Partly allowed

Sri M G Niranjan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2024WP/10879/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotees in BBMP's First Division Assistant cadre and promotional cadres. Holding no direct recruitment occurred from 1977 to 2008, the court concluded the Quota Rule had broken down, upheld the excess promotions as valid, and ordered seniority to run from promotion dates.

What did the court decide?

Gradation list of FDAs dated 09.09.2015 quashed; retrospective promotions of direct recruits quashed; BBMP directed to redo seniority lists in FDA, Manager and Assessor cadres counting promotees' seni

Sri M G Niranjan Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1130 OF 2020 (S-RES) C/w. WRIT PETITION NO. 39961 OF 2016 (S-PRO), WRIT PETITION NO. 4296 OF 2018 (S-PRO), WRIT PETITION NO. 9775 OF 2018 (S-PRO), WRIT PETITION NO. 56010 OF 2018 (S-PRO), WRIT PETITION NO. 3915 OF 2020 (S-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 10739 OF 2020 (S-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 5188 OF 2021 (S-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 10879 OF 2021 (S-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 18471 OF 2022 (S-PRO)

¶7

IN W.P.No.1130/2020:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by MANJANNA MANJANNA E E Date: 2024.01.24 10:29:25 +0530

¶10

SRI.G.S.SIDDALINGAPPA, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, MARATHAHALLI ZONE, MAHADEVAPURA BBMP, R/O.#227, OPP TO MARAMMA TEMPLE, GUNJUR POST VIA VARTHUR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 087.

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶17

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶19

R.KRISHNA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

M.H.SWAMY, S/O LATE HOMBALE CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, WEST ZONE BBMP, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶21

SHARNAMMA, W/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

N.RAMESH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE,BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶24

V.VASANTH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶25

P.NIRANJANA MURTHY, S/O RAMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O ARO, CHIKKAPETE SUB-DIVISION, THULASITHOTA, WEST ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 053.

¶26

N.G.BASAVARAJU, S/O B.GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O ARO, HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION, JAYANTHY CIRCLE, HORAMAVU, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 113.

¶27

A.E.RAJANNA, S/O ESHRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O ARO, BATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION, THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND, YALAHANKA ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 077.

¶28

ADHINATH CHOWGALE, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶29

SANTHOSH KUMAR EJJIRE, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶31

AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶32

CHANDRAPPA BERAJJANAVAR, S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O ARO, K.R.PURAM, SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶33

N.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O/ ARO (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) ADVERTISEMENT R.R.NAGAR,OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, R.R.NAGAR, ZONE, IDEAL HOME BBMP, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶34

RAJAKUMAR,

¶35

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R. SUQARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶36

MHIB ULLA H.M. S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶37

B.S.ANITHA, W/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶39

INDRIJITH LAMBANI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGLAURU-560 001.

¶40

JANARDHAN RAJUR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶41

KADRAPPA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶42

G.V.NAGARAJU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶43

NETHRAVATHI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶44

MANJUNATH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶45

A.NALLAPPA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶48

N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶49

N.ANJANEYA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶50

K.SHANKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶51

SURESH BABU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶52

RAMESH

¶53

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶54

B.VITTALAIAH,

¶55

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶56

S.MAHESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶57

DODDASHAMACHARI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶59

ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, ESTATE YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶60

K.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶61

H.N.BASAVARAJU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶62

S.M.SHANTHALA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, YESWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶63

M.RAVIKUMAR,

¶64

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, WELFARE, R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶65

RAJAPPA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, CHIKKAPETE SUB-DIVISION, THULASITHOTA, WEST ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 053.

¶66

KRISHNA.R.THASILDAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, D E O NORTH, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶67

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶68

40 S.K.MOHAN RAM, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, V R S ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, BENGALURU-560 001

¶69

…RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4; R-6, R-16, R-20 & R-38 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED

¶71

VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021, PETITION AGAINST R-37 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AND NOTICE TO R-5, R-7 TO R-15, R-17 TO R-19, R-21 TO R-36, R-39 & R-40 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶72

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL GRADATION LIST ISSUED BY THE R-2 THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, BENGALURU DATED 08.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ETC.

¶73

IN W.P.No.39961/2016:

¶74

BETWEEN:

¶75

1 . K CHANDRA

¶76

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,

¶77

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶78

WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (BTM), BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 011.

¶79

2 . E. SURESH S/O LATE ERE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶80

WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, RTI CELL, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002.

¶81

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶82

3 . S HARISH KUMAR S/O LATE G. SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOIT 37 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQARE, BNGALURU 560 002.

¶83

4 . VEERASWAMY S/O C AMAVASYE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF FINANCE (SOUTH), BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶84

5 . SHIVA BEERAIAH S/O BEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040.

¶85

…PETITIONERS

¶86

(BY SRI. R.SUBRAMANYA FOR SRI.VINAYAKA.B., ADVOCATE)

¶87

AND:

¶88

1 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶89

2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶92

3 . V. SHIVAMMA

¶93

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶94

4 . N. CHANDRAIAH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶95

5 . S. RAMU S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶96

6 . SHARANAMMA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶97

7 . N. RAMESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶98

8 . K.S. ANAND

¶99

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶100

9 . MANJUNATHA N

¶101

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶102

10 . PRATHIBA KULKARNI

¶103

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶104

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶105

11 . H.L. GURUPRASANNA SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶106

12 . H.N. AJITHAPRASAD SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶107

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022.

¶108

11 -

¶109

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶110

13 . V. VASANTHA

¶111

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶112

14 . M. NARAYANAPPA

¶113

SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶114

15 . S.V. MANUJANTH

¶115

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶116

16 . UMESH

¶117

S/O NOT KNOWN TH THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶118

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022.

¶119

17 . RADHA BADIGERA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶120

18 . P. NIRANJANA MURTHY S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶121

19 . B. VARUN KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶122

20 . G.S. RAMPRASAD

¶123

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶124

21 . K.N. SRIDHAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶125

22 . C. REKHA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS

¶126

12 -

¶127

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶128

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶129

23 . N.G. BASAVARAJU S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶130

24 . A.E. RAJANNA S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶131

25 . M.R. ASHOK S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶132

26 . MADHURI KOTAGI D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶133

27 . M. MAHESH S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶134

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶135

28 . K. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶136

29 . SHILPA S BHARADWAD D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶137

30 . ADINATH CHOWGALA

¶138

S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶139

31 . L. REKHA

¶140

D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶141

13 -

¶142

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶143

32 . D.K. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶144

33 . K NAGARAJA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶145

34 . SIDDARAMA HALADAKI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶146

35 . M V KRUTHIKA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶147

36 . H SURESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶148

37 . SANTHOSH KUMAR EJERI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶149

38 . JAYASHREE AMBIGERA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶150

39 . M Y KAVITHA

¶151

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶152

40 . J NAGASHREE

¶153

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶154

41 . CHANDRAPLPA BIRAJJANAVAR

¶155

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,

¶156

14 -

¶157

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶158

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶159

42 . J.K.SHOBHA

¶160

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶161

43 . MR.DEEPASHREE D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶162

44 . N. SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶163

45 . K.S.MANJULA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶164

46 . K. SAVITHA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶165

47 . NAGAVENI ERAPPA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶166

48 . N.B.DEEPA

¶167

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶168

49 . RAJAKUMARA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶169

50 . PRASAD KUMAR

¶170

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶171

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶172

51 . H.M.MAHIBULLA

¶173

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶174

52 . JAYA B HARITHI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶175

53 . K RASHMI D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶176

54 . BASAVARAJ S MAGI

¶177

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶178

55 . SAFINAZ

¶179

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶180

56 . D.M. NAGARAJAPPA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶181

57 . B.N.ANITHA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶182

58 . MAHESH K SAVANTH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶183

59 . BHAGYASHREE HALLI D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶184

60 . K.N.YUVARAJKUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶185

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶186

61 . H.BHARATHI

¶187

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶188

62 . H.B.SANTOSH KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶189

63 . INDRAJIT LAMANI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶190

64 . C.SUMA

¶191

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶192

65 . A.CHITRALEKHA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶193

66 . C.ANITHA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶194

67 . NANDHINI U THASILDAR D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶195

68 . ANJANA BAGANTHRI D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶196

69 . B E VANI D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶197

70 . JANARDHANA RAJURA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶198

17 -

¶199

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶200

71 . D VARALAKSHMI D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶201

72 . RAJASREE D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶202

73 . S MOHANKUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶203

74 . N CHANDRASHEKAR

¶204

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶205

75 . R VENKATESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶206

76 . YASHODA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶207

77 . H HEMANTHKUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶208

78 . D SANDEEP S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶209

79 . N SANTOSH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶210

80 . VENKATACHALAPATHI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶211

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶212

81 . N SWATHI D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶213

82 . FAROOQ DILAVARA YADURANTHI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶214

83 . ARAVIND M S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶215

84 . PRASHANT V S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITINERS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶216

85 . MANJULA K D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETIITONERS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶217

86 . M NAGARAJU S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶218

87 . N V VENUGOPAL

¶219

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶220

88 . REKHA K M D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶221

89 . DEEPA NADUVINAMANI D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶222

90 . RAMESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶223

19 -

¶224

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶225

91 . BHAGAVANTHAPPA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶226

92 . B RAJESHKUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶227

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶228

93 . V HARIPRASAD S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶229

94 . K N VIJAYAKUMRA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶230

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶231

95 . N S MAHESH

¶232

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶233

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶234

96 . S DHANARAJ

¶235

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶236

97 . S. MANJUNATH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶237

98 . M. VENKATESH MURTHY S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶238

