Sri K S Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. K. S. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SHANKARNARAYANA SHARMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, CHUNCHANAGUPPE CIRCLE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, AND RESIDING AT 148, 4^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, R.K.LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. A. VISHWANATH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M NAGARAJAN., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39677-DB WP No. 33277 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU REGION, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.09.2023 IN A.No.2451/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-C INSOFAR AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE REJECTION OF THE SECOND PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER FOR DIRECTION TO CONSIDER HIS CASE FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF DEPUTY TAHSILDAR AND TO ALLOW A.No.2451/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT BENGALURU; (ii) PASS SUCH OTHER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39677-DB WP No. 33277 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶31

The petitioner, who was working as a Village Accountant, has suffered the penalty of compulsory retirement but he has successfully carried such order in his Application No.2953/2019 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ‘ the Tribunal’ ]. This is the first round of litigation, and the second round of litigation is with the petitioner filing an application with the Tribunal for directions

¶32

to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District [ the third respondent ] to open the sealed cover and give effect to the decision to promote him to the post of Revenue Inspector with effect from 06.01.2014. The petitioner has succeeded in his Application No.2451/2023 even insofar as this

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39677-DB WP No. 33277 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

request, and the Tribunal's order is dated 29.09.2023

¶36

[ Annexure-C ].

¶37

The continuation of the second round of

¶38

litigation is because the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's request for further promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar with effect from 16.08.2021. The petitioner contends that with the compulsory retirement being set aside, and he being admitted to promotion as FDC/Revenue Inspector, he is entitled for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar with effect from 16.08.2021 - the date on which his immediate junior is promoted. The Tribunal has rejected this request essentially for the reason that reads as under:

¶39

"It is the contention of the applicant that his junior in the VA cadre who has been promoted to the FDA/RI cadre on 06-01-2014 has been further promoted to the Dy.Tahsildar cadre. To be promoted to the cadre of Dy.Tahsidldar, the applicant not only has to belong to the feeder cadre but also has to fulfill the eligibility

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39677-DB WP No. 33277 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

criteria of minimum years of service rendered in the feeder cadre."

¶43

Sri N. Nagarajan and Sri A. Vishwanath

¶44

Bhat, the learned counsels for the petitioner, relying upon the Karnataka Government (Revenue Subordinate Branch) (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1977 [for short, 'the Rules' ], contend that for promotion to the posts of Deputy Tahsildars from amongst the FDC [ including the Revenue Inspectors ] no minimum tenure in the feeder cadre is stipulated and it is only when promotion is for Stenographers as the Deputy Tahsildar that there is such stipulation.

¶45

The learned counsels canvass that initially the Rules contemplated filling up 98% posts of the Deputy Tahsildar [and Shirastedar] by promotion from the cadre of FDC including Revenue Inspectors and the next 2% posts by promotion from the cadre of Stenographers who have worked as FDC/Revenue Inspector at least for one year and that

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39677-DB WP No. 33277 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

these Rules have been amended subsequently; and insofar as the recruitment by promotion from the cadre of FDC/Revenue Inspector, the only change is the decrease from 98% to 95% with a consequential change in the posts for promotion from the cadre of Stenographers.

¶49

Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of these submissions. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there cannot be a positive direction, and the concerned authority must examine all the circumstances and decide on whether indeed the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of the Deputy Tahsildar and the date from which such promotion should be.

¶50

The Initial and the amended Rules read

¶51

as under:

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:39677-DB WP No. 33277 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

*Category of Posts*	*Method of Recruitment*	*Minimum* *qualification*
1	2	3
Deputy Tahsildars and Sheristedars	(i) [Ninety- eight percent¹] by promotion from the cadre of First Division Clerks including Revenue Inspectors (ii) [Two per cent²] by promotion from the cadre of Stenographers who must have worked as FDC/ Revenue Inspector at least for one year [Note- The above item shall be read as if for a period of one year after the commencement of the Karnataka Revenue Subordinate Branch Services (Recruitment) Amendment) rules, 1981, the words " who must have worked as First Division Clerks/ Revenue Inspectors at least for one year" occurring therein had been omitted].	Must have passed S.S.L.C Examination or equivalent qualification
Stenographers	(i) Sixty-six and two thirds percent by direct recruitment in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Recruitment to the posts of Stenographers, Junior Stenographers and	[xxxxx]

¶56

1 Subsequently amended vide Notification dated 10.11.1986 substituting the figures 98% with 95%.

¶57

2 Subsequently amended vide Notification dated 10.11.1986 substituting the figures 2% with 5%.

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39677-DB WP No. 33277 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Typists) Rules, 1977.
(ii) Thirty-three and one-
third percent by
promotion from the
cadre of Junior
Stenographers and
Typists on the basis of
combined gradation
list.

¶61

This Court is inclined to accept this

¶62

position. The Tribunal could not have rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the minimum tenure in the feeder cadre because, indisputably, as seen on a bare of the Rules and the amendments thereto, there is no stipulation of a minimum service in the feeder cadre when the person to be promoted is from the cadre of FDC/ Revenue Inspectors. However, the Authorities must consider different aspects such as the date on which the petitioner's immediate junior is promoted. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39677-DB WP No. 33277 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

ORDER

¶66

[a] The petition stands disposed of setting aside the Tribunal's order dated 29.09.2023 in Application Number No.2451/2023 [ Annexure-C ] is set aside.

¶67

[b] The second respondent [ the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Region ] is directed to consider the petitioner's request for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar with effect from 16.08.2021 or such other date depending, amongst others, on the date upon which his immediate junior is promoted.

¶68

[c] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent within four [4] weeks, and the second respondent shall consider and communicate the decision to the petitioner

¶69