A. Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

A. Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No quashing of the promotion orders; the challenge to the promotions of respondent Nos.6 to 12 was rejected for delay and laches. Liberty given to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for promotion to the next higher cadre, which the respondents are to consider if he is otherwise qualified and eligible.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed in January 2025 challenging promotion orders of respondent Nos.6 to 12 passed in 2013, 2020 and August 2024, is maintainable in view of delay and laches. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition suffers from delay and latches: promotions of respondent Nos.6 to 12 were passed in 2013, 2020 and August 2024, yet the petitioner approached the Court only in January 2025; consistent with the principle in P.S. Sadashivaswamy relied upon by the Court, the delay disentitles the petitioner to relief.

Ratio / Principle

The challenge to the promotion of respondents is rejected.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is left free to make a representation seeking promotion to the next higher cadre, and the respondents are to consider his case for promotion if he is otherwise qualified and eligible.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service matter – writ petition under Articles 226/227 by a Community Organiser (Town Municipal Council, Bannur) challenging promotion orders elevating respondent Nos.6–12 to Community Affairs Officer, viz. order dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure-F), order dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure-H) and, per the body of the order, promotion order dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure-R), along with a prayer for mandamus to consider his representation dated 23.06.2023 for promotion as Community Affairs Officer w.e.f. 18.06.2013. HELD: The petition, filed in January 2025, suffered from delay and laches; relying on P.S. Sadashivaswamy v/s State of Tamil Nadu (Apex Court) – even the shortest delay disentitles a petitioner to relief – the Court rejected the challenge to the promotions. The petitioner was left free to make a representation seeking promotion to the next higher cadre, to be considered by the respondents if he is otherwise qualified and eligible. Petition disposed of accordingly (oral order; S.G. Pandit J.; counsel for petitioner absent).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8153 WP No. 2747 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION NO. 2747 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

A. KUMAR S/O ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS COMMUNITY ORGANISER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BANNUR-571 101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADV. - ABSENT)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO URBAN

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE -560 001.

THE DIRECTOR

DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V V TOWER DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT

MYSORE -570 001.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8153 WP No. 2747 of 2025

THE PROJECT OFFICER DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE-570001.

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BANNUR-571 101.

PRAMASHIVAYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER KOLLEGAL TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOLLEGAL-571440.

MALLESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY GUNDAL PET -571 111 ON DEPUTATION TO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND LIVELIHOOD CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.

8. KAMARAJU

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER PATNA PANCHAYATHA OFFICER BOGADI-570 026 MYSORE DISTRICT.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8153 WP No. 2747 of 2025

9. VEENA

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL NAGAMANGALA-571 432 MANDYA DISTRICT.

10. NAGENDRA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER HOOTGHALLI CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MYSORE -570 018.

11. ANANDAPPA G

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER AJJAMPUR -577 547.

12. SUDHARSHAN C.S.

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER HUNSUR TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HUNSUR – 571105.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 05/07/2013 BEARING NO. PAU.NL/SIBBANDI/ SA.SAM/MUBANDI/MAI.VO/C.R/65/12-13 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION; B) QUASH THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 30/01/2020 BEARING NO.18981 DMA 01 COG 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8153 WP No. 2747 of 2025

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition was heard at the stage of preliminary hearing on 01.02.2025 and on 20.02.2025.

On the last occasion, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to make his further submission and to place on record certain documents.

Today, when the case is called, learned counsel for

the petitioner is absent in the morning as well as in the afternoon.

On going through the writ petition papers, it is seen that the petitioner has questioned the order of promotion dated 05.07.2013 bearing No.¥Ë¤/¹§âA¢/¸À.¸ÀA./ªÀÄÄA§rÛ/ªÉÄÊ«/

¹Dgï/65/12.13 dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure-F) and promotion order dated 31.08.2024 bearing

No.1117559DMA/EST2/CO/9/2023 (Annexure-R). Further,

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8153 WP No. 2747 of 2025

the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.06.2023 (Annexure-L) and to promote the petitioner for the post of Community Affairs Officer w.e.f. 18.06.2013.

The writ petition suffers from delay and latches. Challenging the orders of promotion of respondent Nos.6 to 12 passed in the years 2013, 2020 and August 2024, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the writ petition in January, 2025.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.S.SADASHIVASWAMY v/s STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS has held that shortest delay also would disentitle the petitioner for any relief.

In the above circumstances, the challenge to promotion of respondents is rejected. It is open for the petitioner to make a representation and seek promotion to the next higher cadre and it is for the respondents to

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8153 WP No. 2747 of 2025

consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if he is otherwise qualified and eligible for promotion.

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25