99 . M. KALYANI

¶239

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶240

20 -

¶241

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶242

100 . M. MURALIDHARAIAH

¶243

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶244

DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED:06.12.2022

¶245

101 . N. SOMASHEKAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶246

102 . ARUNKUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶247

103 . VINODH KUMAR

¶248

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶249

104 . PRAKASH

¶250

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶251

105 . JAGADISH R

¶252

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶253

106 . B C SURESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶254

107 . ASHWINI

¶255

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶256

108 . T HEMALATHA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶257

109 . H R BHARATH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶258

21 -

¶259

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶260

110 . K JAYANTHA

¶261

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶262

111 . R MANJUNATHA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶263

112 . D C GURUSHANTHAPPA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶264

R-3 TO R-112 ARE ALL WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANTS IN BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶265

…RESPONDENTS

¶266

(BY SRI.M.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI.HARISHA.A.S, AGA FOR SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-11, R-19, R-20, R-22, R-42, R-45, R-47, R- 59, R-61, R-64, R-69, R-71, R-78, R-79, R-81, R-82, R-88, R-89, R-93, R-96 TO R-99, R-101, R-102, R-105 TO R-107, R-109 & R-110; SRI.ARAVIND UPADHYE, FOR R-104; VIDE ORDER DATED:06.12.2022 R-10, R-12, R-16, R-27, R-33, R-34, R-46, R-92, R-94, R-95 & R-100 ARE DELETED; R-3, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-13 TO R-15, R-17 TO R-20, R-22, R-25, R-26, R-29, R-32, R-35 TO R-39, R-42 TO R-45, R-47 TO R-49, R-51 TO R-53, R-55, R-58 TO R-67, R-69, R-70, R-72, R-73, R-76, R-77, R-80, R-83 TO R-85, R-87, R-90, R-91, R-103, R-111 & R-112 ARE SERVED THROUGH HAND SUMMONS)

¶267

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL GRADATION LIST OF FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANTS ISSUED AS PER OFFICE ORDER DATED:09.09.2015 BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS PLACING THE R-3 TO 112 ABOVE THE PETITIONERS IN THE SAID FINAL GRADATION LIST, ETC.

¶268

22 -

¶269

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶270

IN W.P.No.4296/2018:

¶271

BETWEEN:

¶272

N.VENKATESH, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 years, WORKING AS MANAER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, C.V.RAMANNAGAR, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, COX TOWN, BENGALURU.

¶273

A.N.PRASAD, S/O LATE A.SUBBAR RAO, AGED BOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶274

N.CHANDRAPRAKASH, S/O H.MUNIYAPPA, AGED BOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, SHANTHINAGAR, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, PUBLIC UTILITY, BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶275

H.DEVARAJU, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, K.G.NAGAR, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶276

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶277

V.T.MAHADEV, S/O H.THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PROJECTS, DASAPPA HOSPITAL, TOWN HALL CIRCLE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶278

…PETITIONERS

¶279

(BY SRI.PAVAN KUMAR.M.N., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.1; SRI.R.SUBRAMANYA FOR SRI.VINAYAKA.B., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS No.2 TO 5)

¶280

AND:

¶281

1 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶282

N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶283

2 . V SHIVAMMA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, OLD CMC OFFICE, TUMKUR ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 058.

¶284

3 . D. S. GIRISH MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION FINANCE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 058.

¶285

4 . N ARUN KUMAR MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶286

24 -

¶287

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶288

K.G.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 058.

¶289

5 . N JYOTHILAKSHMI MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, OLD CMC OFFICE, TUMKUR ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 058.

¶290

6 . K S ANAND MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE MOH (RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSORE ROAD, NEAR KEB OFFICE, 18TH MAIN, BENGALURU - 98.

¶291

7 . H L GURUPRASANNA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶292

8 . M NARAYANAPPA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶293

9 . G. S. RAMPRASAD MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (COUNCIL BUILDING) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶294

25 -

¶295

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶296

10 . C REKHA

¶297

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, DR TCM RAYAN ROAD, NEAR CITY RAILWAY STATION, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶298

11 . M R ASHOK MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, NEAR KEB OFFICE, 18TH MAIN, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶299

12 . MADHURI KOTAGI MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SHIVAJINAGAR,

¶300

BENGALURU - 560 051.

¶301

13 . K NAVEEN KUMAR

¶302

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY MAJOR, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶303

14 . SHILPA S BHARADWAJ

¶304

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, ANNEXE-3, GROUND FLOOR, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶305

26 -

¶306

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶307

15 . D K NARASIMHAMURTHY MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HBR LAYOUT, BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶308

16 . S V MANJUNATH MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶309

17 . RADHA BADIGERA

¶310

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PROJECT SOUTH), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 2ND BLOCK, 9TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶311

18 . B VARUN KUMAR MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNING COMMITTEE (COUNCIL BUILDING) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶312

19 . H SURESH MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶313

27 -

¶314

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶315

20 . JAYASHREE AMBIGERA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RTO COMPLEX, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶316

21 . M Y KAVITHA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 104.

¶317

22 . J NAGASHREE MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶318

23 . J K SHOBHA

¶319

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NC ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,

¶320

BENGALURU - 560 022.

¶321

24 . M V KRUTHIKA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, YELAHANKA, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶322

28 -

¶323

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶324

25 . N SRINIVASAMURTHY MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, COUNCIL SECTION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED:18.09.2018

¶325

26 . K S MANJULA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JAYAMAHAL, BENGALURU - 560 024.

¶326

27 . NAGAVENI ERAPPA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 104.

¶327

28 . N B DEEPA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶328

29 . JAYA B. HARITHI MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, HEALTH OFFICE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶329

30 . K RASHMI, MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER

¶330

29 -

¶331

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶332

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 17TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034.

¶333

31 . SAFINAZ, MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WHITEFIELD ROAD, RHB COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶334

32 . M R DEEPASHREE MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SWD) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶335

33 . BHAGYASHREE HALLI

¶336

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶337

34 . K N YUVARAJKUMAR MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WHITEFIELD ROAD, RHB COLONY,

¶338

BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶339

35 . H BHARATHI

¶340

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MALLESHWARAM, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶341

30 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶342

N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶343

36 . H B SANTOSH KUMAR MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KRISHNA MANSION, RING ROAD, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶344

37 . C SUMA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, ANJANANAGARA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶345

38 . A CHITRALEKHA MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NETHAJI CIRCLE, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶346

39 . K C SUMATHI MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 18TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT, R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶347

40 . MAHESH K SAVANTH MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ADDL COMMISSIONER (ADMN) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶348

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶349

31 -

¶350

41 . NANDHINI U THASILDAR

¶351

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,NAGARABHAVI BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560079.

¶352

42 . B E VANI MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS MANAGER, ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, DR B.R.AMBEDKAR STADIUM, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶353

…RESPONDENTS

¶354

(BY SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI.UDAYA HOLLA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.L.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-5, R-8, R-10, R-12, R-14, R-17, R-20, R-23, R-26 TO R-29, R-31, R-32, R-37 & R-38;

¶355

SRI.V.N.SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-7, R-11 & R-15;

¶356

SRI.H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6, R-9, R-13, R-16, R- 18, R-19, R-36 & R-40;

¶357

VIDE ORDER DATED 18.09.2018, R-25 IS DELETED; R-3, R-4, R-21, R-22, R-24, R-30, R-33, R-34, R-35, R-39, R-41, R-42 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶358

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED:17.07.2017 AND QUASH (i) ORDER DATED 17.7.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE W.P. PASSED BY R-1 GRANTING THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS RETROSPECTIVE DATES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION AND SENIORITY IN THE CADRE OF MANAGER, ETC.

¶359

32 -

¶360

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶361

IN W.P.No:9775/2018

¶362

BETWEEN:

¶363

SMT.M.PADMAVATHI, W/O A.V.HEMARAJU, AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, J.P.NAGAR, SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶364

…PETITIONER

¶365

(BY SRI. RANGANATH.S.JOIS., ADVOCATE)

¶366

AND:

¶367

BRUHATH BANGALORE MANAGARA PALIKE, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶368

…RESPONDENT

¶369

(BY SRI.OMKAR KAMBI, ADVOVATE)

¶370

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4.1.2018 AND 17.7.2017 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND G PERSUE AND QUASH THE SAID LIST IN SO FAR AS THE ALTERING THE RANKING OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CADRE OF MANAGER IS CONCERNED, AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶371

IN W.P.No:56010/2018

¶372

BETWEEN:

¶373

A.E.RAJANNA, S/O ESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,

¶374

33 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶375

THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND, YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 077.

¶376

M.H.SWAMY, S/O LATE HOMBALE CHANNAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, WEST ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶377

N.RAMESH, S/O LATE V.NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, WEST ZONE, BBMP, BASHYAM PARK, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶378

P.NIRANJANA MURTHY, S/O P.RAMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, CHIKKPET, TULASI THOTA, WEST ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 053.

¶379

N.G.BASAVARAJU, S/O B.GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICE, HORAMAVU SUB-DN. MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP, JAYANTHI CIRCLE, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE-560 113.

¶380

ADINATH CHOUGALE, S/O DHANPAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶381

34 -

¶382

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶383

WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION, THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND, YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 077.

¶384

SANTHOSH KUMAR IJERI, S/O CHANNABASAPPA IJERI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, KENGERI BBMP, BANGALORE-560 060.

