Allowed

Ramachandra. C. N. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024WP/2694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of Certiorari to quash the State Administrative Tribunal's order denying promotion due to lack of three-year service. The Court directed authorities to consider the petitioner's application as per rules allowing one-year service when necessary and ordered the opening of a sealed cover containing promotion recommendations.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari quashing the Tribunal order; Direction to respondents to open sealed cover, consider petitioner's Application No.2179/2023, and give effect to DPC recommendations within eight weeks

Ramachandra. C. N. Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45742-DB WP No. 2694 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 2694 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

RAMACHANDRA. C. N. S/O CHIKKANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, BMTC COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027. RESIDING AT NUMBER 74/1, AASARA RESIDENCY, NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, RACHENAHALLI ROAD, THANISANDRA, BANGALORE-560 077.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:45742-DB WP No. 2694 of 2024

¶19

COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, BMTC COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., HCGP)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.11.2023 IN A. No. 2179/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND QUASH THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICANT No. 2179/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED AND ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION OR APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS PROMOTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN THE DPC DATED 2/12/2020 IN ANNEXURE-A10 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL AND iii) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE AWARD OF COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45742-DB WP No. 2694 of 2024

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶28

A civil servant disappointed by the State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 20.11.2023 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court against denial of promotion to him.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention to para 8 of the Tribunal’s order argues that there is legal infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as the extant 2013 Rules specifically provide for consideration of a candidate for promotion to the next higher cadre if he has put in not less than one year of service in the feeder cadre, when candidates who have put in three year service are not available. He has also produced along with Memo

¶30

with leave of court, a copy of O.M. dated 17.06.2023 relating to one Mr.Srinivasappa.B. who has been directed to be considered for promotion to the higher post though he has put in less than three year service in the feeder cadre.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45742-DB WP No. 2694 of 2024

¶32

Learned AGA appearing for the respondent opposes

¶33

the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been structured. She also points out that the petitioner’s case was put in a Sealed Cover since he was facing a disciplinary enquiry which eventually resulted into levy of penalty of censure and therefore, his case cannot be considered for promotion. So contending, she seeks dismissal of petition.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the simple reason that the provisions of the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch Recruitment) Rules, 2013 vide Item No.12 in the schedule thereto provides for consideration of a candidate who has put in one year service if three year service candidates are not available. The same reads as

¶35

under:

¶36

Sl.	Designati	No of posts	xx	Minimum Qualification
No.	on		x

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:45742-DB WP No. 2694 of 2024

¶39

12	Assistant Secretary /Head quarter assistant to Regional Transport Officer/Tr easury and Tax Officer (Rs.2160 0-40050)	P T Total 12 03 15	Must have put in a service of not less than three years in the cadre of Superintendent. If an officer with three years of service is not available, an officer who has put in a service of not less than one year in the cadre of Superintendent may be considered for promotion.

¶40

When we asked learned AGA as to why the above

¶41

Rule was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, she replies that the Tribunal having heard the matter had reserved it for orders and the said orders came to be pronounced later and in that process, the above provision appears to have been lost sight of. Whatever be the lapse on whomsoever, there is error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be rectified inasmuch as every civil servant is entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the existing Service Rules, more particularly, when it is not the case of official respondents that candidates who have put in three year service are available.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45742-DB WP No. 2694 of 2024

¶43

The next contention of learned AGA that censure is

¶44

also a punishment under Rule 8(ii) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 and once such a punishment is accorded, the candidate cannot be considered for promotion, is bit difficult to countenance. Censure is a mildest form of punishment is true. However, such a punishment comes to an end on the same day of its limb. Therefore, in the fitness of things, it cannot constitute an absolute embargo for consideration of petitioner’s case for promotion, more particularly when a similarly placed official having been considered for promotion, has been granted one, as is evidenced by the government notification No.TD65TDS2023 dated 20.02.2024. A Welfare State like ours has to conduct itself as a model employer vide BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA vs. STATE OF ASSAM¹ .

¶45

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal; petitioner’s Application No.2179/2023 having

¶46

1 2013 (2) SCC 516

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45742-DB WP No. 2694 of 2024

¶48

been favoured, a direction issues to respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶49

to open the Sealed Cover and give effect to the recommendations of DPC dated 02.12.2020 at AnnexureA10 in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks. Delay if brooked in compliance, would be viewed seriously.

¶50

Costs made easy.

¶51

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶53

Snb/

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Ramachandra. C. N. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandra. C. N. 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

Sri Ravikumar G P Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka by Vs Ms. Latha H N

Sri K K Chandrakanth Vs the State of Karnataka

J. Jagannathan Vs the General Manager

Union of India Vs Sri.Simon K John

The Union of India Vs J. Kameshwara Rao