The Registrar General High Court of Karnataka Vs Shri Neelappa Bover S/O Amarappa Bover

SHRI. NEELAPPA BOVER, S/O. AMRAPPA BOVER, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R/O. NO.27, KUMARESHWAR NAGAR, DHARWAD-580 008.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA,

¶17

2 -

¶18

WA No.100278 of 2024

¶19

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶20

SRI. RAJENDRA TILGUL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: SECTION OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI-585 103.

¶21

RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.101554/2021 (S-PRO) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶28

3 - WA No.100278 of 2024

¶29

CAV JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶31

This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the

¶32

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, at the hands of the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka who was respondent in the two writ petitions filed at the hands of respondent No.1 herein, namely, Sri.Neelappa Bover. The appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.82377/2013 connected with W.P.No.101554/2021.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions.

¶34

The writ petition is filed in W.P.No.82377/2013 seeking to quash the impugned notification dated 09.04.2013 since it denies the petitioner’s promotion to the cadre of Section Officer, retrospectively with effect from 31.07.2011, and W.P.No.101554/2021 is filed by the

¶35

4 - WA No.100278 of 2024

¶36

petitoner being aggrieved of the final seniority list published on 08.04.2021.

¶37

The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that some of the employees of the High Court were aggrieved of the 2009 amendment brought to the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973. However, a Division Bench of this court in W.A.Nos.1934-38/2011 disposed of the writ appeals with specific observations that the vacancies that arose prior to coming into force the various amended rules, which remained vacant till then, shall be filled up as per the Unamended Cadre and Recruitment Rules and not as per the Amended Rules, 2009. The learned Single Judge noticed the petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of pendency of the writ petition filed by him, relating to promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar, the Registrar General while complying the directions issued by the Division Bench, pushed down the petitioner to the cadre of Section Officer, ignoring the fact that one Mohd.Khaja Muneerulla had

¶38

5 -

¶39

WA No.100278 of 2024

¶40

admittedly retired from service on 31.07.2011 and this compelled the petitioner to assail the process of redoing the seniority list by filing W.P.No.82377/2013. In the meanwhile, a representation was given by the petitioner to the Registrar General requesting to consider his case for promotion under local cadre, claiming the benefit of Article 371J of the Constitution of India. The said representation was rejected by the Registrar General by issuing an endorsement, which was again challenged in W.P.No.23891/2013. The endorsement was set aside with a direction to reconsider the petitioner’s case. It is noticed that though the petitioner had challenged the action of the Registrar General, pushing down the petitioner to the cadre of Section Officer from 2011 to 2013, the Registrar General, taking 2013 as petitioner’s eligibility to the cadre of Section Officer, promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Registrar under the local cadre on 20.08.2015.

¶41

The petitioner assumed charge as Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 20.08.2015. However, while implementing

¶42

6 -

¶43

WA No.100278 of 2024

¶44

the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.K.Pavithra-I, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Section Officer, while promoting respondent No.3 from the post of Section Officer to Assistant Registrar w.e.f 20.08.2015.

¶45

The Government of Karnataka, in a bid to protect the consequential seniority provided to the civil servants belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category, brought in an Act known as Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of reservation (to the posts in the Civil Servants of the State), Act, 2017. The Act, 2017, provided a statutory mechanism to safeguard the interest of the Government Servants belonging to SC/ST community in terms of Sub-Article (4A) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the said enactment, the Government Order dated 27.02.2019 was issued along with several directions. In terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act of 2017, the consequential seniority already accorded to the Government Servants belonging

¶46

7 -

¶47

WA No.100278 of 2024

¶48

to SC/ST who were promoted in accordance with the policy

¶49

of reservation in promotion provided for in the Reservation Order with effect from 27.04.1978 shall be valid and shall be protected and shall not be disturbed. Accordingly, it was directed that, any Government Servant belonging to SC/ST community, whose seniority was altered in the seniority list prepared pursuant to the Government Order dated 06.05.2017, his promotion reviewed, date of eligibility was reverted to lower cadre, shall be posted back with retrospective effect to the cadre held by him immediately before such reversion. It was directed that he shall continue to draw his pay, retrospectively from the date on which he was reverted, in that cadre, in the same scale of pay and at the same stage of pay at which he was drawing his pay before his reversion to lower cadre. It was also directed that, in case the post in the cadre held by him immediately before his reversion is not vacant, he shall be posted against a supernumerary post to be created by the administrative department concerned.