¶385

CHANDRAPPA BEERAJJANAVAR S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, K.R.PURAM SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶386

RAJAKUMARA, S/O BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, MATTIKERE SUB-DIVISION WEST ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 054.

¶387

H.M.MUHEEBULLA, S/O H.MOHAMMED SAMIULLA, AGED ABUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, C.V.RAMANAGAR EAST ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 093.

¶388

INDRAJITH LAMANI, S/O KOMALASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶389

35 -

¶390

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶391

WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, SHIVAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, DISPENSARY ROAD, EAST ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶392

B.N.ANITHA, W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 065.

¶393

JANARDHANA RAZURA, S/O PAMPATHI RAZURA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFICER, DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION, M.G.ROAD, MAYOHALL BUILDING, EAST ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 025.

¶394

…PETITIONERS

¶395

(BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH.N., ADVOCATE)

¶396

AND:

¶397

COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶398

RAJANNA, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, (INDEPENDENT CHARGE), ESTATES BOMMANAHALLI, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶399

36 -

¶400

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶401

B.V.N.BHATTACHAR, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (INDEPENDENT CHARGE), HAL SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, 1^ST CROSS, RAMESHNAGAR, VIBHUTHIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 037.

¶402

M.KRISHNA MURTHY, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, OOD OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, N.R.SQUARE, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶403

T.NATARAJA, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (INDEPENDENT CHARGE), ARAKERE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶404

N.KRISHNA, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, (INDEPENDENT CHARGE), GANDHINAGAR, GOODSHED ROAD, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 053

¶405

B.T.SHIVA KUMAR, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (INDEPENDENT CHARGE), LAGGERE SUB-DIVISION, R.R.NAGAR ZONE, BBMP, KOOTIGEPALYA, NEAR BUDDHA PARK, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶406

V.MURTHY, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT OFFICER (INDEPENDENT CHARGE), MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,

¶407

37 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶408

OFFICER OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVAPURA, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 048.

¶409

G.NARASIMHA NAIK, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (INDEPENDENT CHARGE), EATATES, RR NAGAR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, RR NAGAR ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560098.

¶410

S.CHANDRASHEKAR, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, (INDEPENDENT CHARGE), ADVERTISEMENT, RR NAGAR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, R.R.NAGAR ZONE, IDEAL HOMES, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶411

…RESPONDENTS

¶412

(BY SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI.PAVAN KUMAR.M.N., ADV. FOR R-2, R-5, R-6 & R-8; R-3, R-4, R-7 & R-10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI.K.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-9)

¶413

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH (i) OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 03.07.2018 (UNDER ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND (ii) OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 03.07.2018 (UNDER ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION) BOTH ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND DIRECTING THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE CASES OF PETITIONERS FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER AND PROMOTE TO THE SAID CADRE FORTHWITH WITH EFFECT FROM 03.07.2018 AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶414

38 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶415

IN W.P.No.3915/2020:

¶416

BETWEEN:

¶417

1 . N. KRISHNA, S/O LATE NALLAPPA, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, GOODSHED ROAD, BANGALORE-53.

¶418

2 . SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER AEROHALLI SUB-DIVISION BEL LAYOUT, BANGALORE-91.

¶419

3 . V.MURTHY

¶420

S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶421

WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER JEEVANABHIMA NAGAR SUB DIVISION BABASB COLONY HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-98

¶422

…PETITIONERS

¶423

(BY SRI.V.SRINIVAS., ADVOCATE)

¶424

AND:

¶425

1 . THE COMMISSIONER, B B M P, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶426

2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) B.B.M.P. NR SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560001

¶427

3 . R.KRISHNA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR

¶428

39 -

¶429

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶430

WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶431

4 . M.H.SWAMY S/O LATE HOMBALE CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER, RAJAJINAGAR SUB DIVISION, WEST ZONE, BBMP BANGALORE -560010.

¶432

5 . SHARANAMMA S/O NOT KNOW TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶433

6 . N.RAMESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQAURE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶434

7 . V.VASANTH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶435

8 . P.NIRANJANA MURTHY S/O RAMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSORS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER CHIKKAPETE SUB DIVISION THULASITHOTA, WEST ZONE, BBMP BANGALORE -560053.

¶436

40 -

¶437

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶438

9 . N.G.BASAVARAJU

¶439

S/O B.GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, HORAMAVU SUB DIVISION MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP JAYANTHY CIRCLE, HORAMAVU BANGALORE - 560113.

¶440

10 . A.E.RAJANNA S/O ESHRAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR OFFICER OF THE REVENUE OFFICER, BATARAYANAPURA SUB DIVISION, THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND YALAHANKA ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE – 560077.

¶441

11 . ADHINATH CHOWGALE S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶442

12 . SANTHOSH KUMAR EJJIRE S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGE ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶443

13 . CHANDRAPPA BEERAJJANAVAR S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE ASSESSOR OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, K.R.PURAM SUB DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURAM ZONE, BBMP BANGALORE – 560036.

¶444

41 -

¶445

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶446

14 . N.CHANRASHEKAR

¶447

MAJOR BY AGE WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) ADVERTISEMENT, RR NAGAR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, RR NAGAR ZONE, IDEAL HOMES BBMP BANGALORE - 560098.

¶448

15 . RAJAKUMAR

¶449

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR

¶450

WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP

¶451

N.R.SQAURE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶452

16 . MAHIB ULLA H.M.

¶453

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶454

17 . B.S.ANITHA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶455

18 . INDRAJITH LAMBANI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶456

19 . JANARDHAN RAJUR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶457

20 . KADRAPPA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER

¶458

42 -

¶459

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶460

AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶461

21 . G.V.NAGARAJU S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶462

22 . NETHRAVATHI S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶463

23 . MANJUNATH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP

¶464

N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶465

24 . A.NALLAPPA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶466

25 . N.ANJANEYA

¶467

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR

¶468

WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶469

26 . K.SHANKAR

¶470

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶471

43 -

¶472

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶473

27 . SURESH BABU

¶474

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶475

28 . RAMESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THESE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS ASSESSORS BBMP N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶476

…RESPONDENTS

¶477

(BY SRI.ARVIND.M.NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-6, R-8 TO R-13, R-15, R-16, R-18 & R-19; SRI.K.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4)

¶478

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST DATED 08.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.

¶479

IN W.P.No.10739/2020:

¶480

BETWEEN:

¶481

SRI.G.S.SIDDALINGAPPA, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, MARATHAHALLI ZONE, MAHADEVAPURA BBMP, R/O.#227, OPP TO MARAMMA TEMPLE, GUNJUR POST VIA VARTHUR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 087.

¶482

(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶483

… PETITIONER

¶484

44 -

¶485

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶486

AND:

¶487

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶488

THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶489

THE CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE-2 AND THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶490

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶491

R.KRISHNA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶492

M.H.SWAMY, S/O LATE HOMBALE CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, WEST ZONE BBMP, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶493

SHARNAMMA, W/O V.NARASHIMAMURTHY, AGED AOBUT 43 MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,

¶494

45 -

¶495

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶496

N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶497

N.RAMESH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE,BENGALURU-560 001.

¶498

V.VASANTH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶499

P.NIRANJANA MURTHY, S/O RAMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O ARO, CHIKKAPETE SUB-DIVISION, THULASITHOTA, WEST ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 053.

¶500

N.G.BASAVARAJU, S/O B.GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O ARO, HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION, JAYANTHY CIRCLE, HORAMAVU, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 113.

¶501

A.E.RAJANNA, S/O ESHRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O ARO, BATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION, THANISANDRA, NEAR BUS STAND, YALAHANKA ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 077.

¶502

ADHINATH CHOWGALE, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER

¶503

46 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶504

AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶505

SANTHOSH KUMAR EJJIRE, S/O CHANDRABASAPPA EJERI, AGED ABOUT 37 MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶506

CHANDRAPPA BERAJJANAVAR, S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O ARO, K.R.PURAM, SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶507

N.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O/ ARO (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) ADVERTISEMENT R.R.NAGAR, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, R.R.NAGAR, ZONE, IDEAL HOME BBMP, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶508

RAJAKUMAR, S/O BABARAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R. SUQARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶509

MHIB ULLA H.M. S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶510

B.S.ANITHA, W/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,

¶511

47 -

¶512

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶513

AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶514

INDRIJITH LAMBANI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGLAURU-560 001.

¶515

JANARDHAN RAJUR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶516

KADRAPPA,

¶517

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶518

G.V.NAGARAJU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶519

NETHRAVATHI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶520

MANJUNATH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶521

48 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶522

A.NALLAPPA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶523

N.ANJANEYA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶524

K.SHANKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶525

SURESH BABU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶526

RAMESH

¶527

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶528

B.VITTALAIAH,

¶529

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶530

S.MAHESH S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶531

49 -

¶532

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶533

DODDASHAMACHARI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, ESTATE YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 063.

¶534

K.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.

¶535

H.N.BASAVARAJU, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶536

S.M.SHANTHALA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, YESWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

¶537

M.RAVIKUMAR,

¶538

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP, WELFARE, R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶539

RAJAPPA,

¶540

S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, CHIKKAPETE SUB-DIVISION, THULASITHOTA, WEST ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 053.

