This petition challenged the rejection of a promotion claim from Joint General Manager to General Manager. The court held the petition devoid of merits as the petitioner's aggregate marks were below the cut-off, dismissing the appeal.
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:11742 WP No. 46862 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 46862 OF 2012 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
MR. N D VEERANNA GOWDA S/O LATE DODDAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PRESENTLY R/A IN PREMISES NO.858, 20TH B MAIN 8TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095.
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. SLOKA B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI THONTADHARYA R K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE SECRETARY by CHAITHRA A DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES Location: HIGH COURT OF UNDER MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND KARNATAKA PUBLIC ENTERPRISE UNION OF INDIA UDYOG BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 011.
NC: 2024:KHC:11742 WP No. 46862 of 2012
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHA P BANAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE NECESSARY ORDERS PROMOTING THE PETITIONER FROM JOINT GENERAL MANAGER PS VIII TO GENERAL MANAGER PS X TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking direction against the respondents to reconsider promoting the petitioner from Joint General Manager PS-VIII to General Manager PS-X.
Manager. Petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee for interview. Petitioner’s grievance is that though he was eligible and was found to be meritorious, the respondents have ignored petitioner’s eligibility for promotion to the next cadre.
PS-VIII to General Manager PS-X, the captioned petition is filed.
4. Respondent No.3, on receipt of notice, has
tendered appearance and filed statement of objections and has countered the petitioner’s claim. The respondent No.3 at para 11 of the statement of objections has contended
that, in all 75 candidates were kept under the zone of consideration. All 75 candidates including petitioner were called for interview as they fulfilled eligibility criteria to appear for interview. Out of 75 candidates, DPC on closure scrutiny recommended 13 candidates in the order of merit. The respondent No.3 has contended that cut-off marks for selection was 72.09%, while petitioner has secured only 64.69% as against cut-off marks of 72.09%. The respondent No.3 has contended that petitioner stood at Sl.No.68. It is also contended that the candidate who had secured 71.97% is not selected. It is contended that, above petitioner, there are around 55 candidates who
have secured higher marks compared to petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.3 has sought for dismissal of the petition.
petitioner. On the contrary, the respondent No.3 has furnished the details which clearly indicate that petitioner having secured 64.69% is found to be far below the cut-off marks for selection to the post of General Manager PS-X. Petitioner admittedly has secured 64.69% marks whereas the cut-off marks is fixed at 72.09%. It is also evident
that around 55 candidates have secured more marks compared to petitioner and petitioner is placed at Sl.No.68. The records also reveal that there are around 9 officers who are senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Joint General Manager and they are also not selected.
of the statement of objections, no material is placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate any bias or arbitrariness by the committee while awarding marks. The promotion relates to 2012 and in the light of the observations made by this Court supra, no indulgence is warranted at this juncture.
NC: 2024:KHC:11742 WP No. 46862 of 2012
accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was eligible and meritorious for promotion over other candidates.
Whether the petitioner's claim of exclusion from promotion is substantiated by merit assessment.
MR. N D VEERANNA GOWDA
THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR HMT LTD
THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR & AM) HMT LTD
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