¶50

8 - WA No.100278 of 2024

¶51

Acting on the Government Order, the petitioner

¶52

was placed in the cadre of Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 20.08.2015, however, against supernumerary post. In the notification dated 08.04.2021 at Annexure-R, although the writ petitioner is shown to have been appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 20.08.2015, nevertheless, in remarks column, it is stated that “the said officer has been reposted to the post of Assistant Registrar which was held by him immediately prior to his reversion as per G.O.No.DPAR 186 SRS 2018 dated 27.02.2019 against Supernumerary Post.”

¶53

The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sriranga Subbanna appearing for the appellant submitted that the observations of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 18 of the impugned order that action of the appellant reposting the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Registrar through creation of supernumerary post clearly raises concerns of discrimination and non-compliance of legal directives as per B.K.Pavithra-II judgment, was uncalled

¶54

9 -

¶55

WA No.100278 of 2024

¶56

for. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that such observation will paint a bad picture of the High Court. It is never the intention of the High Court or Registrar General to disobey the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The decision was taken having regard to the factual aspect, more particularly, the fact that respondent No.3Sri.Rajendra Tilgul who was eligible for promotion from the post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant Registrar was to be posted as Assistant Registrar having regard to the law laid down in B.K.Pavithra-I. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that although respondent No.3 had submitted his representation to permit him to forego the promotion, nevertheless, the notification dated 16.01.2018 at Annexure-N was issued by the High Court in view of the judgment dated 09.02.2017 in B.K.Pavithra-I and the order dated 08.09.2017 in Contempt Petition (C) No.1682/2017, at the hands of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after publication of the final revised seniority lists, and as a consequence, taking further consequential action reverting such persons who were promoted to the post of

¶57

10 -

¶58

WA No.100278 of 2024

¶59

Assistant Registrars, they were reverted to the post of Section Officers and in the same notification in Part-I of the notification, respondent No.3-Sri.Rajendra Tilgul was promoted as Assistant Registrar.

¶60

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has brought to our notice the notification dated 01.09.2014 bearing No.HCE 132/2014 (SS) identifying the number of posts reserved for local persons on the establishment of the High Court of Karnataka and submits that in the Dharwad Bench of the High Court of Karnataka there are three posts available for Assistant Registrar. It is therefore submitted that even if respondent No.3-Sri.Rajendra Tilgul was shown to have been promoted as Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 20.08.2015, notwithstanding the fact that respondent No.3 had exercised his right to decline promotion and he never took charge as Assistant Registrar, one post was always open for the writ petitioner. Drawing the attention of this court to the

¶61

11 -

¶62

WA No.100278 of 2024

¶63

Government Order dated 27.02.2019, it was pointed out that question of creating supernumerary post would arise only if there was no vacant post available. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in directing that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Registrar shall be against the existing post and not against supernumerary post.

¶64

At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sriranga Subbanna fairly submitted that this aspect of the matter was never canvassed before the learned Single Judge. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that if there were three posts in the cadre of Assistant Registrar and on restoration of the promoted post to the writ petitioner, if there was a vacant post, then question of considering appointment of the petitioner against the supernumerary post would not arise.

¶65

In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the

¶66

12 -

¶67

WA No.100278 of 2024

¶68

learned single Judge in the matter of reposting of the writ petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Registrar w.e.f 20.08.2015 shall be against the regular vacant post and not against the supernumerary post, is upheld. However, we deem it right to expunge the remarks of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 18, more particularly, the words;

¶69

“that the action of respondent No.1 ………. clearly raises concerns of discrimination and noncompliance of legal directives ………… and the directions …………. issued by respondent No.2/State pursuant to the implementation of Act, 2017.”

¶70

The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶71

Sd/(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

¶73

MBS

¶74

CT: VH

The Registrar General High Court of Karnataka v. Shri Neelappa Bover S/O Amarappa Bover

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Registrar General High Court of Karnataka v. Shri Neelappa Bover S/O Amarappa Bover

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavanagouda S/O Fakkiragouda Patil Vs Fakkiragouda S/O Basavanagouda Patil

Shashikla F Patil D/O Fakkiragouda Patil, Vs Fakkiragouda B Patil

Suvarna W/O Hanamant Magi Vs Tanabai W/O Anantrao Bagal

Smt. Pushpa Mahadev Kinagi Vs Shri. Ashok Nagappa Sulebhavi

Shri. Bhimesh @ Bhimasen S/O. Venkatrao Deshpande Vs Shri. Ajit S/O. Hanumant Deshpande

Shantavva W/O.Ramappa Adin Vs Hanamant S/O Ramappa Adin