¶541

KRISHNA.R.THASILDAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, ASSESSOR, O/O BBMP,

¶542

50 -

¶543

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶544

D E O NORTH, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶545

40 S.K.MOHAN RAM, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, V R S ASSESSOR,

¶546

O/O BBMP, BENGALURU

¶547

…RESPONDENTS

¶548

(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R—2 TO R-4; SMT.LASHMY IYENGAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. N.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6, R-8, R-10 TO 15, R-17 TO R-21; R-7, R-9, R-16 & R-13 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶549

VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021, PETITION AGAINST R-37 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AND NOTICE TO R-5, R-22 TO R-32, R-34 TO R-36 & R-38 TO R-40 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶550

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DPC PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES, THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE-2, BBMP BENGALURU DATED 15.02.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, ETC.

¶551

IN W.P.No.5188/2021: BETWEEN:

¶552

SRI.K.G.NAGARAJ, S/O LATE GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DY.CONTROLLER OF

¶553

FINANCE (WEST) BENGALURU.

¶554

SRI.K.N.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O LATE NARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MPED) BENGALURU-560 002.

¶555

51 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶556

SRI.VINOD KUMAR.N. S/O LATE NANJAPPA.V AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ELE) BENGALURU-560 002.

¶557

SRI.R.MANJUNATH, S/O LATE A RAMU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE AEE, HOMBEGOWDANAGAR, SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶558

SRI.GURUSHANTHAPPA.D.C, S/O LATE CHIKKANNAD.L. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER DASARAHALLI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 057.

¶559

…PETITIONERS

¶560

(BY SRI.CHANDRAKANTH.R.GOULARY, ADVOCATE)

¶561

AND:

¶562

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶563

THE BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REP BY COMMISSIONER, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶564

THE SEPCIAL COMMISSIONER (ADMN) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY COMMISSIONER, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶565

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN)

¶566

52 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶567

BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶568

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ADMN) BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REP BY COMMISSIONER, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶569

…RESPONDENTS

¶570

(BY SRI.PRINCE ISSAC, AGA FOR R-1; SRI.ARAVIND.M.NAGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5)

¶571

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER BEARING No. DATED 04.02.2021 PASSED BY 4^TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-R AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT MADE IN W.P.No.71167117/2013 DATED:18.12.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER MADE IN CCC No.534-535/2015 DATED 17.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE RANKING OF THESE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, ETC.

¶572

IN W.P.No.10879/2021:

¶573

BETWEEN:

¶574

SRI.M.G.NIRANJAN, S/O LATE H.GOWRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O, C.V.RAMANA NAGARA, BENGALURU EAST ZONE, BENGALURU.

¶575

SRI.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O MOHAMMED AMIR ALI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O, PULIKESHINAGARA, BENGALURU EAST ZONE, BENGALURU.

¶576

53 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶577

SRI.H.DEVARAJ, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O, UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE, BENGALURU.

¶578

SRI.NARASIMHALU, S/O PEDDIGA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O, C.V.RAMANNAGARA, BENGALURU EAST ZONE, BENGALURU.

¶579

SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA.S.K., S/O S.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O, PULIKESHINAGARA, BENGALURU EAST ZONE, BENGALURU.

¶580

SRI.MANJUNATH.N, S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O H S T LAYOUT, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BENGALURU-78.

¶581

SRI.SRINIVAS, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE, BENGALURU.

¶582

SRI.S.ANJANEYA, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O, J.P.NAGARA, BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE,

¶583

54 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶584

BENGALURU.

¶585

SRI.SRIDHARA, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, O/O ASSESSOR OFFICE, A R O, BYATARAYANAPURA, YELAHANKA ZONE, BENGALURU.

¶586

S.THIMMAIAH, S/O SUBBARAJULU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEAS, O/O ARO BEGUR, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,

¶587

BENGALURU.

¶588

…PETITIONERS

¶589

(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶590

AND:

¶591

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.

¶592

THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶593

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶594

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶595

…RESPONDENTS

¶596

(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)

¶597

55 -

¶598

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶599

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL GRADATION LIST ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED;08.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC.

¶600

IN W.P.No.18471/2022:

¶601

BETWEEN:

¶602

SRI.K.NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE K.V.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP, HOMBEGOWDA NAGAR-560029, BENGALURU.

¶603

SRI.S.RENUKA, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO SHANTHI NAGAR BBMP, OOD MADIVALA CITIZEN SERVICE CENTRE, MARUTHI NAGAR-560 068 BENGALURU.

¶604

SRI.NAGARAJU, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO GANDHINAGAR, BBMP, BENGALURU-53.

¶605

SRI.GANGADHARA, S/O ALTE BARADAPPA,

¶606

56 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶607

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF ARO, HSR LAYOUT, BBMP, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶608

…PETITIONERS

¶609

(BY SRI.P.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶610

AND:

¶611

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.

¶612

THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶613

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶614

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BBMP CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶615

MAHEEBULLA H.M., ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP, B.T.M.LAYOUT-560 068 BENGALURU.

¶616

B.N.ANITHA, ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP, ANJANAPURA-560 108 BENGALURU.

¶617

57 -

¶618

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶619

JANARDANA RAJOOR, ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP, DOMMALURU-560 007. BENGALURU.

¶620

N.PRAKASH, ASSESSOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO, BBMP, MARATHAHALLI-560 037 BENGALURU.

¶621

DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED:30.11.2022.

¶622

…RESPONDENTS

¶623

(BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4; SRI.H.J.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-7; R-6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED:30.11.2022, WP AS AGAINST R-8 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED)

¶624

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL GRADATION LIST ISSUED BY THE R-2 THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, BENGALURU BEARING No.12(1) PR/104/04-05/19-20 DATED.08.11.2019, ANNEXURE-E, ETC.

¶625

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

¶626

58 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶627

ORDER

¶628

The struggle for seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees working in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (“the BBMP”, for short) in the cadre of First Division Assistants, and their consequential promotions and seniority in the promotional cadres is the subject matter of challenge, in this batch of writ petitions.

¶629

The following facts are not in dispute.

¶630

The recruitment to various posts in the BBMP are governed by the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “C & R Rules”), which were framed on 03.03.1971.

¶631

Under these Rules, the posts of First Division Assistants (“FDA”) are required to be filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion from the post of Second Division Assistant (“SDA”), in the ratio of 50:50.

¶632

59 -

¶633

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶634

On 13.08.2012, a provisional gradation list of

¶635

the FDA appointed between the periods 01.01.1988 and 01.08.2012 was published.

¶636

After considering the objections filed by the

¶637

FDAs who were aggrieved by their assigned rankings, a final gradation list was issued on 28.11.2013.

¶638

In this final gradation list, the five petitioners in W.P. No.39961/2016 were assigned rankings from 256 to 277. These petitioners had been initially appointed as

¶639

SDAs between 31.12.1994 and 02.12.1995, and were promoted to the cadre of FDA on 18.01.2018.

¶640

As the petitioners (who were the promotees)

¶641

had been promoted on 18.01.2008, which was about nine

¶642

months before the private respondents had been directly recruited under the notification dated 04.10.2008 and in

¶643

the final gradation list dated 28.01.2013, they (the promotees) were assigned rankings from 256 to 277, while the private respondents i.e., direct recruits were

¶644

60 -

¶645

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶646

assigned rankings from 281 to 351. In other words, the promotees to the cadre of FDA were considered as seniors to the directly recruited FDAs.

¶647

The direct recruits, being aggrieved by this gradation list, preferred writ petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos.7116-7117/2013.

¶648

During the pendency of said writ petitions, the Establishment and Administrative Reforms Standing Committee of the BBMP (“the Standing Committee”) passed a resolution on 04.02.2013, in which it was recorded that there existed certain deficiencies in the final gradation list dated 28.01.2013. The Standing Committee, in light of the deficiencies and the objections raised by the employees, ultimately resolved to consider the objections of the erstwhile employees of the Town Municipal Council, who had been absorbed into the BBMP by keeping them outside the seniority and to finalise the seniority of the employees of the BBMP afresh, and until then, their promotions were required to be withheld.

¶649

61 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶650

This Court, thereafter, on 18.12.2014,

¶651

proceeded to dispose of W.P. Nos.7116-7117/2013 holding that the seniority list dated 28.01.2013 was not in conformity with the law and was required to be re-done, and there was a need to direct the BBMP to implement the resolution dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Standing Committee. Accordingly, this Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the BBMP to give effect to the resolution dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Standing Committee, immediately.

¶652

It is also pertinent to state here that the 22

¶653

direct recruits had also preferred W.P. Nos.51-72/2014 challenging the seniority list dated 28.01.2013. However, these petitions, by an order dated 03.07.2015, were dismissed as certain objections had not been complied with.

¶654

Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 18.12.2014 in W.P. Nos.7116-7117/2013, the BBMP

¶655

62 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶656

proceeded to issue a provisional seniority list of FDAs. This provisional seniority list was in respect of all the FDAs who had been appointed between 03.03.1971 and 01.01.2015.

¶657

In this provisional seniority list, the BBMP sought to apply the guidelines stated in the Government Order (“GO”) dated 05.07.1976 (based on the decision rendered in V.B. Badami’s¹ case, by the Supreme Court) and the GO dated 14.12.1987 (based on the decision rendered in Gonal Bhimappa’s² case, by the Supreme Court).

¶658

This provisional seniority list sought to classify

¶659

and calculate the vacancies between the direct recruits and promotees, as indicated in the 2 aforementioned GOs i.e., by defining Block Periods. As per the 2 GOs, the Block Periods, were required be from the date on which the Rules were promulgated and the dates on which direct recruitments were first made, and the other Block Periods

¶660

1 V.B. Badami and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors., 1980 AIR 1561.

¶661

2 Gonal Bhimappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 2359.

¶662

63 -

¶663

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶664

were to be for the periods between the dates on which direct recruitments were subsequently made.

¶665

The BBMP classified and calculated the

¶666

vacancies into eight Block Periods.

¶667

The initial Block Period was the “No Rule Period” i.e., the period during which there were no statutory rules governing the recruitment, which was between 01.09.1966 and 03.01.1971.

¶668

The first Block Period was from the date on which the statutory rules were promulgated i.e., 03.03.1971, till the date on which the first direct recruitment was made i.e., on 10.10.1971. Similarly, seven other Block Periods were classified, which were the periods between which direct recruitments were made.

¶669

In the provisional gradation list, the BBMP placed all the promotees (the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions i.e., W.P. No.39661/2016) below the direct recruits. In other words, the direct recruits, who had been

¶670

64 -

¶671

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶672

appointed as FDAs directly under the notification dated 04.10.2008 i.e., 9 months after the petitioners were promoted on 18.01.2008 as FDAs, were considered as seniors to the promotees. This was on the ground that the promotees had occupied posts in excess of the posts earmarked under the 50% quota for promotees.

¶673

The promotee-petitioners filed objections to the said gradation list contending that it was impermissible for the BBMP to place them below the direct recruits, since it was an admitted fact that they were all promoted on 18.01.2008, whereas the direct recruits were recruited subsequently on 04.10.2008 and onwards.

¶674

Despite the objections raised by the petitioners, the BBMP proceeded finalise the gradation list and proceeded to issue the final gradation list on 09.09.2015.

¶675

In this final gradation list, the placement of the promotee-FDAs (such as petitioners) below the directly recruited FDAs (private respondents) was maintained.

¶676

65 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶677

This final gradation list was accompanied by seven explanations.

¶678

The 2^nd explanation stated that, the local candidates, the erstwhile employees of the Town Municipal Council which were merged with the BBMP, the employees who had sought for change of cadre and the employees appointed on compassionate appointment were considered as direct recruits in the respective Block Periods, and their appointment were finalized.

¶679

Similarly, the 3^rd explanation stated that the daily wage employees who had been regularized were also considered under the direct recruitment quota.

¶680

The fourth explanation stated that the GO dated 05.07.1976 was applied in the matter of classifying and calculating the vacancies between the direct recruits and the promotees. The said explanation reads as follows:

¶681

66 -

¶682

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶683

�� !"#$�%� �&�#�%#�%$�%��'(�)�(�%���� +�,��,-�.�,��,/��,�� 0��123��45�6��7��8��9:;��<*��,-�=28�>�5��,��?��

¶684

@For purposes of classifying and calculating the vacancies between direct recruits and promotees on the basis of the quota fixed in the cadre and Recruitment Rules, the period which will form a block will be from the date of commencement of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules to the dates on which direct recruits were first appointed unless in the mean while, there was any amendment to the Rules, in which case the block will be the period commencing from the date of commencement of the rule to the date of amendment and thereafter from the date of amendment to the date of recruitment of direct recruits and the vacancies in both the blocks will have to be taken into account”

¶685

��'��+�,����,��,?��2*�,��/�=�+�+��+��A��B.�� C�� D��D��B��2��2*�,��/��+�!�$��23�� E�F��!G����H.�I��J��,��2��2*�,��/K,�� �,��F?��,� ��2�� 2�,��/� �+�!� $��23�� E�F��!G�� ��H.��)�(�%����.�7��,-�.�,��,/G�6�)�(�%���� +�,'(� L)M���.�,�� B��?� ��N��.�7��,-� ��2*�,��/� =�+�,�,.�7�'(� =.��!G��,��F2O��P�+�,��2��2*�,��/�B��?��N��.�7�,� �,��,?��,,�C!?�B��?��N��.�7��-5��52��<�*�+�!I�)M�/�� *�+�8�>��2��2�,��/��,��,?��,,�C!?�B��?��N��.�7��,-I� �52��B��>��B��?��N��.�7��H,/.��J7��!G��Q��,.�7�� 2R�S��+�,��,-�=.��!��>�5��E�.�F�6�T�� 4�U��,��2��2*�,��/�E�.�F��,,�C!?� ��,��VW�,��!��>�5��,��2X�S��Y;�+�,�$�M��*�,2>��

¶686

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶687

67 -

¶688

��B.�<Z��>�5��,��2��2�,��/.�7��.�A.��)�(�%� ���.�7��,-�3�2��X�;��,-��2��2�,��/��,FL��E�.�F�� 3�2��X�;��,-���,,�C!?�*�,FL��B.�<Z��>�5��

¶689

�� [��,��2��2*�,��/��,��,?��,,�C!?� ��,�� 4�U��,��E�F��!G��,��V\��,� �� E��+�,��,.�7�� 2�� 2R�S�� Y;�+�,,� ]^���5��,��B��B��2*��R�S��Y;�+�,�$�M�� �,2>��2���2*�,��/�E�,��1.�7��,-�E�.�F��,,�C!?�E�,��1.�7��,-� ��B.�<Z��>�5��,1I� �� [�� B�� [�� H.�I� �� [� B�� &��[�� H.�I� �� [��D� B�� D�� H.�I� �� D�� B�� [��&�� ��H.�I� �� [�� B�� [��[����H.��,��,?�� [��B�� H.��HH�M��.�7�'(��2��2�,��/� $��23�.�7��,-�E�F��!��>�5��,1I�6��2��2�,��/.�7�,�J��2� ��)M��'(��+�!��,��2��2*�,��/.�7�2��\���)�2��)�2�� )M��.�7�'(��+�!��,��E�,��1.�7��#�C�C.�`�=a�����+�T/� L)M��HL(��2�U��,��B��B��'��'(�HH�M��.�7�'(��2�� 2*�,��/�$��23�.�7��,-�E�F��!G��,�_��B��$��'��'(��F��+�,� ��2��2�,��/�$��23��E�F��!��>����,-�J��,�)�(�%� ���.��B.�<Z��>�5��b�

¶690

As could be seen from the above, the

¶691

classification and calculation of the vacancies was made as per the GO dated 05.07.1976 and accordingly, rankings were assigned as per the quota prescribed for the direct recruits and promotees in the C & R Rules.

¶692

68 -

¶693

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶694

The fifth explanation, which would be relevant for these cases, indicated the manner in which the eight Block Periods had been created, and said explanation reads as follows:

¶695

�� !�"� � #� � � � $�%& �� '�(� ��!��) � � �� + � � � ��' � ,- � ��$�./�) � ��01(� � �2� � ��3��4�� 4� � � ��'�,- � ��$�./�) � �5�6�� 7 � � � � � � � � � ��! � ��8�+ �� 9�!��"� � � �� ! � ��8�+ �� 9�$�4*�:;��7�2� � 8<�� * � � �� =��>�� 4�� >��>�� ?�<�� **�** ��>��>��4�� >��@��>�� ? � �� >A�4�� =��>A� � � � �? � � � � �� A��>��>��4�� >��@��>�� ?�<�� **�** ��>��4�� >�� ? � � � � �� =��>>�4�� >��>>� � � � �?* � ??�6 � ���+�BC�� 5� � D��+ �� 9�!�"� � ��7�2� � 8<� E�� �+ � �F�� G6�(��BC��)�� �+ � �& � ��G � � � � � ��G6�(�+�BC��)�� ! � ��8�+ � H��I � JK� � �� )�L��MG6�N?MC� � � � � ��3��4�� 4��B��BC�??�6 � ���+�BC� � � � � � � � � ��5� � D��+ �� 9�!�"� � #� � ��3��4�� 5��B��BC��"� � ) � � � � � � � � � ��5� � D � !�"� � ��7�� �� 9�F�� G�C�O�� P � $�4*�:;��7�2� � Q�

¶696

As could be seen from the above explanation, the BBMP has clearly stated that direct recruitments had been made on different dates and it was not clear as to whether the direct recruitments had been done at one go

¶697

69 -

¶698

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶699

or on different dates and therefore, the last of the dates on which the direct recruitment was made, was considered

¶700

as the last date of direct recruitment for the purpose of classifying and calculating the vacancies in the Block Periods.

¶701

It may also be pertinent to state here that the seventh Block Period spanned between 11.09.1977 and 04.10.2008 i.e., for a period of more than thirty-one years. This fundamentally indicated that for this period of thirty-one years, there had been no direct recruitments to the post of FDAs at all and it was only on 04.10.2008 that direct recruitment of the private respondents i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 112 had been made.

¶702

The 6^th explanation also stated that the 8^th Block Period was being treated as an Open Block Period, since the 125 excess promotions that had been in the earlier Block Periods were to be adjusted and only after the adjustment was completed by filling up the 125 posts in the DR quota could the 8^th Block Period be closed.

¶703

70 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶704

The 9^th explanation stated that the details of

¶705

the classification of the vacancies and the number of posts were being enumerated by an Annexure, titled ‘Annexure-I’. This Annexure-I described the ‘No rule period’ and the eight Block Periods, and also indicated the number of posts which were available for direct recruits and promotees.

¶706

The above-mentioned Annexure-I is reproduced

¶707

herewith for the sake of clarity and better understanding:

¶708

��

¶709

C�E��%�)��.�7�F��,��,E��.��'��+�,'(��c��c[��4�U��,��VW�,��!��>�5��,��V\��,��E��+�,��,.�7��

¶710

		)�(�	�%��*��+�,'(��	�0��dHG��	��/*�,�� ��B��?��	��2*��2X�S�� ��N��.�7�,�	��Y; =.� ��	�� ,��	E�, �� ��	��1.�7�� �P�+�,� ,��	)M�� *�+�� E�,�	/�� !�� �1.�7�,�	��V/�)� *�,,�� E�,�	��(�%��'(� ��F�+�,1� �1.�7�,�
)�(�%�	��*�	Je,;� E�,��1 .�7�,�	�Q��8�A�� U>�� *�,��,?� U�� U>�� H'2��/�	��$� ��2*�, ��/�	E�,��1� C�� >�*� f��	G�g�$�%� ��V�� ��.�<Z�� )�2��5� ��,*��Je,;� E�,��1.�7�� ��	��2�� ��2��	*�,,� C!?�	��2� ��2�	*�,,� C!?�	��2� ��2�	*�,,� C!?�	��2�� ��2��	*�,,� C!?�
		A	B	C	D	(A-(B+ C+D))
No. Rule Period	��c��c�� B�� �Dc��c��	��	c�	c�	c�	c�	c�	c�	c�	c�	c�	c�	c�	c�
��	�Dc�Dc�� B�� ��c�&c��[�	��	��			��	��h�	��h�	��	��	�&�	��	i��	c��
[�	��c��c�� B�� ��c��c��D�	D��	��			D��	��h�	��h�	��	��	�[�	��	c�D�	i�D�

¶711

71 -

¶712

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶713

D�	�&c�&c��[� B�� ��c��c��D�	��	��			��	��h�	��h�	�[�	�[�	�D�	��	i��	c��
��	��c��c��D� B�� [�c�&c��	��	��			��	��h�	��h�	��	��	��	��	��	��
��	[&c�&c�� B�� �[c�[c��	D[�	��			D[�	��h�	��h�	��	��	[��	��	i��	c��
��	�Dc�[c�� B�� ��c��c��	��	��			��	��h�	��h�	[D�	[D�	�&�	D&�	c��	i��
��	��c��c�� B�� ��c��c[��&�	��	[[�	D&�	��	�&��	��h�	��h�	[� [�	[�[�	��	D[��	c&��	i&��
&�	��c��c[�� B�� jjjjjjjjj�	�&��	��	��	��	��	��h�	��h�	&��	&&�	�[�	�DD�	c��	i��
TOTAL		&��	DD�	D&�	��	��	��h�	��h�

¶714

As could be seen from said Annexure, there was

¶715

no occupation of the promotees in excess of their quota in

¶716

the 1^st , 3^rd , 4^th , 5^th Block Periods, and only in the 2^nd , 5^th , 6^th , 7^th and 8^th Block Periods was there an encroachment of the promotees into the direct recruitment quota to the extent of 3+15+85+45 i.e., a total of 148 posts.

¶717

The seventh Block Period i.e., the period from

¶718

1977 to 2008, during which no direct recruitments were

¶719

made, there was maximum encroachment of 85 direct recruitment posts by the promotees.

¶720

72 -

¶721

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶722

Since the promotee-petitioners had been promoted on 18.01.2008 i.e., in the 7^th Block Period and these promotions were in excess of their quota, they were placed below the private-respondents who had been directly recruited on 4.10.2008.

¶723

For the subsequent eighth Block Period, which is treated as an open Block Period, out of the 87 posts reserved for direct recruitment and 88 posts reserved for promotees, only 42 posts had been filled up by way of direct recruitment and 133 posts were filled up by way of promotion. In other words, there was a shortfall in filling up the quota earmarked for direct recruitments to the extent of 45 posts and there was an encroachment of the promotees into the direct recruitment quota by the grant of 45 excess promotions to the promotees.

¶724

The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 39961/2016 who had been promoted on 18.01.2008 as FDAs much before the private respondents had been recruited on 04.10.2008, have challenged this final gradation list dated

¶725

73 -

¶726

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶727

09.09.2015, principally on the ground that the Quota Rule could not be applied by the BBMP, since it is glaringly obvious that the Quota Rule had broken down completely. It is their contention that the Rules were promulgated in the year 1971 and the Quota Rule was never operated ever since the promulgation of the Rules, and it is also an admitted fact that there were no clear details regarding the filling up of direct recruitment vacancies till 1977.

¶728

It is contended that from 1977 till 2008 i.e., for a period of thirty one years, there was admittedly no direct recruitment undertaken by the BBMP for the posts of FDAs and it was, thus, obvious that the Quota Rule had irretrievably broken down and consequently, the BBMP could not have been applied the GOs dated 5.7.1976 and 14.12.1987 and prepare a gradation list by creating Block Periods to classify and calculate the vacancies in order to determine the inter se seniority of the FDAs.

¶729

The second batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos.4296/2018 & 9775/2018 are also filed by the

¶730

74 -

¶731

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶732

promotees who have been working as Managers and who had been promoted from the cadre of FDA.

¶733

It is their case that they were appointed as SDAs between the period 01.09.1989 and 11.05.1994, and were promoted as FDAs on 10.05.2007 and nearly a year thereafter, on 04.10.2008, the private respondents had been directly recruited as FDAs and therefore, they could never be considered as seniors to them.

¶734

They contend that they were also promoted to

¶735

the next higher cadre of Managers on 11.05.2010, which, according to the C & R Rules, were required to be filled up 100% by way of promotion from FDAs and a seniority list was also published on 28.12.2013, in which they had been assigned seniority from the date on which they had been accorded promotions.

¶736

They contend that on 25.07.2016 i.e., nearly six years after they had been promoted, the private respondents had been promoted as Managers and they

¶737

75 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶738

were therefore, without any doubt, juniors to them in the cadre of Manager.

¶739

They are aggrieved by an order dated 17.07.2017, by which the private respondents, i.e.,

¶740

persons who had been recruited directly as FDAs and were promoted on 25.07.2016 as Managers, have been granted retrospective promotions with effect from 11.05.2010 on the ground that their seniority had been refixed in the feeder cadre of First Division Assistants (which is the subject of the first batch of writ petitions) and they had become eligible for promotion two years thereafter.

¶741

They are also aggrieved by the placement of the said private respondents above them in the provisional as well as the final seniority list published in the cadre of Manager on 04.01.2018.

¶742

The direct recruits have also filed a petition in W.P. No.56010/2018 challenging an order by which the promotee-Mangers were placed in independent charge of

¶743

76 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶744

Assistant Revenue Officers on 03.07.2018, under Rule 32

¶745

of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (“the KCSR”), contending that they had been directly recruited between the period 11.01.2008 and 23.10.2008, and they had all been promoted as Assessors on 25.07.2016.

¶746

They also contend that the private respondents (the promotees) were promoted as Assessors on 25.02.2015 and in the seniority list dated 10.01.2018, they had been placed at Sl. Nos.406 to 436 and the promotee-Assessors were placed at Sl. Nos.359 to 374, and since they were given the eligibility year as 2010 by virtue of the resolution dated 04.02.2013, they were required to be considered as seniors to the promoteeAssessors and in order to get over an seniority, an attempt was being made to place them in independent charge under Rule 32, though they did not possess the requisite length of service.

¶747

The third batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos.1130/2020, 3915/2020, 10879/2021 & 18471/2022

¶748

77 -

¶749

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶750

are filed by the promotees challenging the seniority list of Assessors dated 08.11.2019.

¶751

The petitioner in W.P. No.10739/2020 and the petitioner in W.P. No.1130/2020 are one and the same. In the first writ petition i.e., in W.P. No. 1130/2020, he has challenged the seniority list of Assessors dated 08.11.2019 and has also sought a direction to the BBMP to prepare the gradation list in the ratio of 7:5:1 as per the C & R Rules.

¶752

In the second writ petition, i.e., in W.P. No.10739/2020, he has challenged the Departmental Promotion Committee (“the DPC”) proceedings dated 15.02.2010 and also the subsequent gradation list of Assessors which has been published on 11.06.2021.

¶753

W.P. No.5188/2021 is filed by the petitioners who had been appointed on compassionate grounds and were considered as direct recruits, challenging the final gradation list of FDAs published (as on 01.01.2020), contending that the DPC had resolved to promote them as

¶754

78 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶755

Assessors on 01.08.2018 and they had been placed higher than certain FDAs, but in the final gradation list dated 04.02.2021, they had been placed blow and their ranking was brought down at Sl. Nos.850 to 884.

¶756

Learned counsel appearing for the promotees,

¶757

as already stated above, contend that there has, admittedly, been no direct recruitment virtually from the time the C & R Rules were promulgated in 1971 and it was strikingly clear that the Quota Rule had never been operated upon and had, thus, broken down since its very inception. They place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-

¶758

II Engineering Officers Association³ to contend that the BBMP had seriously erred in applying the GOs dated 05.07.1976 and 14.12.1987, and applying the Block Periods for the purposes of classifying and calculating the vacancies and to determine the inter se seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits, in coming to the

¶759

3 Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharastra and others, (1990) 13 SCC 715.

¶760

79 -

¶761

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶762

conclusion that there was encroachment of the promotees into the direct recruitment quota.

¶763

They contend that since there was no direct recruitment for more than thirty-one years, it will have to be held that the promotions made in excess of the quota and by encroaching upon the direct recruitment quota would have to considered as valid promotions and consequently, the service rendered by such promotees could not have been annulled by applying the Quota Rule and thereby, alter their seniority.

