Hanamanta Somanakatti Vs the Managing Director

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 8471 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANAMANTA SOMANAKATTI, S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA SOMANAKATTI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.30 GANGABHAVANI LAYOUT, JANGALPALYA, BANNERUGHATTA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 083.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI V.S.NAIK AND THIPPESWAMY J.R., ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC AND THE CHAIRMAN FOR AUTONOMOUS COMMITTEE, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD,

¶13

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE -560 027.

¶15

THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶16

BHARATHI KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BASAVARAJA JALAPUR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT, BMTC, DEPOT-41, GUNJAR, BANGALORE - 560 087.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GENERAL TRANSFER ORDER BEARING NO.KARASA/KEKA/ADALITHA/SENI/ 537(VUKA)163/ 2024-25 DATED 30.12.2024 IN SO FAR AS RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 AT SERIAL NOS.1 AND 2 UNDER THE HEAD OF ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT IS CONCERNED ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TRANSFER THE PETITIONER PERMANENTLY TO NWKRTC BY CONSDIERING HIS SENIORITY AS PER THE SENIORITY LIST VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE PETITION ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶31

counsel for respondents.

¶32

This petition is filed by the petitioner - employee seeking to quash the general transfer order dated 30.12.2024 insofar as Respondent Nos.3 and 4 at serial Nos.1 and 2 under the head of 'Assistant Accountant' issued by Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-F and for a writ of mandamus for a direction to Respondent No.1 to transfer the petitioner permanently to NWKRTC by considering his seniority as per the seniority list vide Annexure-D and for other consequential reliefs.

¶33

It is the case of petitioner that he was selected and appointed as a Junior Assistant by the 2^nd respondent Corporation on 4.8.2008 and his services were placed on probation w.e.f. 5.8.2010 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant w.e.f. 3.8.2023 and deputed to work at 2^nd respondent Corporation.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

3.1 It is further case of petitioner that Government

¶37

while exercising its powers conferred under the provisions of Road Transport Corporations Act, issued certain guidelines vide its order dated 9.3.2021 with an object to facilitate the employees under the Grade III and IV to get one time inter-Corporation transfer by constituting Committee headed by the Respondent No.1, based on which Respondent No.1 issued the circular on 26.3.2021 with certain guidelines for transfer of employees from one Corporation to another.

¶38

3.2 It is further case of petitioner that he submitted an online application seeking transfer from BMTC to NWKRTC as a 1^st option and he opted KKRTC and KSRTC as other options. Alongwith it, he submitted the consent letter and application for absorption and seniority as per the guidelines issued in the said Circular.

¶39

3.3 This being the state of affairs, the respondent No.2 prepared seniority list of the Assistant Accountants of Grade-III. In the said seniority list, petitioner is at serial

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

No.57 and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at serial Nos.63 and 58 respectively. Pursuant to the said seniority list, Respondent No.1 published a provisional list of employees who were to be permanently transferred and absorbed with the another Corporation as per their respective option in the applications. In the said list, petitioner's name is found under the head of 'Assistant Accountant' at serial no.3 and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at Serial Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

¶43

3.4 It is further contended that in pursuance thereto, on 30.12.2024 Respondent No.1 published a final list of employees who are eligible to be transferred to other Corporations on their preference, wherein Respondent Nos.3 and 4 found at serial nos.2 and 1 have been transferred to NWKRTC and KKRTC respectively, whereas petitioner is not transferred and his name is not found in the final list. It is the case of petitioner that despite his name listed above the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

seniority list of employees, his name is not found in the

¶48

final list for transfer.

¶49

3.5 It is the further case of petitioner that he has

¶50

undergone operation to his spinal cord and his wife is also suffering from severe backache.

¶51

3.6 Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in the

¶52

present petition aggrieved by not finding his name in the final list of transfer and also aggrieved by the order of transfer of Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are juniors to him as per the seniority list.

