Sri Mansoor Ahmed Vs the Principal District and Sessions Judge

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9916 WP No. 19759 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19759 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.MANSOOR AHMED, S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT HAYATH MOHALLA, 2^ND CROSS, BESIDES TIPPU SHADI MAHAL, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VENKATESH.R.BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI.AMBARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUITION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2020 PASSED BY RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9916 WP No. 19759 of 2021

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.70/2020, dated 16.07.2020 passed by the respondent, reverting him from the post of Second Division Assistant (henceforth referred to as ‘SDA’) to the post of Process Server.

¶21

2.(i) The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a ‘D’ group employee in the year 1994 and was granted promotion as a Process Server in the year 2004. He was thereafter, promoted as a Second Division Assistant on 22.04.2008. He submitted a representation dated 16.10.2017, requesting the respondent for sanction of an annual increment from the year 2013. The respondent acting on the said representation, passed the impugned order and reverted the petitioner from the cadre of Second Division Assistant to the cadre of Process Server “on his volition” and posted him as a Process Server at Senior Civil Judge and JMFC , Arakalagudu in the existing vacancy.

¶22

3 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:9916 WP No. 19759 of 2021

¶24

(ii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the

¶25

petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had not submitted any representation for voluntary reversion of his post from SDA to Process Server. He therefore contends that the impugned order is passed on the assumption that the petitioner volunteered for reversion of his post. He further contends that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1994 and thereafter, promoted to the post of Process Server and then again to the post of SDA and all that the petitioner requested the respondent was to grant the increments and to exempt him from the requirement of passing the departmental examination. However, the respondent instead of either accepting the request or rejecting it, reverted the petitioner to the post of Process Server. He therefore contends that the impugned order is perverse and warrants interference.

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:9916 WP No. 19759 of 2021

¶29

The respondent has filed statement of objections contending inter alia that the petitioner was promoted as SDA in the year 2019. However, he was bound to pass the Kannada Language Examination under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language examinations) Rules 1974, which was mandatory for the post of the SDA. They contended since the petitioner did not pass the language examination but sought exemption, the impugned order was passed reverting him to the post of process server. Therefore, it is contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶31

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶32

The fact that the petitioner was appointed as a ‘D’ group employee in the year 1994 and was thereafter, promoted as a Process Server in the year 2004 and then as a SDA in the year 2008 is not in dispute. The

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9916 WP No. 19759 of 2021

¶34

representation filed by the petitioner which is annexed to the writ petition does not show that the petitioner volunteered for reversion of his post from SDA to Process Server. On the contrary, the petitioner demanded an increment in view of passing Kannada Language exam in SSLC. He also prayed that the requirement of facing the departmental examination be exempted as he had already attained the age of 45 years. Except this, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had volunteered for reversion of his post from SDA to Process Server. It is now trite that an order challenged before a Court should also contain the reasons for passing the order and the respondent cannot supplement reasons in the statement of objections. There is nothing mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner did not pass the departmental examination and therefore, he was reverted. On the contrary, the reversion seems to be on the assumed ground that the petitioner had volunteered that he may be reverted, which in fact is not correct. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set at naught on this short ground alone. In so far as, the

¶35

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9916 WP No. 19759 of 2021

¶36

contention of the respondent that the petitioner did not pass the Kannada Language Examination, which was prescribed for the post of SDA, it was for the respondent to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, seeking exemption from the requirement. If the petitioner was not qualified for exemption, the respondent was bound to pass appropriate orders regarding reversion.

¶37

In that view of the above, the following order is

¶38

passed:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. This writ petition is allowed .

¶41

ii. The impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside.

¶42

iii. The post of the petitioner as a Second Division Assistant is ordered to be restored.

¶43

iv. It is open for the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for exemption of the requirement to pass the

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9916 WP No. 19759 of 2021

¶45

Kannada Language examination. If the petitioner is not entitled to be exempted then the respondent shall fix the period within which, he should pass the Kannada Language Examination. If the petitioner does not comply with it, it is open for the

¶46

respondent to pass appropriate orders.

¶47

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Mansoor Ahmed v. the Principal District and Sessions Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mansoor Ahmed v. the Principal District and Sessions Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sujatha N.G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.B.N.Shivaprakasha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Zarina Begum Vs Karnataka State

Sri.R.S.Gururaja Vs the Managing Director

Sri Abhinand Vs the Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute

Sri Rangaraju Vs State of Karnataka