¶764

Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP as well as the direct recruits contended that once the C & R Rules prescribed a quota for the direct recruits and the promotees, the same had to be adhered to. They contend that merely because no direct recruitment was conducted for more than thirty-one years, it cannot be held that the Quota Rule had broken down.

¶765

80 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶766

They contend that the promotions granted to the promotees in excess of their quota were only fortuitous promotions and therefore, they cannot claim any legal right on that basis for the proposed seniority. They place reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta⁴ to contend that the promotions made in excess of their quota would only be fortuitous promotion and on the basis of the service rendered by such fortuitous promotions, they cannot claim seniority if they have occupied the seats of direct recruits.

¶767

They contend that the promotees could claim seniority only from the date the post became available to them in their quota and any services that they had rendered by virtue of their promotion in excess of their quota cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority.

¶768

It is also stated that since the seniority of the directly recruited FDAs had been re-fixed by the final gradation list and they were seniors to the promoted

¶769

4 Suraj Prakash Gupta & others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & others, AIR 2000 SC 2386.

¶770

81 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶771

FDAs, it had become necessary under the provisions of the KCS (regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973

¶772

and the Rules framed under the Act to grant them retrospective promotions.

¶773

57. In light of the arguments advanced, the points

¶774

that arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions are:

¶775

(i) Whether the petitioners have established that the Quota Rule had broken down as envisaged in the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association (supra) and have also consequentially established that their promotions were valid and they would thus be entitled to reckon their seniority from the dates on which they were promoted; and

¶776

(ii) Whether the private respondents (Directly Recruited FDAs) can be granted retrospective promotions as a result of the alteration of the seniority in the cadre of FDAs, and thereby, be placed in seniority above the FDAs who

¶777

82 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶778

had been promoted earlier to them in the promotional cadres.”

¶779

As stated above, the C & R Rules which were framed in 1971 states that the post of FDAs would have to be filled up by direct recruitment and by way of promotion from the cadre of SDAs, in the ratio of 50:50. This indicates that it was the intent of the Rules to ensure that there was infusion of new talent in the FDA cadre and at

¶780

the same time, the cadre also contained SDAs whose experience in the SDA cadre would benefit the FDA cadre, and this would result in the FDA cadre having an ideal blend of experience and youth.

¶781

Ideally, the BBMP was required to ensure that the 50% of the posts in the FDA cadre were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment and 50% of the posts were filled up by promotion. However, it is not in dispute that the BBMP did not undertake any direct recruitments from 1977 to 2008 i.e., for more than 31 years.

¶782

83 -

¶783

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶784

In the proceedings held on 31.08.2015, for the purposes of consideration of objections to the provisional

¶785

gradation list, it is stated as follows:

¶786

��D��6��,B��k � �VK,��L,�lV2��2*��%I�=��?�0�� +�,��l�.�7�,I�G$��,U���B.��Fm��>�5I��B�+�,��,��+�+���2� �� 2R�S��+�,��,-� =.��!��,�.�� 7�E�� ��.�A�� 2R�S��+�,��,-�=.��!G���2��,2'����.�7��2R�S��+�,��,-� =.��!��,*�� �,�n���5��,��?��,� �k � �VK,��>�5I� 0�� $�+�,,��?��,�o$8�A��p����,�CE�7��T��=��LF��� �,��,?��2�,��/� =�+�,�+��A.�7��P�+� �,���+�.��Fm.�7��2��2�,��/� �,��,?��,,�C!?�H,2��>�/�+�,��,-��,��B��2��2*��2RS�� Y;�+�,��,-� ��/�,.�FAG�1�� T��->��+�,'( ��2�� 2�,��/K,�� $�+�,4�+�+�5��,��V\��,��E��+�,����Q��,�.Q���=P�� 0W�q��+�+�L�+�,��'(��'(G��1�BO%��^��c��[��D��'(� ��+�+�L�+�,�_��&c�[c[��,�=2!��1�$��23��B� �+�.��Fm.�7��,-��7��!G��F�8�,��V\��,��E��+�,���� 4'��2��2R�S��Y;�+�,��,-��VW�,��!��>�5��,1I��V��,?�� +�+��.��=��^��+�,,�HW��f��E��'(��,1I��,��5� ��+�+�L�+�,��$��23���,-��L���+�8�)�2��5��,�_��B��2�� 2�,��/��,��,?��,,�C!?�H,2��>�/��,��BG��VW�,��!��>�5��,�� 4'��2��2R�S��Y;�+�,��,-��Q��$��r2��f�.�7��,-��Bl2'G�� =�+�,�+��,��/�,.�FA��)�2��5��,1I�6�E��'(��P/2�+�,� ��E��+�,����2R�S��Y;�+�,��,-��,��,��Bl2'��L,� ��>���3��)�2��5��,1��,��,��Bl2'G��Q��2R�S��+�,'(� $.�,��C��>��f�.�7��,-��/�,.�FA��,��V\��,��E��+�,�� 2�� 2R�S�� Y;�+�,'(� �7��!G��F7�,s�� R��/?.�F7��!G� ��/�,.�FA��L,��V�,�T��>�.�,��,�/AG��,��U��4��F��,� ��F23���,,a��N��,��+�+�L�+�,��'(��V��<�)�t�U��,��B��,��,�� V*�,��.��H��+�,��,�/AG��,��

¶787

84 -

¶788

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶789

/2*�+�� V��,?��+�+�L�+�,��'(��+�+��.��=��^�� a>�5��,�_��B�� ,��5� u�� +�+�L�+�,�� $��23���,-� ��'��,�� =Y;��'(� ��B� �+�.��Fm.�7��P�+�,� ��2�� 2�,��/��,,�C!?�H,2��>�/�+�,��,-��,��BG�E�F��!��>�5��,�� 4'�� 2�� 2R�S�� Y;�+�,��,-� �Q�� $��r2��f�.�7��,-� =�+�,�+��,��Bl2'GI��,,��P/2�+�,��E��+�,��,.�7�� 2*�� 2R�S�� Y;�+�,��,-� ��2�� 2*�,��/� �,��,?� �,,�C!?� H,2��>�/�+�,��P�+�,� =.��!��L,� �,��,��Bl2'��,�� )M��'(� $.�CE�,���+��8�,.�7��,-��V\��,��E��+�,��/�,��2�� 2R�S��Y;�+�,'(��7��!G��F7�,s��R��/?.�F7��!GI��+�+�L�+�,�� 23���,-��'��L,�/2�+��=��>�K,��,��

¶790

��V*�, ��$�+�,,��?��,�o$8�A��p�0��$�+�,,��?��,�o$8�A��pb�

¶791

It is clear from the above that the direct

¶792

recruitments were not undertaken for this huge period of 31 years and promotions were not done in adherence to

¶793

the quota specified in the C & R Rules and this was because of the Government instructions in that regard. It, therefore, also follows that it was impossible for the BBMP to adhere to the Quota Rule in the matter of direct recruitments.

¶794

It may also be pertinent to notice here that it is not the case of the BBMP that the promotions granted to

¶795

85 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶796

the petitioners i.e., the promotees were either ad hoc or temporary. In fact, the BBMP, in the statement of objections filed in W.P. No. 4296/2018, has stated in paragraph No.3 as follows:

¶797

“3. It is submitted that, it is true that the petitioners entered the service of erstwhile Bengaluru Mahangara Palike now known as BBMP between 1/9/1989 and 11/05/1994 as Second Division Clerks and it is also true that all the petitioners were promoted to the cadre of First Division Clerk with effect from 10/05/2007. It is also true that these respondents were appointed by way of Direct Recruitment to the services of the BBMP as First Division Clerks by the order dated 4/10/2008. It is also true that the petitioners were further promoted to the cadre of managers with effect from 11/05/2010, without considering the valid objections of these private respondents by BBMP. It is not true and correct that the promotion of the petitioners was on regular basis. It is not correct that even in the feeder cadre to the post of Manager, the petitioners were seniors to the private respondents. The petitioners with the malafide intention have suppressed the fact that they are juniors to these respondents in the feeder cadre to the post of Managers and the petitioners have no

¶798

86 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶799

where mentioned that they are juniors to the these respondents as per the final gradation list dated 09/09/2015.”

¶800

It is, therefore, clear from the above that the petitioners-promotees were granted regular promotions, though they were in excess of the entitlement to the quota permissible for promotees.

¶801

The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association (supra) has, on consideration of the case law relating the disputes between the direct recruits and the promotees in the matter of seniority, has declared as follows:

¶802

“47. To sum up, we hold that:

¶803

(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.

¶804

The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the

¶805

87 -

¶806

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶807

officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.

¶808

(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.

¶809

(C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly.

¶810

(D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down.

¶811

(E) Where the quota rule has broken down and the appointments are made from one source in excess of the quota but are made after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees

¶812

88 -

¶813

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶814

should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other source inducted in the service at a later date.

¶815

(F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions relating to the quota, ordinarily a presumption should be raised that there was such relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota rule.

¶816

(G) The quota for recruitment from the different sources may be prescribed by executive instructions, if the rules are silent on the subject.

¶817

(H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive instruction, and is not followed continuously for a number of years, the inference is that the executive instruction has ceased to remain operative.

¶818

(I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as well as the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State of Maharashtra belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers.

¶819

(J) The decision dealing with important questions concerning a particular service given after careful consideration should be respected rather than scrutinised for finding out any possible error. It is not in the interest of Service to unsettle a settled position.”

