Dismissed¶52

Sri. Nagesh C. R. v. State of Karnataka

Service law – retrospective dating of appointment

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025WP/12939/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: date of entry into service; retrospective/ante-dated appointment; seniority from recruitment notification; arrears of salary; consequential monetary benefits; appointment pursuant to Court's direction versus open recruitment; Jungle Lodge and Resort Ltd.; Jungle Lodges Recruitment Rules, 1998 (Chapter II bye-laws); relaxation of upper age limit; Articles 226 and 227 — certiorari and mandamus; W.P.Nos.43709-43711/2012, 44204/2012, 43635/2012; High Court of Karnataka; Justice R. Nataraj; dismissed on 08.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

The appointment of the petitioners by order dated 22.01.2015 was pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, and not pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents. ¶47

Sri. Nagesh C. R. Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

From what date should the petitioners' entry into service be reckoned — the date of the recruitment notification (26.04.2011) or the dates other selectees were appointed (11.08.2011 and 28.09.2011) — notwithstanding that their own appointment pursuant to the Court's direction dated 08.07.2014 materialised only on 22.01.2015? +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the Court's direction rather than pursuant to the recruitment notification, they cannot contend that their date of entry into service should be reckoned from 11.08.2011 or 28.09.2011.

¶50

Key takeaways

Under the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, including arrears of salary and consequential monetary benefits.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — retrospective dating of appointment — Karnataka HC, single judge (R. Nataraj, J.), W.P.No.12939/2019 (S-RES), decided 08.04.2025: Three contract employees of Jungle Lodge and Resort Ltd. (Driver appointed 25.05.2005; General Utility Worker 01.06.2006; Assistant Store Keeper 01.07.2004) who failed to secure appointment in the April 2011 recruitment (notification dated 26.04.2011) obtained an order dated 08.07.2014 in W.P.Nos.43709-43711/2012 and connected writs directing the respondents to consider appointing them with relaxation of the upper age limit as permissible under the Jungle Lodges Recruitment Rules, 1998; they were appointed vide order dated 22.01.2015 in view of past service. They thereafter impugned four orders/endorsements (19.07.2016, 13.10.2016, 26.10.2016, 23.02.2017) rejecting their demand that service be counted from 26.04.2011 or from 11.08.2011/28.09.2011 with arrears of salary and consequential monetary benefits. HELD (ratio): their appointment was pursuant to the Court's direction, not pursuant to the notification; the date of entry into service cannot be reckoned from 11.08.2011 or 28.09.2011; the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. Petition dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12939 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NAGESH C.R. S/O SRI. RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER OF THE SAPARI VEHICLE AT BANNERUGHATTA NATURE CAMP, R/AT JUNGLE LODGE AND RESORTS, BANNERUGHATTA NATURE CAMP, BANNERUGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 083.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. BASAVARAJ H.R. S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS GENERAL UTILITY WORKER AT JUNGLE LODGE AND RESORTS KYATHADEVARAYANAGUDI CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT R/AT HONAGANUR VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.

¶10

SRI. M. MANJUNATH S/O SRI. G.C.MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT STEWARD AT BANNERUGATTA NATURE CAMP BANNERUGHATTA BENGALURU - 560 083 R/AT BOLARE VILLAGE AND POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 082.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P, ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

JUNGLE LODGE AND RESORT LTD., (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) NO.49, WEST WING, GROUND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶17

JUNGLE LODGE AND RESORT LTD., (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) NO.49, WEST WING, GROUND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR

¶18

JUNGLE LODGE AND RESORT LTD., (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) BANNERGATTA NATURE CAMP BANNERGATTA BENGALURU - 560 083 REP. BY RESIDENT MANAGER

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶21

SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.AVVNO:290(C)/2012-13/628 DATED 19.07.2016 VIDE ANENXURE-G1, ENDORSEMENT NO.AVVNO:CS-290(C)/2012-13/1109 DATED 13.10.2016 VIDE ANENXURE-G3, ORDER NO.AVVNO:CS290(C)/2012-13/1155 DATED 26.10.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶24

ENDORSEMENT NO.AVVNO/CS/290(P)/2012-13/1650 DATED 23.02.2017 VIDE ANENXURE-H2 IN SO FAR AS NON-APPOINTING THE PETITIONER NO.1 WITH EFFECT FROM 11.08.2011 AND THE PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 WITH EFFECT FROM 28.09.2011 AND NON-GRANTING SALARY AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.CªÀ«¸ÀA:¹±Á-290(¹)/201213/628 dated 19.07.2016, endorsement bearing No.CªÀ«¸ÀA:¹±Á-

¶28

290(¹)/2012-13/1109 dated 13.10.2016, order bearing No. CªÀ«¸ÀA:¹±Á-290(¹)/2012-13/1155 dated 26.10.2016 and

¶29

endorsement bearing No.CªÀ«¸ÀA/¹±Á/290( � )/2012-13/1650 dated 23.02.2017 in so far as it relates to not giving benefit of the appointment with effect from 11.08.2011 in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned and from 28.09.2011 in so far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned and to grant arrears of salary and consequential monetary benefits. They have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to give

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶31

effect to the appointment of the petitioners pursuant to the direction of this Court with effect from 11.08.2011 and 28.09.2011. They have also sought for a declaration that the

¶32

order dated 08.07.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.43709-43711/2012 and connected cases for appointment of the petitioners is with effect from 11.08.2011 and 28.09.2011 and that they are entitled for all consequential monetary benefits.

¶33

The petitioners submit that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Driver on 25.05.2005 on contract basis, petitioner No.2 was appointed as General Utility worker on 01.06.2006 on contract basis and petitioner No.3 was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper on 01.07.2004 on contract basis, by the respondents. The respondents continued to extract the work from the petitioners on exploitative terms and that they were not regularized though they were working in vacant sanctioned posts. The petitioners contend that after several years of work, the respondents called for fresh appointments to the same posts, where the petitioners were working, during April, 2011. The petitioners also applied for the posts of Driver, General Utility Worker and Assistant Steward. The petitioners contend

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶35

that though they had all the experience, the respondents did not appoint them. The petitioners therefore, were constrained to approach this Court in W.P.Nos.43709-43711/2012, 44204/2012 and 43635/2012. This Court in terms of the order dated 08.07.2014, directed the respondents to consider appointing the petitioners. After the said writ petitions were disposed off, the respondents lay low and did not consider the appointment of the petitioners immediately but after a long lull, issued an Official Memorandum dated 22.01.2005 and appointed the petitioners. The petitioners contend that they were entitled for the services to be counted from the date the recruitment notification was issued i.e., on 26.04.2011 or atleast from 11.08.2011 and 28.09.2011 when other employees were appointed. The petitioners therefore, submitted representations dated 17.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 with the respondents. After the petitioners completed their successful period of probation, the respondent No.2 issued an order fixing their salary. The petitioners contend that they had submitted representations to the respondent No.2 seeking monetary benefits from 11.08.2011. However, the said

¶36

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶37

representations were rejected by the respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court in W.P.Nos.43709-43711/2012, W.P.No.44204/2012 and W.P.No.43635/2012, noticed that the respondents therein had indulged in several irregularities in the recruitment process, had directed the respondents to consider issuing appointment orders to the petitioners. He therefore, contends that the selection/appointment of the petitioners must have been with effect from the date of recruitment notification or atleast from the date when others were appointed on 11.08.2011 and 28.09.2011. He contends that if the aforesaid is granted, the petitioners would be entitled to benefits. Hence, he prays that the petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to treat the date of entry of the petitioners into service as 11.08.2011 and 28.09.2011 and grant consequential benefits.

¶39

The petition is opposed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 who contended that the coordinate Bench of this Court noticed that the petitioners were working for a long time and that after

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶42

noticing that many of the petitioners were barred by age for employment under the State, opined that relaxation of upper limit had to be given to the candidates as permissible under rules and byelaws. Therefore, this Court without going into the question whether there was any irregularity or not, directed the respondents to consider appointing the petitioners. It is therefore, contended that the respondents following the directive of this Court, had issued appointment orders on 22.01.2015. Therefore, it is contended that the claim of the petitioners that their entry into the services should be reckoned from 11.08.2011 and 28.09.2011, is without any basis.

