Service Law – Promotion
The petitioner challenged the KSAT order dismissing his claim for officiating promotion to FDA. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that promotional opportunities are governed by specific rules and guidelines, and vacancies alone do not create a right to retrospective promotion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:9568-DB WP No. 2254 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 2254 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. B.R. SHAMBHULINGA DHAGGE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O. B. M. GIRIJA NOW WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O THE SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR VARTHUR, SHIVAJINAGAR DISTRICT 1ST FLOOR, B.M.COMPLEX OPP: TO DHARMARAJA TEMPLE HAROHALLI ROAD, VARTHURU BENGALURU-560087. R/AT NO. 17, FLAT NO. 103 1ST FLOOR, NANDHINI TEMPLE TEACH APARTMENT 3RD CROSS, SUBRAMANYAPURA VIVEKANANDANAGAR BENGALURU-560 061.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S G - ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA - AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2023, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No-4855/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT OFFICIATING PROMOTION TO THE PETITIONER TO THE CADRE OF FDA WITH RESPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 2019.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.4855/2023 dated 11.12.2023.
for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2. Perused the impugned order rendered by the KSAT. Briefs facts of the case are as under:
The applicant who is the petitioner herein is working as an FDA in the Office of the Senior Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-560087. It is stated that he was appointed as an SDA on compassionate grounds and was thereafter promoted as FDA by official memorandum dated 16.01.2016 under Rule 32 of KCSR. Since the petitioner was from Hyderabad-Karnataka Region, the second respondent by order dated 27.11.2020, considered him a local candidate who was entitled for 8% reservation provided under Article 371J of the Constitution of India. Though his name was included in the cadre of SDA under the Hyderabad Karnataka State level cadre, subsequently the said order was withdrawn as on 08.04.2021, without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the KSAT in Application No.1766/2021. The KSAT, on hearing the said application, by its order dated 25.06.2021, allowed the application filed by the applicant and quashed the order dated 08.04.2021,
insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and consequently directed the second respondent either to restore the earlier order dated 27.11.2020 or to include the name of the petitioner in the Gradation List of Hyderabad Karnataka Region State wise local cadre of SDA and to assign appropriate seniority to him. Pursuant to the said order of the KSAT, the second respondent included the name of the petitioner under Hyderabad Karnataka State Level Cadre and consequently has published a final seniority list of SDAs and the name of the petitioner is found at Sl.No.5 with an eligibility date as 04.03.2004 as per official memorandum dated 13.10.2022. After including the name of the petitioner, the petitioner again filed an application namely Application No.4855/2023 before the KSAT seeking to quash the endorsement dated 14.02.2023 issued by the second respondent on the ground that by virtue of his seniority, he is entitled for officiating promotion to the cadre of FDA from the date of his eligibility as well as from the date vacancy arose for promotion. However, the KSAT by its order dated 11.12.2023, dismissed the said application as not maintainable, the same being premature
since the application did not accrue any cause of action either to submit representation or to seek any promotion. It is the said order which is under challenge in this petition
Cadre – Post whether promotional post, or upgradation of post – Determination of – Factors to be considered – Held, differential pay scale along with process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are factors to determine whether particular post is same as other or a promotional
one”. Further para No.18 of the said judgment reads as:
“ A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post are specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process. It is also to be borne in mind that when we deal with a case of promotion, there can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules. In other words, a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules”.
Hence, learned AGA prays for dismissal of this petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:9568-DB WP No. 2254 of 2024
Hence, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the KSAT requiring for any interference. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to officiating promotion to the cadre of FDA with retrospective effect from 2019 based on seniority?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and Another Vs Manpreet Singh Poonam and OthersReferred¶18
(2022) 6 SCC 105 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri. B.R. Shambhulinga Dhagge
State of Karnataka
Cadre Controlling Officer-cum Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps in Karnataka
K. Somashekar
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
