Disposed

Smt. Kalavathi. M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WP/922/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a Deputy Tahasildar challenging her non-promotion. The High Court observed that since the criminal FIR against her was quashed and she had completed requisite service, the matter requires reconsideration by the Government regarding her promotion claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Government to reconsider the petitioner's claim for promotion taking note of the quashed FIR and her completed service.

Smt. Kalavathi. M Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33924-DB WP No. 922 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 922 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. KALAVATHI M. W/O SRI. CHANNEGOWDA R.G. AGED 41 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR YESHWANTHAPURA-2 NADAKACHERI NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072 R/AT. NO.28, 10^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS JNANAJYOTHI NAGARA, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 056

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶17

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, REVENUE DEPARTMENT 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, REVENUE COMPLEX D.C. OFFICE BUILDING

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:33924-DB WP No. 922 of 2023

¶22

BENGALURU 560009

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-560 009

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2022 IN APPLICATION No.3051/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.3051/2021 AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶28

HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:33924-DB WP No. 922 of 2023

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶35

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she had filed the application before the Tribunal challenging the proceedings of Department Promotion Committee( for short 'DPC') dated 27.11.2020. It is submitted that the DPC had wrongly found the petitioner ineligible for promotion on the ground that there was a criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner also that she was not eligible for promotion, since she had been unauthorisedly absent for more than a year.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner had been challenged before this Court and the FIR was quashed by this Court on 20.03.2021. Further, it is contended that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules requires only three years of service in the cadre of Deputy Tahasildar/Shirastedar and that the petitioner

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33924-DB WP No. 922 of 2023

¶38

who was appointed as Deputy Tahasildar/Shirastedar in 2012 and was transferred in the year 2013 had completed the three years of service and had all eligibility. It is contended that the refusal to consider the petitioner for promotion which has been granted to her juniors is therefore completely illegal.

¶39

Learned Government Advocate submits that no regular promotion was granted to the juniors of the petitioner and only additional charge under Rule 32 was given to them. It is further contended that the orders granting the juniors in charge promotions under Rule 32 which was produced as Annexure-A46 along with the application was not under challenge, which was also the reason why the prayers raised were not allowed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal had considered the reply statement filed by the State, where it was specifically urged, that after revocation of the suspension, the petitioner had been posted as Election Sheristedar at Bangarpet, Kolar District vide order dated 15.02.2018 . The petitioner did not report to the place of posting and it was only after orders passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the State that the petitioner reported for

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:33924-DB WP No. 922 of 2023

¶42

duty at Bangarpet on 29.07.2019 and therefore, there is one year and five months of unauthorized absence.

¶43

Having considered the contentions advanced on

¶44

either side, we notice that the DPC had considered the petitioner for promotion and had refused to grant her the promotion on the ground that there were judicial proceedings pending against her as also on the ground that she was unauthorizedly absent for two years. It is admitted by the respondents even before the Tribunal that disciplinary proceedings had not been initiated against the petitioner with regard to the unauthorized absence.

¶45

It is clear that the FIR registered against the petitioner stands quashed by this Court by judgment dated 23.10.2021 in WP No. 33064/2017. In the above factual situation and in view of the specific contention urged by the petitioner before the Tribunal that the reasons stated for nonconsideration of her claim for promotion were factually incorrect, we are of the opinion that the issue requires reconsideration at the hands of the Government.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33924-DB WP No. 922 of 2023

¶47

In view of the fact that the FIR stands quashed, the pendency of the criminal proceedings cannot be a ground for non-consideration of the claim for promotion made by the

¶48

petitioner. Further, since the DPC was conducted on 27.11.2020 and it is an admitted case that the petitioner had been promoted to the feeder category in the year 2012 and transferred to the present district in the year 2013. Even if the date on which she joined duty in the transferred district is taken into account, she would have completed three years of service in the feeder category, even de-hors the unauthorized absence, for which no disciplinary proceedings have been taken.

¶49

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for promotion at par with her juniors requires a consideration at the hands of the Government. Accordingly, we direct the Government to take up the case of the petitioner taking note of the fact that there are

¶50

no judicial proceedings pending against her and that she has completed three years of service in the feeder category as on the date when the DPC which was convened on 27.11.2020.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:33924-DB WP No. 922 of 2023

¶53

Appropriate orders shall be passed taking note of

¶54

the contentions of the petitioner on the claim for promotion at par with her juniors under Rule 32 or for regular promotion as the case may be, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶55

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶56

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶57

RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt. Kalavathi. M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalavathi. M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Vivekananda C M

Sri T N Chikkarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vinod Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms Manjushree K Vs State of Karnataka

Harshvardhan Raj M S Vs the Deputy Commissioner

S C Ramachandra Vs the State of Karnataka