¶820

89 -

¶821

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶822

(Emphasis supplied)

¶823

As could be seen from the declaration of law rendered by the Constitutional Bench, it is settled law that where an initial appointment was only ad hoc and not according to the Rules, and were also made as a stop-gap arrangement, their officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account while considering seniority.

¶824

It is also held that where the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules, but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his services, the period of officiating service will be counted.

¶825

The Apex Court has also stated that if it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing Quota Rules, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the ends of that situation. It has also declared that in case the Quota Rule is not followed continuously for number of years for the reason that it was impossible to do so, the

¶826

90 -

¶827

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶828

irresistible inference would be that the Quota Rule had broken down.

¶829

It has further held that if the Quota Rule has broken down, the persons who were promoted in excess of their quota cannot be pushed below the direct recruits who had been appointed subsequently.

¶830

In light of this declaration of the Constitution Bench, the issue to be examined is as to whether the Quota Rule was not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so and consequently, hold the Quota Rule had broken down.

¶831

It would also have to be examined whether the promotions made in favour of the petitioners were ad hoc or a stop gap arrangement, or whether

¶832

they were in accordance with the Rules.

¶833

As already noticed above, in the proceedings held on 31.08.2015 for considering the objections to the

¶834

91 -

¶835

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶836

gradation list, it has been clearly recorded that the BBMP was unable undertake direct recruitments and adhere to

¶837

the Quota Rule due to Government instructions in that regard. If, as a matter of fact, the Government has issued instructions to the BBMP not to undertake direct recruitments, it is obvious that it was impossible for the BBMP to undertake direct recruitment even if it so desired.

¶838

It should also be noticed here that if the BBMP was unable to undertake direct recruitment for more than 3 decades, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Quota Rule was not followed continuously for a considerable number of years. It should also be kept in mind that the C & R Rules were framed in 1971 and from 1977 to 2008, i.e., for 31 years, the Quota Rule was not followed continuously. In other words, virtually, from the date of framing the Rules, the Quota Rule was not followed at all and the inescapable conclusion that is required to be drawn is that the Quota Rule had broken down.

¶839

92 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶840

The BBMP, in its counter, has admitted that the promotees were promoted in excess of their quota in the cadre of FDA and these promotions were made prior to the recruitment of the private respondents, by way of direct recruitment in the cadre of FDA.

¶841

It is also admitted that the promotees were promoted prior to the direct recruitment in the cadre of Assessor and also in the cadre of Manger.

¶842

In light of the fact that the Quota Rule was not followed continuously for 31 years, it is absolutely clear that the Quota Rule had broken down, as contemplated under the decision rendered in the Direct Recruit’s case referred to above.

¶843

As a consequence, the further dicta laid down in the said case [Clause (e)] that when the Quota Rule had broken down and appointments were made from one source in excess of the quota and the same were made in accordance with the Rules, the rule that the appointees

¶844

93 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶845

should not be pushed below the appointees who had been appointed subsequently, would also stand attracted and would be applicable in the present case.

¶846

As already held above, the BBMP admitted that promotions had been given to the petitioners in excess of their quota and it only contends that these promotions were irregular and illegal, since they contravened the quota. The fact that the petitioners were granted promotions in accordance with their seniority and in accordance with the Rules, though the promotions are in excess of their entitled quota, is not in dispute. Consequently, the petitioners cannot be pushed below the private respondents-direct recruits in the seniority list.

¶847

There is yet another factor to be considered in this case, in the context of the dicta at Clause (f) of the aforementioned judgment, which states that where the Rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions relating to a quota, presumption should be drawn that here was relaxation when there was deviation from the Quota Rule.

¶848

94 -

¶849

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶850

Rule 10 of C & R Rules reads as follows:

¶851

“10. Appointment by direct recruitment

¶852

or promotion in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations for Recruitment specially made in respect of any post the Commissioner or the Corporation may.-

¶853

(a) Recruit by direct recruitment to a post reserved to be filled by promotion when he or it is satisfied that the persons eligible to be considered for appointment by promotion are in the immediate Lower Grade not fit to be so appointed;

¶854

(b) Fill up by promotion any vacancy relating to a post which is required to be filled by direct recruitment provided an appointment under this sub-clause shall not be continued for a period of more six months except with the concurrence of the Karnataka Public Service Commission.”

¶855

As could be seen from said Sub-rule (b) of Rule 10, there is indeed a provision which permits relaxation of

¶856

the Quota Rule, though the relaxation in case of making promotions into the quota earmarked for the direct recruits is to normally not exceed 6 months. This power to

¶857

95 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶858

relax, in the context of the present case wherein the Government had issued orders/directions not to undertake direct recruitment for 31 long years, would have to be considered as an exercise of this power of relaxation by the Government in relation to the deviation from the Quota Rule. Consequently, as laid down in Clause (f) of the Direct Recruit’s case (supra), it would become imperative to draw the presumption that the power of relaxation had been exercised, and consequently, the promotions made in excess of the quota would have to be held as valid promotions.

¶859

Reliance placed by the BBMP on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta (supra) would be of no avail, since the Apex Court was dealing with a case relating to posts held by the promotees therein on ad hoc basis or as a stop-gap arrangement and the question of the Quota Rule having broken down was not being considered.

¶860

96 - NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶861

Resultantly, the 1^st question would have to be

¶862

answered in favour of the petitioner-promotees and it will have to be held that the Quota Rule had not been followed continuously for 31 long years and the Quota Rule had, thus, broken down.

¶863

As a necessary consequence, it will also have to be held that the promotions granted to the petitioners in excess of their quota were valid and their seniority will have to be counted from the dates on which they were granted their respective promotions.

¶864

As a result of the above, the gradation list of the FDAs dated 09.09.2015 is quashed, and the BBMP is directed to re-do the seniority list without applying the Quota Rule and assign seniority to the promotees from the dates on which they were promoted.

¶865

As far as further promotions and the seniority lists in the promotional cadre of Manager (which are the subject matter of W.P. No. 4296/2018 and W.P. No.

¶866

97 -

¶867

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶868

9778/2018) is concerned. It is to be stated here that the petitioners therein were promoted as Managers much prior to the directly recruited FDAs and only by virtue of the refixation of the seniority of these directly recruited FDAs in the FDA cadre have they been given retrospective promotions from the date on which they became eligible to be promoted as Managers.

¶869

Since it has not been held that the seniority of the promotee-FDAs is to be re-fixed from the date on which they were promoted, as their promotions were valid, the directly recruited FDAs will have to be placed below them and they would, thus, not be entitled to claim seniority on the basis of the applicability of the Quota Rule. Consequently, the retrospective promotions granted to them under the order dated 10.07.2017 shall stand quashed. The promotions granted to them originally, shall however, subsist.

¶870

The BBMP will have to thereby re-do the seniority list in the cadre of Manager without granting the

¶871

98 -

¶872

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶873

directly recruited FDAs retrospective seniority and grant them seniority only from the date that they were initially promoted i.e., with effect from 25.07.2016.

¶874

In respect of the writ petitions which have been filed challenging the seniority list in the cadre of Assessor dated 08.11.2019, i.e., W.P. No. 1130/2020, W.P. No. 3918/2020, W.P. No. 10879/2021 and W.P. No. 18471/2022, it is to be stated here that the petitioners were promoted as Assessors (re-designated post of Asst Octroi Superintendents) from the cadre of First Grade Revenue Inspectors, Revenue Inspectors and FDAs in the ratio of 7:5:1, and as a consequence of the re-fixation of seniority in the cadre of FDAs by the gradation list dated 09.09.2015, their respective seniority in the cadre of Assessor has been altered. In light of this judgment, by which the gradation list dated 09.09.2015 of FDAs, wherein the seniority assigned to the directly recruited FDAs has been quashed, the seniority of the petitioners will have to be restored and they would have to be placed

¶875

99 -

¶876

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶877

above the directly recruited FDAs. Consequently, the BBMP will also have to re-do the seniority of the assessors, in light of this judgment.

¶878

W.P. No.56010/2018, which has been filed by

¶879

the direct recruits challenging the orders, by which the promotees were placed in independent charge under Rule 32, will have to be dismissed, since it has now been held that the promotions granted to the promotees in the cadre of FDA cannot be found fault with.

¶880

W.P. No.5188/2021 filed by the direct recruits i.e., the persons who had been appointed on

¶881

compassionate grounds cannot be granted promotion on the basis of the DPC decision dated 01.08.2018, since the right of the promotees to be placed above the direct recruitees has been upheld by this order. Hence, said petition is also dismissed.

¶882

Consequently, the second question is also answered in favour of the promotees and it is held that the

¶883

100 -

¶884

NC: 2024:KHC:2508 WP No. 1130 of 2020 And Connected Matters

¶885

directly recruited FDAs could not have been granted retrospective promotions and they could not also be assigned seniority over the persons who had been promoted from the promotee cadre.

¶886

W.P. No.39961/2016, W.P. No.4296/2018, W.P.

¶887

No.9775/2018, W.P. No.1130/2020, W.P. No.3915/2020, W.P. No.10739/2020, W.P. No.10879/2021 & W.P. No. 18471/2022 are allowed to the extent stated above.

¶888

W.P. No.56010/2018 & W.P.No.5188/2021 are

¶889

dismissed.

¶890

Sd/JUDGE

¶891

Vnp* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri M G Niranjan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M G Niranjan 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 Nazhath Jabeen Vs the Commissioner for

Mr K M Mohammed Ziaulla Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Sri T P Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

N Venkatesh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

N. Krishna Vs Bbmp

Sri K G Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka