Smt. Sujatha N.G Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10398 OF 2013 (S-PRO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SUJATHA N.G, W/O B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, URBAN DISTRICT, NO.123/1037, I FLOOR, 20^TH CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI DEVARAJ URS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NO.16-D, IV FLOOR, DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN, MILLER TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶15

H.D.CHENNANARASEGOWDA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SRI DEVARAJ URS BACKWARD CLASSES, CORPORATION LIMITED, NO.536, MAHARSHI DAYANANDA SARASWATHI ROAD, SRI PNP LAYOUT, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE-570 023.

¶16

K.N.JAYAMMA, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SRI DEVARAJ URS BACKWARD CLASSES CORPORATION LIMITED, KURUBARA HOSTEL BUILDING, KARNATAKA BANK, OPP:TO NEAR JAYADEVA CIRCLE, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶17

Y.R.BHAKTHAKUCHELA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SRI DEVARAJ URS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NO.16-D, IV FLOOR, DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN, MILLER TANK BED AREA, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶18

K.MANJUNATH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SRI DEVARAJ URS BACKWARD CLASSES CORPORATION LIMITED, JAYANAGAR 1^ST CROSS, NEAR OMKAR BUILDING STUDIO, SHIMOGA-577 201.

¶19

S.N.BANASI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶21

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SRI DEVARAJ URS BACKWARD CLASSES CORPORATION LIMITED, SGSY MARAATA MALIGEGALA BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, NEHRUNAGAR BELGAUM-590 001.

¶22

H.PRAKASH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SRI DEVARAJ URS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NO.16-D, IV FLOOR, DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN, MILLER TANK BED AREA, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI SHARANJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI SWAMY & SRI. SINGH, ADVOCATES FOR R-4 TO R-9)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) QUASH THE SENIORITY LIST OF THE R4 TO 9 (SL. NO.11 TO 15 IN THE SENIORITY LIST) TO THE POST OF DIST. MANAGER PLACING THEM ABOVE THE PETITIONER MARKED AT ANNEXURE -J IN NO. Dehini/Sibbandi/Jepatti/CR-85/2012-2013 DATED 12.2.13, (ii) DIRECT THE R-3 TO PLACE THE PETITIONER AT SL. NO.16 ABOVE THE CONTESTING R-4 TO R- 9 AND TO GIVE PROMOTION TO THE POST OF DIST. MANAGER FROM THE POST OF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AS PER THE SENIORITY OF THE PETITIONER IN THE DEPARTMENT, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION HER DATE OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE AND NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE PUT IN THE RESPECTIVE CADRE AND TO PUBLISH A FRESH SENIORITY LIST.

¶26

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

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has challenged the seniority list published by respondent No.3 bearing No.zÉÃ»¤/¹§âA¢/eÉÃ¥ÀnÖ/¹Dgï-85/2012-

¶32

13 dated 12.02.2013 in respect of cadre of District Manager and

¶33

has sought to quash the seniority of respondent Nos.4 to 9. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to place her at Sl.No.16 above respondent Nos.4 to 9 and to give promotion to the post of District Manager as per seniority.

¶34

The petitioner contends that she joined the services of respondent No.3 as an Assistant Development Officer on 04.05.1998 and her probationary period was declared on 23.07.2001. She contends that in the order declaring probation, her name was found at Sl.No.9. After she completed five years of service as Assistant Development Officer, she was entitled for promotion to the post of Development Officer. Accordingly, she was promoted on 30.09.2006. However, in the order granting promotion as Development Officer, she was placed at Sl.No.13 and respondent Nos.4 to 9 were placed

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶36

above her though they had entered service much later than her. The petitioner contends that she was under bonafide belief that she was promoted along with juniors and should not bother to file any representation. She also alleged that she was misled by her colleagues that she should neither take the things to its logical end nor crave for promotion in the department. Therefore, she claimed that she did not pursue the issue further and continued in the post as Development Officer. The petitioner contends that in the order fixing the pay of the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 9, the names of respondent Nos.4 to 9 were placed above her. She contends that this was an error committed by respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 published a provisional seniority list of Assistant Managers on 29.09.2011 where the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.15, while the names of respondent Nos.4 to 9 were shown above her name. The petitioner purportedly filed objections concerning Smt. M.C. Jayanthikumari and Sri. H.T. Chandrashekar, who were on deputation from KEONICS and posted as Assistant Managers as well as in respect of Sri. K.A. Kamble. She contends that her representation was not considered but her juniors were placed above her. Respondent

¶37

6 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶39

No.3 issued an endorsement dated 30.05.2012 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 published a Memorandum that any objection to the final seniority list should be filed within fifteen days and any objections filed thereafter would not be considered. In the said Memorandum, the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.16, while the names of the respondent Nos.4 to 9 were shown above her. The petitioner again submitted objection to the said Memorandum. However, the respondent No.3 purportedly did not consider the said representation. The respondent No.3 thereafter hurriedly finalized the seniority list dated 12.02.2013 and published final gradation list where the name of the petitioner was again shown at Sl.No.16 ignoring her seniority. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the seniority list prepared and the placement of the respondent Nos.4 to 9 above her.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶41

that in the order declaring the probationary period of the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 9, the name of the petitioner was found at Sl.No.9, while the names of the other private respondents were shown below her. He therefore,

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶44

contends that in the final seniority list prepared in respect of Assistant Development Officers on 30.09.2006, placing the petitioner below respondent Nos.4 to 9 was improper and it was incumbent upon respondent No.3 to undo the same. He also contends that a seniority list was issued in respect of Development Officers on 21.11.2011 where too, the name of the petitioner was placed below the names of respondent Nos.4 to 9. He thus contends that it was incumbent upon the respondent No.3 to undo this anomaly. Further, he contends that the same mistake was continued even while provisional seniority list was issued as on 01.01.2012 in respect of Assistant Managers. He contends that the petitioner had submitted objections to the said provisional seniority list, which was not considered and final gradation list was issued again placing the petitioner below the respondent Nos.4 to 9. He therefore, contends that the impugned seniority list deserves to be interfered with and the name of the petitioner deserves to be placed above respondent Nos.4 to 9.

¶45

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent

¶46

No.3, who contends that after the petitioner was selected as an Assistant Development Officer, she reported to duty on

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶48

04.05.1998. Later, on declaration of satisfactory completion of the probationary period of all 19 candidates, who were selected along with the petitioner on 04.04.1998, probationary period of 16 candidates was declared. The declaration of probation of other 3 candidates was withheld on account of pendency of enquiries and which was later declared on various dates on conclusion of the enquiries. It is contended that the ranking assigned while declaring probation on 23.08.2001 is neither a gradation list nor a seniority list and it is only a list of declaration of satisfactory completion of probationary period. It is contended that on 30.09.2006, an order was issued by the respondent No.3 promoting 16 officials to the post of Development Officer from the post of First Division Assistant/Assistant Development Officer. It is contended that this promotion was granted on the basis of seniority. Accordingly, the petitioner was assigned that ranking at Sl.No.13. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 were not juniors to the petitioner as contended. It is further contended that for the first time, provisional seniority list of staff of the respondent No.3 in respect of various positions as on 01.01.2011 was notified on 21.11.2011. In so far as list relating to the

¶49

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶50

Development Officers, the petitioner was at Sl.No.15, which was just and proper. It is contended that the petitioner did file objections to this provisional seniority list which was considered

¶51

by the respondent No.3 and an endorsement was issued rejecting her objection on 30.05.2012. It is claimed that the petitioner did not question the said endorsement and the same has attained finality. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 published provisional seniority list on 20.11.2012 in terms of which, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.16 which was not questioned by her by filing any objection. However, the petitioner purportedly filed objections to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Thereafter, the seniority list was finalized on 12.02.2013 where the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.16. The respondent No.3 then issued an official memorandum dated 12.02.2013 declaring officiating period in the cadre of development officer. Therefore, it is contended that the ranking assigned to the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 9 is just and proper and no interference is warranted with the seniority list.

¶52

The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 reiterated the above contentions.

¶53

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶54

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶55

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶56

The service condition of the employees of respondent No.3 is governed by the Karnataka Backward Classes and Minorities Development Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1978. In so far as it relates to seniority of employees of respondent No.3, it provides as follows:-

¶57

"Seniority :- A person appointed in the service of the Corporation will take his rank among other candidates appointed for the same cadre from the date of his/her appointment and also on the basis of the rank as determined by the Selection Committee or the Managing Director as the case may be at the time of selection."

¶58

The promotion from one class to another is also provided therein, which reads as under:-

¶59

"Promotion :-

¶60

(a) Promotions from one Class to another shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶63

(b) Promotions to Class I and II shall be considered by the Board or by a Committee constituted by the Board for the purpose. In case it is by a Committee, it shall consist of not less than three persons, one of whom shall be the Managing Director. The Committee shall make its recommendation on the basis of an assessment of the qualifications, ability and experience of the employee as reflected by his character roll and other service records and prepare a list of candidates fit for promotion and furnish it to the Board together with its recommendations in the order of merit. The Board shall ordinarily make promotions in accordance with the list prepared by the Committee. It shall record its reasons in writing for disagreeing with the recommendations and pass such orders as it deems fit."

¶64

It appears that the petitioner and respondent Nos.4

¶65

to 9 were all recruited under a notification dated 04.04.1998. The petitioner reported to duty on 04.05.1998 prior to respondent Nos.4 to 9 reporting to duty. The claim of the petitioner that since she reported to duty earlier than respondent Nos.4 to 9 and therefore, her seniority has to be fixed above the respondent Nos.4 to 9, does not stand to reason, in as much as the order appointing the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 9 would have granted time for joining.

¶66

12 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶68

If the respondent Nos.4 to 9 have joined later, the only consequence would be that their probation would be declared later than the petitioner. In the case on hand, Annexure - A relied upon by the petitioner to contend that she was placed above respondent Nos.4 to 9 is not a seniority list of Assistant Development Officer but is only a list containing candidates, who had successfully completed their probationary period. This however, cannot be the basis for fixing the seniority. As a matter of fact, the basis for fixing the seniority is the order of merit in which, the candidates were selected pursuant to the notification dated 04.04.1998. The petitioner, who did not challenge her promotion as a Development Officer on 30.09.2006 in terms of which, the respondent Nos.4 to 9 were placed above her, cannot be allowed to challenge the promotion granted to the respondent Nos.4 to 9 to the post of Development Officer and placing them above her. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is filed on a wrong premise that the petitioner was senior than respondent Nos.4 to 9 and that she was entitled to be placed above respondent Nos.4 to 9.

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:9666 WP No. 10398 of 2013

¶70

13 -

¶71

In that view of the matter, no indulgence is warranted to disturb the seniority list prepared by the respondent No.3 in respect of post of Development Officer.

¶72

Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶75

PMR

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt. Sujatha N.G v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sujatha N.G v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinutha K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rudraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Ramesh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka Represented

Sri.B.N.Shivaprakasha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Zarina Begum Vs Karnataka State

Sri C Surendra Hegde Vs Pragathi Gramin Bank