¶53

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel - Sri V.S. Naik for petitioner that the impugned order of transfer dated 30.12.2024 insofar as Respondent Nos.3 and 4 at serial nos.2 and 1 under the head 'Assistant Accountant' issued by Respondent No.1 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and the said order is liable to be

¶54

quashed on the ground that the petitioner, who is senior to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the seniority as per the

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

seniority list vide Annexure-D, has not been considered for transfer to the other Corporation. It is also vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that Respondent No.1 has not followed the Government Order dated 9.3.2021 and the guidelines issued by the Corporation for transfer of employees from one Corporation to another Corporation as per the Circular dated 26.3.2021 and has not followed the procedure of seniority in selecting the persons from one Corporation to the other and has committed an error and passed an illegal order by selecting Respondent Nos.3 and 4 instead of the petitioner to the other Corporation though the petitioner is senior to Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶59

4.1 It is further contention of learned counsel for

¶60

petitioner that petitioner was appointed earlier to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and though the promotion of petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 is on the same date, the petitioner's seniority being higher, he is at serial no.57 and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at serial nos.63

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

and 58 respectively in the seniority list and therefore, it is

¶64

the duty and obligation of the respondent - Corporation to have selected the petitioner for transfer ahead of Respondent Nos.3 and 4, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, non-transfer of the petitioner to the Corporation of his choice and transferring Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the Corporation of their choice, is bad in law, illegal and an arbitrary exercise of powers.

¶65

4.2 On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order of transfer insofar as Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and to issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to transfer the petitioner permanently to NWKRTC by considering his seniority.

¶66

Per contra, learned counsel - Smt. H.R. Renuka, representing the respondent - Corporation contends that

¶67

the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. She contends that inter-transfer of employees from one Corporation to the other is governed

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

by the provisions of Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 with regard to transfer of Class III non-supervisory and Class IV employees subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the Government Order dated 9.3.2021 vide Annexure-A. She further contends that in terms of the Government Order, lending Corporation can transfer maximum employees of 2% of working strength in each cadre to the other Corporations and the receiving Corporation can receive 75% of working strength in each cadre in case of direct recruitment and 50% of the working strength in each cadre in case of promotional posts. Learned counsel further contends that

¶71

the process and procedure for transfer is that service seniority would be considered by preparing a common seniority list based on the date of probation in case of direct recruitment post and date of promotion in the case of promotional posts.

¶72

5.1 Learned counsel for Corporation further contends

¶73

that based on the applications filed by the petitioner and

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and others, the Corporation prepared a seniority list, in which Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were entitled to be transferred on promotion. Learned counsel further contends that infact the common seniority of the Assistant Accountants of all the four Corporations was prepared based on the date of probation/date of promotion in their cadre and in cases relating to date of probation/promotion falls on the same date, their age would be considered for seniority as the older is to be given a preference for request transfer. Learned counsel further contends that this consideration of the process and procedure is based on Rule 7-A of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957. She also contends that there is no manual interference as it is system generated list.

¶77

5.2 Learned counsel further contends that in terms of

¶78

the conditions mentioned in the Government Order, the transfer policy was worked out and it revealed that the petitioner is working at BMTC, which has a cadre strength

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

of 76 in the post of Assistant Accountants, 2% of 76 is

¶83

1.52 and hence the same is rounded off to 2 posts. Therefore, there is a provision to transfer only 2 employees from the BMTC to the other Corporations in the post of Assistant Accountant. Considering this aspect, the petitioner's case was examined and it was found that the petitioner, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 were

¶84

all promoted on the same day i.e., 3.8.2023. Hence, as per the rules, the age of the above employees was considered for transfer. The date of births of Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4 and petitioner are 7.1.1983, 1.6.1983 and 28.4.1984 respectively. Therefore,

¶85

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 being older in age than the petitioner, they were transferred accordingly as per the Government Order and the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957.

¶86

5.3 Learned counsel lastly contends that the

¶87

procedure followed in the impugned inter-Corporation transfer order dated 30.12.2024 is in accordance with the

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Government Order and the rules governing the seniority. Therefore, the contentions putforth by the petitioner, are

¶92

devoid of merit and the petition requires to be dismissed.

¶93

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

¶94

arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent – Corporation.

¶95

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected

¶96

and appointed as Junior Assistant on 5.8.2010 and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were selected and appointed as Junior Assistants in the 2^nd respondent - Corporation on 2.10.2010 and 7.8.2010 respectively. Therefore, it is

¶97

seen that the petitioner was borne in to the Corporation on an earlier date than that of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. No doubt, it is true that all the three viz., petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant on the same day i.e., 3.8.2023. It

¶98

is also not in dispute that date of birth of the petitioner is 28.4.1984, whereas date of birth of Respondent nos.3 and 4 is 7.1.1983 and 1.6.1983 respectively.

¶99

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

In this background, it would be relevant to extract

¶102

Official Memorandum dated 15.1.2000 issued by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vide Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections filed by Respondent No.1, which reads as under:

¶103

"KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES: BANGALORE

¶104

KST.CO.SS.GEN./9899-2000 Dated: 15.1.2000

¶105

OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM

¶106

Sub: Adoption of Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules in KSRTC & Guidelines for preparation of seniority lists thereof.

¶107

Read :

¶108

Notification No.KST.CO.SS.44.86-87 dated 7- 5-86 publishing the Adhoc Seniority/Review List of KSRTC Employees as on 31-12-1982- duly notifying the Guidelines.

¶109

2)Official Memorandum issued by the Government of Karnataka inOfficial Memorandum NO.DPAR.43 SSR.87 dated 14-121987,

¶110

14 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

Guidelines laid down in the proceedings drawn vide No.KST.CO.SS.359 dated 17.12.87.

¶114

Guidelines issued in the Official Memorandum No. KST.CO.SS.GEN 1015.89-90 dated 9/11-11990.

¶115

Guidelines issued in the Official Memorandum No.KST.CO.SS.831.91-92 dated 8-2-1992.

¶116

Board Resolution No.7959 dated 24-9-1999.

¶117

The KSRTC has not formulated seniority Rules to determine the seniority of its servants since inception. But, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.7349 to 7353 (Sri Murugendrappa and others vs KSRTC) seniority guidelines were framed keeping in view the principles prevailed in the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules 1957, Guidelines Issued by the Government in the matter of seniority from time to time and also method of recruitment prescribed in Cadre & Recruitment Regulations 1968 & 1982 and the same have been issued vide references cited from 1 to 5 above. Based on the above guidelines, the seniority of officers and employees of KSRTC from 1-2-1968 to 3112-1982 has been determined on quota rule and block wise basis and published the lists. Thereafter, the amended Cadre & Recruitment

¶118

15 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

Regulations 1982, came into force with effect from 1-1-1983, in that, a ratio has been fixed for promotion and direct recruitment in the guidelines Issued vide No.KST.CO.SS.GEN.1015, dated 9/11-1-1990 to prepare the seniority list of Officers and Officials from 1-1-1983, the ratio fixed in Cadre and Recruitment Regulations has been misconstrued as rotation instead of quota, Accordingly, the seniority lists have been prepared on rotation of vacancies between Promotees and Direct Recruits irrespective of the dates of appointment. While preparing the seniority lists, in various categories as per the instructions in the said official Memorandum dated 11-1-1990 many in consistencies have come up in fixing the seniority between Promotees and Direct Recruits.

¶122

Therefore the matter was examined in depth.

¶123

The Direct Recruitment in the various categories of officers was not held for a considerably long period. The Direct Recruitment in these categories was held in the recent years i.e. 1997 and 1998. While preparing the seniority lists in these categories as per the instructions in the said Official Memorandum, it is experienced that the Direct Recruits appointed very recently gain the seniority above

¶124

16 -

¶125

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

the promotees who have rendered several years of service. Such injustice can be avoided by following the quota rule as prevailing in the State Government.

¶128

For the above purpose, it was found appropriate and necessary to adopt the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 and the Guidelines issued by the Government of Karnataka vide No DPAR 43 SSR 27 dated 14-12-1987 and also any further amendments issued by the State Government from time to time. Accordingly, the Corporation Board vide Resolution No.7959 dated 24-9-1999 has accorded approval to adopt the above provisions in KSRTC with prospective effect.

¶129

The following rules prevailing in Government Servants (Seniority) Rules 1957 are adopted in KSRTC.

¶130

1-A: Nothing in these rules shall be applicable to any person appointed as a local candidate so long as he is treated as such.

¶131

Provided that where his appointment is treated as regularised from any date, his seniority in the service shall be determined in accordance with these rules as if he had been

¶132

17 -

¶133

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

appointed regularly as per the rules of recruitment to the post held by him on that day.

¶136

Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained the seniority of person in a particular cadre of service or class of post shall be determined as follows:-

¶137

(a) Officers appointed substantively in clear vacancies shall senior to all persons appointed on officiating or any other basis in the same cadre of service or class of post.

¶138

Explanation:- When an officer otherwise fit for promotion from a particular cadre of service or class of post is not available for promotion on account of deputation, the shortness of the vacancy or other similar reason resulting in his junior in the same cadre of service or class of post being promoted, the senior officer will maintain his seniority in the cadre of the service or class of post to which the promotion has been made. But this promotions will not be applicable to officers, who are not considered fit for promotion. In such cases, a definite decision shall be taken whether the officer who is not available for promotion, would have been promoted to the higher post if he was available.

¶139

18 -

¶140

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

Unless there is a positive decision to supersede, he shall rank for seniority over his junior.

¶143

Where officers are recruited to any service or a class of post by promotion and by direct recruitment, the officers directly recruited will take precedence over the promoted officers in case where the date of appointment is the same.

¶144

When promotion to a class of post of cadre are made on the seniority-cum-merit at the same time, the relative seniority shall be determined.

¶145

(i) If promotions are made from any one cadre or class of post, by their seniority inter se in the lower cadre or class of post.

¶146

(ii) If promotions are made from several cadres or classes of posts of the same grade, by the period of service in those grades.

¶147

(1) The decision regarding the seniority of direct recruits to a service or to a class of post shall be made by the appointing authority at the time of their first appointment in one of the modes mentioned below:

¶148

(a) When the recruitment is made on the result of a competitive examination the order of seniority will be in the order of merit, or

¶149

19 -

¶150

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

(b) When the recruitment is made by selection, the order of seniority will be determined by the order in which the candidates are arranged in order of merit by the appointing authority in consultation with the Public Service Commission or other authority making the selection.

¶153

(c) When successful completion of a course of training is prescribed for recruitment to any post, the seniority of those recruited after such training shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit.

¶154

(i) at the examination held at the end of such training.

¶155

OR

¶156

(ii) at the selection for such training when an examination is not held.

¶157

The decision once taken shall be final and shall not be open to revision.

¶158

7-A) (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, seniority inter-se of persons to be included in the State-wise list of seniority consequent upon posts included in the district-wise cadres being included in the State-wise cadre, shall be determined by he total length of continuous

¶159

20 -

¶160

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

service of the official in the district-wise cadre from the Sate of his appointment to such cadre.

¶163

Provided that where two or more persons are appointed to the district-wise cadres on the same date and their total length of continuous service in such cadre is equal, then the inter-se seniority of such persons shall be determined by the authority competent to prepare the Statewise list.

¶164

(1) Where such persons are promoted from a lower cadre, on the basis of their total length of continuous service in the post in the lower cadre from which they were promoted.

¶165

1. There shall be prepared every year for each cadre of service of posts a seniority list consisting of the names of all officers borne on the said class of posts arranged in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions rules.

¶166

A copy of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules 1957 15 appended to the Guidelines for ready reference.

¶167

Guidelines for reckoning the seniority.

¶168

To prepare the seniority lists on Quota Rule basis, the following guide issued:

¶169

21 -

¶170

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶171

HC-KAR

¶172

a) For the purpose of calculating and classifying the vacancies direct recruitment and promotion, on the basis of the quota for recruitment by promotion/Direct recruitment total no vacancies utilised from 24-9-1999 and onwards is to be taken.

¶173

b) For the purpose of calculating and classifying the vacancies promotees and direct recrultee on the basis of the quota, the per taken to form a block is from one recruitment (appointment Recruits) to another, as prescribed in 3(d) of the Official Memorandum Government of Karnataka dated 5-7-1976.

¶174

c) Fitment of promotees and direct recruits to determine the senior block is as prescribed in 3(e) & 3(f) of the official Memorandum 5-7-76. The excess promotees or Direct Recruits remaining from block should first be accommodated in the subsequent blocks a quota meant for them.

¶175

d) The short fall of vacancies in the quota of promotees or Direct recruits, in any block shall be carried forward to the subsequent block and to the respective source of recruitment. But, no promotees or direct recruits of the subsequent

¶176

22 -

¶177

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶178

HC-KAR

¶179

block shall-be-taken and pushed. previous blocks to make good the short fall.

¶180

The seniority of Direct Recruits shall be reckoned from the date of probation.

¶181

The other respects the guidelines issued under reference will continue."

¶182

It is not in dispute that the KSRTC has adopted

¶183

the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957 (‘ the Rules’ for short) and the guidelines issued by

¶184

the Government of Karnataka for preparation of seniority list.

¶185

Rule 10(1) of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957 reads as under:

¶186

“ 10 (1) : There shall be prepared every year for each cadre of service or class of posts a seniority list consisting of the names of all officers on the said cadre or class of posts arranged in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions of these rules.”

¶187

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

Rule 10(1) of the Rules contemplates that

¶190

there shall be prepared every year for each cadre of service or class of posts a seniority list consisting of names of officers borne on the said cadre or class of posts arranged in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. It is to be mentioned that when the Corporation has adopted the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957, it is not in dispute that the said rules and the procedure is to be followed for interse seniority, promotion and transfer from one Corporation to the other.

¶191

At this stage, it is relevant to extract Rule 7- A(1) of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957, which reads as under:

¶192

“7-A. (1) Subject to the provisions of these

¶193

rules, seniority inter-se of persons, to be included in the State-wise list of seniority consequent upon posts included in the districtwise cadres being included in the State-wise cadre, shall be determined by the total length of

¶194

24 -

¶195

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶196

HC-KAR

¶197

continuous service of the official in the districtwise cadre from the date of his appointment to such cadre.

¶198

Provided that where two or more persons are appointed to the district-wise cadres on the same date and their total length of continuous service in such cadre is equal, then the Inter-se seniority of such persons shall be determined by the authority competent to prepare the Statewise list.

¶199

(i) Where such persons are promoted from lower cadre, on the basis of their total length, of continuous service in the post in the lower cadre from which they were promoted.

¶200

(ii) Where such persons-are directly recruited to the district-wise cadre on the basis of their relative age, the older in age being considered as senior to the younger.”

¶201

On a careful reading of the rules adopted by the

¶202

Corporation from the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957 more specifically Rule 7-A(1), which is extracted hereinabove, it is seen that where two or more persons are appointed on the same date and their

¶203

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶204

HC-KAR

¶205

total length of continuous service in such cadre is equal,

¶206

then the inter-se seniority of such persons shall be determined by following clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 7-A(1). Rule 7-A1(i) prescribes that where such persons are promoted from a lower cadre, on the basis of their total length of continuous service in the post in the lower cadre from which they were promoted. Rule 7-A(ii) prescribes that where such persons are directly recruited on the basis of their relative age, the older in age being considered as senior to the younger.

¶207

In the present case, the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 would fall within the category of Rule 7-A1(i) and would not fall within the category of Rule 7-A1(ii) as they are not directly recruited, which is not in dispute by the petitioner or the respondents.

¶208

Admittedly, in the present case on hand, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Junior Assistant by the 2^nd respondent – Corporation and his services were placed on probation w.e.f. 5.8.2010 and Respondent No.3

¶209

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶210

HC-KAR

¶211

and Respondent No.4 were selected and appointed as Junior Assistants on 2.10.2010 and 7.8.2010 respectively.

¶212

However, petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were together promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant on 3.8.2023. The petitioner is younger in age than that of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. The fact remains that petitioner is borne into the cadre of Corporation earlier than that of Respondent Nos.3 and 4, which is again not in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner who is earlier borne into the cadre of Corporation would have to be considered as senior than that of Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are borne into the cadre of Corporation later, though all the three i.e., the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were promoted on the same date. Therefore for the purpose of assessing seniority and inter-Corporation transfer, the petitioner would be more eligible than Respondent Nos.3 and 4, which has not been followed by the respondent – Corporation while passing the impugned order of transfer.

¶213

27 -

¶214

NC: 2025:KHC:38450 WP No. 8471 of 2025

¶215

HC-KAR

¶216

Therefore, the impugned order of transfer in so far as

¶217

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 requires to be quashed.

¶218

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶219

O R D E R

¶220

i) The petition is allowed .

¶221

ii) The impugned order dated 30.12.2024 bearing No. KARASA / KEKA / ADALITHA/SENI/537(VUKA) 163/2024-25 insofar as respondent Nos.3 and 4 at

¶222

serial Nos.1 and 2 under the head ‘Assistant Accountant’ is concerned issued by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶223

iii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.1-Corporation to transfer the petitioner permanently to NWKRTC by considering his seniority as per the seniority list at Annexure-D.

¶224