¶43

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 reiterated the above contentions.

¶44

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supported the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶45

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶46

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶47

A perusal of the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.43709-43711/2012 and connected cases shows that this Court after noticing that the qualification prescribed in the recruitment notification was in the light of the bye-laws in Chapter II of the Jungle Lodges Recruitment Rules, 1998. This Court also noticed that the respondents have no authority to select persons, who do not have the requisite qualifications and have crossed the upper age limit. This Court noticed that some of the applicants, who had applied were all age barred and were working with the respondents for a long time and therefore, was of the opinion that the relaxation of upper age limit had to be granted as permissible under Rules and bye-laws. This Court therefore, without going into the question whether there were irregularities in the appointments or not, directed the respondents to consider appointing the petitioners. The respondents have thereafter issued order dated 22.01.2015 appointing the petitioners particularly in view of their past service. Therefore, it can safely be held that the appointment of the petitioners was not pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents but was pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the petitioners cannot

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:15141 WP No. 12939 of 2019

¶50

try to exploit the situation by contending that their date of entry into service should be reckoned from 11.08.2011 or 28.09.2011. Under the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶51

Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and is

dismissed .

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Four rejections of the petitioners' representations claiming benefit of appointment with effect from 11.08.2011 (petitioner No.1) and 28.09.2011 (petitioner Nos.2 and 3) together with salary arrears and consequential monetary benefits: order No.AVVNO:290(C)/2012-13/628 dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure-G1), endorsement No.AVVNO:CS-290(C)/2012-13/1109 dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure-G3), order No.AVVNO:CS290(C)/2012-13/1155 dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure-H) and endorsement No.AVVNO/CS/290(P)/2012-13/1650 dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-H2).¶22
Respondent No.3 · 19.07.2016; 13.10.2016; 26.10.2016; 23.02.2017
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.1 appointed as Driver on contract basis on 25.05.2005 by the respondents.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.2 appointed as General Utility Worker on contract basis on 01.06.2006 by the respondents.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner No.3 appointed as Assistant Store Keeper on contract basis on 01.07.2004 by the respondents.¶33
Prior proceeding
During April 2011 the respondents called for fresh applications to the same posts in which the petitioners were working; the petitioners applied (for Driver, General Utility Worker and Assistant Steward) but, despite their experience, were not appointed.¶33
Prior proceeding
Recruitment notification issued on 26.04.2011, the date from which the petitioners claimed their services should be counted.¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.43709-43711/2012, W.P.No.44204/2012 and W.P.No.43635/2012.¶35
Prior proceeding
By order dated 08.07.2014 the Court, having noticed that several applicants were age-barred but had long past service, opined that relaxation of the upper age limit had to be granted as permissible under Rules and bye-laws.¶47
Prior proceeding
By the same order dated 08.07.2014 the Court, without going into the question whether there were irregularities in the appointments, directed the respondents to consider appointing the petitioners.¶47
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to that direction, the respondents issued order dated 22.01.2015 appointing the petitioners, particularly in view of their past service.¶47
Prior proceeding
Petitioners' account records that after the 2014 writ petitions were disposed of, the respondents issued an Official Memorandum appointing them — printed as 'dated 22.01.2005', inconsistent with the appointment orders dated 22.01.2015 recorded elsewhere (apparent typographical error, reproduced as printed).¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioners submitted representations dated 17.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 to the respondents.¶35
Prior proceeding
After the petitioners completed their period of probation, respondent No.2 issued an order fixing their salary.¶35
Prior proceeding
The petitioners' representations seeking monetary benefits from 11.08.2011 were rejected by respondent No.3, giving rise to the impugned orders/endorsements.¶37

Sri. Nagesh C. R. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagesh C. R. v. 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

Vishwanath S K Vs the State of Karnataka

K.R. Shreyanka Vs Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director

Ramesh Parameshwararappa Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Mayanna Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H. Rebecca Nesamani Vs the Government of Karnataka

Kumari Sangeetha T R Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation