, preserving liberty to approach the tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty reserved to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

Ishwargouda S/O Martandagouda Patil Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12644 WP No. 105219 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.105219 OF 2024 (S-PRO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ISHWARGOUDA S/O. MARTANDAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: REVENUE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, SHIGGAON TALUK, SHIGGAON, R/O: SHIGGAON – 581 205, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶14

VISHAN SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI REGION, D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI – 590 001, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI – 581 110, TQ/DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING 2^ND RESPONDENT TO ACCORD PROMOTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS SHERISTEDAR / TAHASILDAR AS AND WHEN THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR PROMOTION WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.04.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12644 WP No. 105219 of 2024

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to accord promotion to petitioner as Shrestedar/Tahasildar with consequential benefits by considering petitioner representation dated 15.04.2024 at Annexure-G, this writ petition is filed.

¶27

On noticing that petitioner is a Revenue Inspector and a Government employ, seeking for benefit of promotion, which would fall within definition of ‘service matter’, a query was addressed to petitioner’s counsel about failure to exhaust alternative remedy before Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

¶28

Sri Shriharsh A.Neelopant learned counsel for petitioner replied that, until consideration of petitioner’s representation and taking of decision by Departmental Promotion Committee, there would be no cause of action for him to approach Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12644 WP No. 105219 of 2024

¶30

It was submitted, petitioner’s apprehension about

¶31

non consideration was in light of communication by respondent no.2 dated 26.09.2023, wherein there was reference about a criminal case pending against petitioner. It was submitted, this Court had held that mere pendency of criminal case, would not deprive right of employee to be considered for promotion. On said ground, he had approached this Court.

¶32

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents no.1 to 3 on advance notice sought to oppose writ petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶34

Admittedly, petitioner is government servant

¶35

holding civil post. Relief sought is for consideration of representation for grant of promotion. Same would squarely fall within definition of ‘services matter’ under Section 2(q) of Administrative Tribunals Act.

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12644 WP No. 105219 of 2024

¶37

In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125, petitioner would require to approach Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 15, in first instance. Directly approaching this Court would not be appropriate, as petitioner having efficacious alternative remedy, writ petition cannot be entertained.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to approach Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

¶39

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶40

EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Ishwargouda S/O Martandagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwargouda S/O Martandagouda Patil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Husenbi W/O Dastageersab Mulla Vs Smt Shainazbegum W/O Mardansab Doctor

Mr Anwar Ibrahim Khan Vs Sri Shireen Iqbal Sayed W/O Iqbal Sayed

Sri Deepak S/O Veerabhadrappa Jambotkar Vs Smt Vidyashri W/O Deepak Jambotkar

Shri Nagesh S/O Hanamath Pujeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., Vs Krishna C. Naik

Ravindar S/O Sharanappa Nagarale Vs the State of Karnataka