Sri.Kumar H.J v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2025WP/12531/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches in writ jurisdiction; belated challenge (filed 2021) to promotion order dated 18.11.2005 granting retrospective promotion from 31.12.1998; seniority of Head Masters, Subject Inspectors and Assistant Education Officers, BBMP; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; reliance on U.P. Power Corporation v. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225; writ dismissed on the ground of delay; Karnataka High Court, single judge (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.), 11-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.11.2005 was challenged by the petitioner for the first time in 2021, after a lapse of six years; there is a delay in approaching the Court. ¶38

Sri.Kumar H.J Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:36131 WP No. 12531 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12531 OF 2021 (S-PRO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.KUMAR H.J S/O JAVARAIAH AGED 55 YEARS CURRENTLY WORKING AS SUBJECT INSPECTOR EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BBMP N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-01.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-01.

¶16

SRI.MUNISHAMAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 56 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER BBMP, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M A SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: SRI D C JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36131 WP No. 12531 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROMOTION ORDER NO: B12(3)/PR-243/05-06 DATED:18.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

¶26

the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ of like nature and quash the promotion order bearing B12(3)/PR-243/05-06 dated 18.11.2005 issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-D to the writ petition;

¶28

(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ of like nature and quash the seniority list bearing No.B12(3)PR/94/2000-01/2019-20 of Head Masters, Subject Inspectors and Assistant Education Officers, dated 01.01.2021 issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-K to the writ petition;

¶29

(c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ of like nature and quash the office order dated 16.06.2021 bearing No.B12(3)PR/86-2020-21

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36131 WP No. 12531 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

issued by the second respondent vide Annexure L to the writ petition.

¶33

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature and direct the respondent No.2 to redo the seniority list by assigning the proper seniority to the petitioner by placing him above the third respondent and also to give all consequential benefits.”

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner

¶35

and the third respondent have been given promotion vide Annexure-C dated 16.06.2004 as Head Masters. Thereafter, by order dated 18.11.2005 (Annexure-D) the promotion given to the third respondent has been modified and it has been given with retrospective promotion from 31.12.1998. That order has not been challenged by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide Annexure-G dated 14.10.2015, the promotion given to the petitioner has been modified giving retrospective promotion from 16.06.2004. That order has been accepted by the petitioner and he has not challenged the same. For the first time, the order dated 18.11.2005 has been challenged by the petitioner in the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36131 WP No. 12531 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

year 2021. After a lapse of six years, he has filed this writ petition challenging the same. There is a delay in approaching this Court.

¶39

In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND

¶40

OTHERS vs. RAM GOPAL reported in (2021) 13 SCC

¶41

225 has considered this issue. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:

¶42

“11. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:36131 WP No. 12531 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus : (SCC p. 485, para 17)

¶47

“17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. … It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.””

¶48

On the ground of delay itself, this writ petition

¶49

is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51

CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40

Sri.Kumar H.J v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Kumar H.J v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. H R Bhagavan Vs L I C of India

Smt Preethi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jayanand Gotur Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State City Corporations Employees Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Munishamappa Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt Usha H C Vs the State of Karnataka