Allowed¶51

Irappa S/O. Doddabasappa Awati v. the Divisional Controller

Service law – Promotion – Consequential seniority

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2025WP/85725/2013

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; WP No. 85725 of 2013 (S-KSRTC); M. Nagaprasanna J.; decided 21.02.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582); NEKRTC Bellary employee promotion parity with I.B. Sunkad; consequential seniority (Scheduled Caste candidate; 85th Amendment contention); endorsement dated 18.02.2012 (Annexure-D) quashed; remand to Corporation for reconsideration within three months in light of later Apex Court judgments on consequential seniority; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; endorsement dated 18.02.2012 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-D) quashed; matter remitted to the Corporation to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with law within three months from receipt of copy of the order. ¶51

Irappa S/O. Doddabasappa Awati Vs the Divisional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to consideration for promotion from the date on which I.B. Sunkad was promoted (Assistant Artisan from 24/10/1989) with difference of salary, i.e., whether the endorsement dated 18.02.2012 (Annexure-D) rejecting his representation should be quashed. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute; the petitioner has been senior throughout.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The case of the petitioner requires reconsideration in light of the law rendered by the Apex Court after the rejection of his representation; consequently the impugned endorsement is quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration strictly in consonance with law.

¶48

Key takeaways

Consequential seniority as a concept has been tweaked or diluted in subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, which were not available at the time when the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected.ratio¶47
I.B. Sunkad stole a march over the petitioner in the year 1997, i.e., 10.01.1997, by grant of consequential seniority.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Promotion - Consequential seniority - Writ under Articles 226 and 227 by a retired Assistant Artisan of N.E.K.R.T.C. challenging the endorsement dated 18.02.2012 (Annexure-D) rejecting his representation for promotion on par with I.B. Sunkad, who was promoted as Artisan on 10.01.1997 ahead of the petitioner on grant of consequential seniority (respondents invoking the 85th Amendment) and later as Chief Artisan w.e.f. 04.03.2011, while the petitioner retired as Assistant Artisan. Held: the facts are not in dispute; the petitioner was senior throughout but I.B. Sunkad overtook him in 1997 by grant of consequential seniority; the concept of consequential seniority has since been tweaked/diluted in subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, which were not available when the representation was rejected; the case therefore requires reconsideration. Petition allowed; endorsement quashed; matter remitted to the Corporation to reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance with law within three months. (Paras 7-9)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 85725 OF 2013 (S-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

IRAPPA S/O. DODDABASAPPA AWATI, AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS, OCC: PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT ARTISAN, R/O. DIVISIONAL WORK SHOP, BELLARY, BELLARY DIVISION, N.E.K.R.T.C. BELLARY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.E.K.R.T.C/, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY.

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.E.K.R.T.C., SARIGE SADAN, CENTRAL OFFICE, GULBARGA.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI S. C. BHUTTI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A) WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18/02/2012 BEARING NO. EKARASA/ BAVI/ SIBBANDI/ P4/

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013

¶21

3341/ 12 ISSUED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D. B) CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ABOVE ORDER ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION FROM THE DATE ON WHICH I.B. SUNKAD HAS BEEN PROMOTED TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ARTISAN FROM 24/10/1989 AND PAY THE DIFFERENCE OF SALARY. C) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶26

following prayer:

¶27

a) Writ of Certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 18/02/2012 bearing No. EKARASA/ BAVI/ SIBBANDI/ P4/ 3341/ 12 issued by 1^st respondent vide Annexure-D.

¶28

b) Consequent upon quashing the above order issue writ of Mandamus Directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date on which I.B. Sunkad has been promoted to the post of Assistant Artisan from 24/10/1989 and pay the difference of salary.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013

¶30

c) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition.

¶31

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde

¶32

appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti appearing for respondents.

¶33

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶34

The petitioner is appointed as helper-B on 14.11.1981 and later was promoted as helper-A on 14.11.1987. In pursuant to the same recruitment process another person by name I.B. Sunkad was appointed as helper-B on 13.11.1981. But I.B.Sunkad was promoted as helper-A two years after the promotion of the petitioner.

¶35

The petitioner was further promoted as Assistant Artisan on 24.10.1989 and three years later I.B.Sunkad gets promotion to the post of Assistant Artisan on 20.03.1992. Till the said point the petitioner had no grievance. On 10.01.1997 I.B.Sunkad is promoted as Artisan and later to

¶36

the post of head mechanic, which is Chief Artisan with effect from 04.03.2011. Here brings the problem. The

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013

¶38

petitioner retires from service as an Assistant Artisan not getting a promotion as an Artisan. The petitioner then knocks at the doors of the respondent contending that he is senior throughout the carrier and the said person I.B.Sunkad could not have been promoted ignoring the claims of the petitioner. Therefore, sought the same dates on which the promotion was granted to I.B.Sunkad. The said representation of the petitioner comes to be rejected and rejection of which is challenged in the case at hand.

¶39

Learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde appearing for

¶40

the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was senior throughout and his claims has been ignored till the date of his retirement and therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the respondent.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti appearing for respondents would submit that I.B.Sunkad was the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. Pursuant to the 85^TH amendment of grant of consequential of

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013

¶43

seniority the I.B.Sunkad was promoted on 10.01.1997 ahead of the petitioner, owing to the vacancy position than and the law that was prevalent at the relevant point in time. The petitioner chooses not to challenge the promotion granted to I.B.Sunkad for the post Artisan or Chief Artisan at a later point in time, but sought his promotion on par with I.B.Sunkad. That having been appropriately turned down, there is no warrant for interference in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner.

¶44

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶45

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates, link in the chain of events are as afore-narrated. The petitioner has been senior throughout, but I.B.Sunkad appears to have stolen a march over the petitioner in the

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013

¶47

year 1997 that is 10.01.1997 by grant of consequential seniority to the petitioner. Consequential seniority as a concept has been tweaked or has been diluted to water down in subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, which are not available at the time when the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected.

¶48

Therefore the case of the petitioners requires reconsideration in the light of the law rendered by the Apex Court in the aftermath of the rejection of the representation. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned endorsement and direct reconsideration of the case of the petitioner strictly in consonance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶49

For the aforesaid reasons the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The petition allowed.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013

¶53

(ii) The endorsement dated 18.02.2012 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D

¶54

stands quashed.

¶55

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶56

Ordered accordingly.

¶57

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶58

RHR/-

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Irappa S/O. Doddabasappa Awati v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irappa S/O. Doddabasappa Awati v. the Divisional Controller

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

Sri M Naven Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Axis Bank Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bannur Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S B Dundigoudar Vs State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun P S/O Late Linganagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka