Dr K Satyanarayan Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPLICATION No.1902/2012 DATED 23.08.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2011 AS PER ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:31799-DB WP No. 5409 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶37

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Master Secondary

¶38

Education is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2019 in Application No.1902/2012 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (For short 'the Tribunal') where under, the petitioner's request to quash order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-A2) wherein, his representation to consider his case for promotion to the cadre of Lecturer with effect from 29.06.1991 is rejected.

¶39

Heard learned counsel Smt. Beaula Jemima Thilakavathi for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. B.Sukanya Baliga for respondents and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined service in the year 1971 as Graduate Head Master and on 01.08.1986, the petitioner was promoted as lecturer in Sociology was posted to

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31799-DB WP No. 5409 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Government Junior College, Mudbi, Bidar District. As the petitioner was doing research work and as his wife was working in AG's Office at Bengaluru, the petitioner made a representation expressing his inability to accept the promotion and transfer. Thereafter, under order dated 29.06.1991 (Annexure-C), the petitioner was transferred and posted as Lecturer, Government University of Education, Mysore, where the petitioner reported and that on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1995. The petitioner made a representation seeking promotion to the cadre of Lecturer while he was in service and after his retirement also. Under memo dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-A2), the State Government rejected the request of the petitioner for considering his case for promotion as Lecturer with effect from 29.06.1991 with an observation that the petitioner had refused the promotion in the year 1986. He has lost his right for consideration of his case for promotion. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31799-DB WP No. 5409 of 2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

application. The Tribunal, considering the contentions of the parties under the impugned order dated 23.08.2019, dismissed the application against which the petitioner is before this Court.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner never refused promotion but however, as he was doing some research in education and as his wife was working at Bengaluru, he had requested for retaining the petitioner at Bengaluru by providing appropriate proceedings for which representation was not considered and no reply was issued. Therefore, it is submitted that it cannot be considered as refusal of promotion. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner would be entitled for promotion, whenever the subsequent DPC took place. However, non-consideration of his case, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31799-DB WP No. 5409 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Per contra , learned Additional Government

¶51

Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga would support the order passed by the Tribunal and contends that the petitioner was sleeping over his rights and he has never exercised his right in time. Further, learned AGA would submit that the petitioner refused the promotion granted in the year 1986 and subsequently, he has not become eligible for promotion. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶52

Having heard learned counsels for the parties

¶53

and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶54

Admittedly, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service in the year 1995. To the representation of the petitioner seeking retrospective promotion, the respondent issued endorsement dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-A2), where

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31799-DB WP No. 5409 of 2020

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

under it was made clear that the petitioner has forgot his promotion and a person who has forgotten his promotion would not be entitled for promotion and also observing that the petitioner has already retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. The said endorsement is dated 07.07.2011, whereas the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 2012. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service in the year 1995 and it is also clear from the records that the petitioner refused the promotion as Lecturer in the year 1986. Subsequently, the petitioner has not agitated with regard to his right for promotion. The petitioner has approached the Tribunal only in the year 2012 after nearly 15 years from the date of his retirement questioning the endorsement dated 07.07.2011.

¶58

The said endorsement was issued pursuance to the consideration of the representation of the petitioner. Repeated representation without agitating the right, Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31799-DB WP No. 5409 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

prescribes one year limitation from the date of cause of action or from the date of the order or the endorsement depending on the facts of each case. The Tribunal under impugned order rightly observed that the petitioner himself had refused the promotion and the petitioner after rejecting his promotion, cannot seek for fixation of pay in the promoted post subsequently.

¶62

We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected .

¶63

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶64

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶65

DDU

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Dr K Satyanarayan Singh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr K Satyanarayan Singh v. the 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

National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (Nimhans) Vs Sri. Muzamil Kamal Pasha

National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (Nimhans) Vs Sri. Shivakumar L H

Sri G S Sathish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Subhan Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Linganna Gundalli Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri Suryakant Kadam Vs the Addl. Chief Secretary to the