Dismissed¶7

The Housing Commissioner v. Sri a Vijay Kumar Bhandary

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2025WA/1373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rule 32 KCSR promotion consideration; sealed cover procedure pending criminal proceedings; departmental proceedings concluded in employee's favour; DPC regular promotion; representation dated 12.02.2024 Annexure-L; Karnataka Housing Board Housing Commissioner; Single Judge directions upheld; writ appeal dismissed; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961; W.P.No.9246/2024; Assistant Executive Engineer; appellate interference refused.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-Board; the Single Judge's directions stand, with the Board to consider the respondent's representation in accordance with law, and pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of as they would not survive. ¶7

The Housing Commissioner Vs Sri a Vijay Kumar Bhandary — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge's directions — to consider the respondent-employee's representation dated 12.02.2024 for promotion under Rule 32 of KCSR and to place his papers for regular promotion in the ensuing DPC — warranted interference in this writ appeal, given the appellant-Board's contention that the proper procedure was to place the employee's papers before the DPC in a sealed cover owing to pending criminal proceedings.

¶2

Court's answer

The operative direction of the Single Judge was only 'to consider' the representation of the petitioner for the purpose of considering his case for promotion, and further required that the petitioner be communicated with the decision on promotion.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is left to the appellant-Board to consider the case of the respondent-employee for promotion, no case is made out for any interference by this Court in the said direction.

¶6

Key takeaways

It goes without saying that the appellant-Board shall consider the representation of the respondent in accordance with law.ratio¶6
While reviewing the Single Judge's order (which observed that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be the reason for denial of promotion), this Court noted that in the present case the departmental proceedings have already culminated in favour of the employee.obiter¶4
The writ appeal is dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No.1373 of 2024 (S-RES), High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice — authoring; M.I. Arun, Judge), Oral Judgment dated 18.02.2025. Filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by the Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, challenging the Single Judge's order dated 27.06.2024 in W.P.No.9246/2024, which directed consideration of the employee's (A. Vijay Kumar Bhandary, Assistant Executive Engineer) representation dated 12.02.2024 for promotion under Rule 32 of KCSR and placement of his papers for regular promotion in the ensuing DPC. The Board contended the papers should instead go to the DPC in a sealed cover given pending criminal proceedings; the Court noted the departmental proceedings had already culminated in the employee's favour. Holding that the operative direction only required the Board 'to consider' the representation and communicate its decision, leaving the matter to the Board, the Bench found no ground for appellate interference, reiterated that the representation be considered in accordance with law, and dismissed the appeal, disposing of pending interlocutory applications as not surviving.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1373 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI S.N. ASHWATHANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHARAN N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI A. VIJAY KUMAR BHANDARY S/O LATE NAGAYYA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024

¶17

BONDEL MANGALURU - 575 015.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. NIVEDITHA C. SHIVANAIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2024 IN W.P.NO.9246/2024 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶27

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.9246 of 2024, wherein learned Single Judge issued the following operative directions:

¶28

"[a] The petition is allowed directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2024 [Annexure-L] at the first instance for grant of promotion under Rule 32 of KCSR and to place the petitioner's papers for regular promotion in the ensuing DPC.

¶29

[b] The petitioner shall be communicated with the decision on the promotion under Rule 32 of the KCSR as aforesaid within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation in this regard within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶30

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Aswathanarayana for learned advocate Mr. Sharan N.Majage for the appellant-Board would submit that the directions are not justified inasmuch as the procedure to be adopted would be to place the papers of the respondent-employee for promotion in a sealed cover.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024

¶33

On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Niveditha C. Shivanaikar for learned advocate Smt. Vijetha R. Naik for the respondent-employee stated that the direction was only to consider the representation of the respondent and it does not require any interference by this Court in the appellate jurisdiction.

¶34

On going through the order of learned Single Judge, it could be seen that learned Single Judge observed that the pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be the reason for denial of promotion. In the present case, it appears that the departmental proceedings have already culminated in favour of the employee.

¶35

Apart from the above, as could be seen from the language of the operative directions, the direction was only "to consider" the representation of the petitioner for the purpose of considering his case for promotion. It was further required that the petitioner shall be communicated with the decision on promotion.

¶36

Since the matter is left to the appellant-Board to consider the case of the respondent-employee for promotion, no case is made out for any interference in the said direction. It goes without saying

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024

¶39

that the appellant-Board shall consider the representation of the respondent in accordance with law.

¶40

7. The appeal is dismissed.

¶41

In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43