Seema. K. P. Vs Transport Department — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Seema. K. P. Vs Transport Department — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of Certiorari ordered: the Endorsement dated 19.11.2020 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-K is quashed, and the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the third respondent vide Annexure-Q is quashed as far as respondents 9 and 10 are concerned; interim order (if any) stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications disposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Class-I (Senior), could be rejected or overlooked on the sole ground that she possesses a B.E. (Industrial Production) degree rather than the B.E. (Mechanical) degree specified in the recruitment rules. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Class-I (Senior), could not have been rejected or overlooked on the sole ground that she possessed a B.E. (Industrial Production) degree instead of the B.E. (Mechanical) degree specified in the recruitment rules.

Ratio / Principle

The question of equivalence of B.E. (Industrial Production) with B.E. (Mechanical) was answered by this Court in the earlier proceedings (W.P.No.45968/2003) and has attained finality; consequently the Corporation is estopped from raising any contention about equivalence or denying that the petitioner possesses the requisite B.E. (Mechanical) qualification for promotion, and cannot equate her case with that of others.

Key takeaways

By virtue of its prior acceptance of the equivalence criteria, the Corporation incurred a legal obligation - an implied contract by conduct - to accept and promote the petitioner; it is bound by its conduct.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - KSRTC promotion - Post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Class-I (Senior) - Recruitment rules prescribe a Degree in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering - Petitioner, holding B.E. (Industrial Production), was selected as Assistant Mechanical Engineer after VTU clarified B.E. (IP) equivalent to B.E. (Mechanical) and this Court, in W.P.No.45968/2003, directed her appointment; equivalence thereby attained finality - Corporation estopped from denying promotion for want of B.E. (Mechanical); its prior acceptance of the equivalence criteria creates a legal obligation/an implied contract by conduct to accept and promote her - Denial effected through Endorsement dt.19.11.2020 (Annexure-K) and Order dt.26.06.2024 (Annexure-Q, qua respondents 9 and 10) set aside by certiorari - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 allowed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18071 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SEEMA K.P., WIFE OF RAVINDRA M.RAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 203, 'E' BLOCK, PRESTIGE ST. JHONS APARTMENT, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 029.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

THE ESTABLISHMENT SECTION (EMPLOYEE), KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EMPLOYEE MANAGER.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

SRI. CHANDU K., AGE NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALYANA KARNATAKA SARIGE NIGAMA, KALABURGI - 585 101.

SRI. AMALINGAIAH P.HOSA POOJARY, AGE NOT KNOWN, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLING OFFICER, KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION, PUTTUR - 574 201.

SMT. ASHALATHA K., AGE NOT KNOWN, DIVISIONAL CONTROLLING OFFICER, BMTC, SOUTH DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

SMT. RAJEEVLOCHANA, AGE NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY LABOUR AND WELFARE OFFICER, BMTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

SMT. CHAITHRA K.S., AGE NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, BMTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

SRI. SURYAKANTHA S., AGE NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY CHIEF STAFF MANAGER,

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

BMTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R1; SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2024, NOTICE TO R5 TO R8 DISPENSED WITH; R9 AND R10 ARE SERVED THROUGH HANDSOMMONS AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.11.2025, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajendra.K.R., AGA for respondent No.1 and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for respondents 2 to 4, have appeared in person.

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 09.07.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 9 and 10 are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

2. The short facts are these:

The Corporation published a recruitment notification for the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineer. In the notification, it was specifically mentioned as to the qualification that one must be a graduate in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering or an equivalent degree. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineer; she was one of the successful candidate in the objective test, and her name was reflected in the general merit women category. Further, the petitioner would also have been considered under the II-A category for women, if she were not considered a general merit candidate. Based on the results of the objective test, the petitioner was informed that her name

was included in the select list of candidates eligible for appointment in pursuance of the notification and was further directed to appear before the Committee. The Petitioner appeared before the Committee, which was satisfied that the petitioner is physically fit for the post and also verified the original documents, which were also in order. Later, the petitioner learnt that her name was deleted from the select list

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

finally published. The petitioner approached the second respondent, and she was informed that a clarification is required for the educational qualification she possesses, and was advised to approach the VTU, Belagum. The clarification was issued by the Registrar of the VTU to the effect that VTU would consider the B.E. (IP) as equivalent to B.E. (Mechanical). Despite submission of the clarification, the second respondent has not appoint the petitioner and having no other option, preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in No.45968/2003, upon hearing the parties, this Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner pursuant to the earlier selection list published by them within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.45968/2003, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Class-II, on a probationary period for two years. On satisfactory completion of the period of probation, the services of the petitioner were confirmed, and it was clearly mentioned in the confirmation order that the petitioner's

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

promotion and salary would be subject to cadre and recruitment rules. The petitioner requested the second respondent to fix her seniority for all purposes based on merit. The fourth respondent, based on the marks secured by the petitioner, held that the petitioner is required to be relegated between Mr.Kiran Kumar and Mr.Santhosh Sajjan and to be counted against the general merit (women) vacancy of Smt.M.N.Mahalakshmi, who had resigned from her job. In 2011, the respondents drew up a state-wise provisional seniority list of Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Class-II, with reference to the quota rule based on the length of the service in a particular post, for the purpose of effecting promotions to the next higher post. In view of the order passed in Writ Petition and other orders, the name of the petitioner was included in the final seniority list at Sl.No.109 by modifying the provisional seniority list. The petitioner was promoted as Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Class-I (Junior) in Central Office until further orders.

Pursuant to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the order second respondent,

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

Mr.Siddalingesh and Mr.Lakshman.S were promoted as Deputy

Chief Engineer, Class-I Senior from Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Class-I (Junior) by the fourth respondent, despite there being two more vacancies. The petitioner submitted a representation and requested the second respondent to consider her name for promotion to the remaining vacancies. The case of the petitioner was considered by the respondents, and an endorsement was issued rejecting her representation. Aggrieved by the endorsement, the petitioner filed representations and requested to consider her claim be considered in the teeth of the orders passed in W.P.No.45968/2003. In 2024, the respondents drew up a state-wise provisional seniority list of Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Class-II, with reference to the quota rule based on the length of the service in a particular post, for the purpose of effecting promotions to the next higher post and in the abovementioned seniority list, the petitioner is placed at Sl.No.7 for promotion. As per the Seniority List, the petitioner is placed at Sl.No.7, the ninth respondent at Sl.No.8 and the tenth respondent at Sl.No.10.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

The Department Promotional Committee met, and the petitioner failed to muster promotion. The petitioner was given to understand that her official claim was overlooked solely on the ground that she possesses B.E (Industrial Production), not B.E (Mechanical), as per the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer, Class-I (Senior). Respondents 5 to 10 are promoted by overlooking the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

Urging several connections, Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, counsel, submits that the action on the part of the Corporation in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for the promotion is unsustainable, and hence he submits that the endorsement may be quashed and the order at Annexure-Q may be quashed as far as respondents 9 and 10 are concerned and the Writ Petition may be allowed.

Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that for promotion to the post of Deputy

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

Chief Mechanical Engineer (Class-I Senior), two conditions must be satisfied, i.e., (i) must have rendered a service of not less than three (3) years as a class-I officer in the Mechanical Engineering Department or with lien in the Mechanical Engineering Department. (ii) A Degree in Automobile / Mechanical Engineering from a University established by Law. It has been contended on behalf of the Corporation that the petitioner does not fulfil the second qualification to consider her request to promote as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, since she does not possess a degree in Mechanical Engineering / Automobile Engineering. She argued by saying that the applications would be invited to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Class-I Senior) by direct recruitment also and the same qualifications are prescribed for those who intend to apply for the said post by direct recruitment. Hence, the Corporation cannot relax the conditions for those who are required to be promoted by promotion.

Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care.

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

This is an interesting case of a promotion claim

rejection. This case offers a particularly instructive example of a promotion claim. The petitioner's claim for promotion has been rejected/overlooked solely on the ground that she possessed a B.E. (Industrial Production) degree, rather than the B.E. (Mechanical) degree specified in the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Class-I (Senior). The facts are sufficiently said, and they do not require reiteration. As there were some issues regarding the equivalence of a degree in B.E. in Industrial Production and a degree in B.E. in Mechanical Engineering, and despite the clarification by the VTU that Industrial Production Engineering is

a branch of Mechanical Engineering, she was not appointed. However, after the passing of the order in W.P.No.45968/2003,

she was appointed as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer, and after the completion of probation, her service was confirmed. Taking note of the equivalence, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Divisional Mechanical Engineer. When it came to the next promotion, i.e., for the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Class-I (Senior), her official claim for promotion was disregarded purely because she possessed a

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

B.E. (Industrial Production) degree, which did not align with the

recruitment rules specifying a B.E. (Mechanical) as a prerequisite for the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer role. In my view, the petitioner's claim could not have been rejected/overlooked on this ground. The reasons are simple and apparent. The issue about equivalence has been answered by this Court, and the same has attained finality. Hence, the Corporation is estopped from taking up any contentions about the equivalence, much less a B.E. in Industrial Production is not equivalent to a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering. Hence, I maintain that the Corporation is legally estopped from arguing that the petitioner does not possess a B.E. (Mechanical) degree to be promoted as the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Class-I (Senior). Having accepted the equivalence criteria, the Corporation cannot equate the petitioner's case with that of others and thus the Corporation is estopped from denying the petitioner's eligibility for promotion. I may venture to say that by virtue of its prior acceptance of the equivalence criteria, the Corporation has a binding obligation to accept and promote the petitioner. The corporation is bound by its conduct.

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48167 WP No. 18071 of 2024

HC-KAR

To conclude, I can say only this much that the Corporation's acceptance of the equivalence criteria creates a legal obligation, an implied contract by conduct, to accept and promote the petitioner.

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Endorsement dated:19.11.2020 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-K is quashed and the order dated:26.06.2024 passed by the third respondent vide Annexure-Q is quashed as far as respondents 9 and 10 are concerned.

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

MRP List No.1 : Sl.No.1

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE