Dismissed¶73

Sri. C. R. Rangaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Service law – Seniority

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025WP/9886/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 9886 of 2024 (S-KSAT); decided 07-08-2025; Bench: S.G. Pandit (author) and K.V. Aravind. Keywords: seniority per merit list; Chief Officer Grade-I; Gangavati Municipal Corporation; KPSC merit list; failure to report to duty within 15 days; endorsement dated 11.05.2017; KSAT Application No.5891/2017 dismissed 29.09.2021; delay and laches; Section 21 Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 one-year limitation; repeated representations do not extend limitation; cause of action on publication of first seniority list; approach after retirement; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 rejected.

What did the court decide?

The point whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's application on the ground of delay and laches is answered in the affirmative. ¶54

Sri. C. R. Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the petitioner's application on the ground of delay and laches?

¶53

Court's answer

The point whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's application on the ground of delay and laches is answered in the affirmative.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner placed no material on record to establish that he received the order of appointment on 04.08.1999 and reported to duty within 15 days thereafter; absent such material, his contention could not be appreciated.

¶60

Key takeaways

The cause of action to question seniority arose much prior to 2013, when the first seniority list would have been published after the direct recruitment; the petitioner approached the Tribunal only after his retirement in 2017, showing lack of diligence.ratio¶65
Repeated representations do not extend limitation; under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, one year's limitation applies from the original cause of action, i.e., publication of the first seniority list after the direct recruitment, not from the date of representation.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Seniority - Delay and laches. A retired Chief Officer, Grade-I (appointed under order dated 12.02.1999, Annexure-A4) challenged endorsement dated 11.05.2017 (Annexure-A10) refusing him seniority in terms of the merit list on the ground that he did not report to duty within 15 days of the appointment order, claiming he received the order only on 04.08.1999 and reported on 19.08.1999. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his Application No.5891/2017 by order dated 29.09.2021 on the ground of delay and laches. A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka answered in the affirmative the point whether the Tribunal was so justified, holding: (i) the petitioner placed no material to prove receipt of the appointment order on 04.08.1999 or reporting within 15 days thereafter; (ii) the cause of action arose when the first seniority list was published after the direct recruitment, much prior to 2013, yet he approached the Tribunal only after retirement in 2017; and (iii) repeated representations do not extend the one-year limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30710-DB WP No. 9886 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 9886 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. C. R. RANGASWAMY, S/O. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETIRED COMMISSIONER, GANGAVATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL, NOW RESIDING AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI, DEVARAHALLI POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, 4^TH FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:30710-DB WP No. 9886 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

VISHWESHWARAIAH MINI TOWERS, 9^TH FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/09/2021 MADE IN APPLICATION No.5891/2017 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PERUSE AND SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner a retired Commissioner of Municipal

¶33

Corporation is before this Court aggrieved by the dismissal

¶34

of his application under Order dated 29.09.2021 in Application No.5891/2017 where under the petitioner had questioned the endorsement dated 11.05.2017

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:30710-DB WP No. 9886 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

(Annexure-A10) informing the petitioner that he cannot be assigned seniority in terms of the merit list published as on the date of selection.

¶39

Heard Sri. Ranganatha S. Jois, learned counsel

¶40

for the petitioner and Sri. B. Ravindranath, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, who has taken notice. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶41

Sri. Ranganatha S. Jois, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on 12.02.1999 as Chief Officer, Grade-I under Notification dated 12.02.1999. Further, he submits that in pursuance of the said Notification, he reported to duty on 19.08.1999. His probationary period was declared as satisfactory under Government Order dated 20.11.2011 (Annexure-A6) with retrospective effect from 09.05.2002.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has not provided seniority in terms of the merit list published by the KPSC in respect of

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30710-DB WP No. 9886 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the Chief Officer, Grade-I post. Learned counsel would

¶46

submit that the seniority on the basis of merit list is denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner reported to duty beyond 15 days as provided under order of appointment dated 12.02.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner received order of appointment on 04.08.1999 and thereafter, within 15 days on 19.08.1999, reported to duty. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner would be entitled for seniority in terms of the merit list of Chief Officer's, Grade-I published in the year 1999. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner made repeated representations and the said representation was answered only under Annexure-A10 (endorsement dated 11.05.2017). The cause of action to the petitioner arose only on receiving the said endorsement. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the petitioner's application.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:30710-DB WP No. 9886 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on

¶51

the other hand would support the order passed by the Tribunal and would submit that the petitioner is not diligent and approached the Tribunal only after his retirement. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application on the ground of delay and laches.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to,

¶53

Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the petitioner’s application on the ground of delay and laches?

¶54

Answer to the above point would be in the Affirmative for the following reasons:

¶55

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Chief Officer, Grade-I under appointment order dated 12.02.1999 (Annexure-A4). The petitioner was provided

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:30710-DB WP No. 9886 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

15 days time to report to duty from the date of the order of appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that he received the order of appointment on 04.08.1999 and within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of

¶60

appointment, he reported to duty on 19.08.1999. The endorsement dated 11.05.2017 (Annexure-A10) under challenge indicates that the petitioner failed to report to duty within 15 days as provided under the order of appointment. As such, he would not be entitled for seniority in terms of the merit list for Chief Officer, Grade-I. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to establish that he received the order of appointment on 04.08.1999 and he reported to duty within 15 days thereafter. In the absence of any material in that regard, it is not possible to appreciate the contention of the petitioner.

¶61

Moreover, the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting his right. The petitioner was appointed under order of appointment dated 12.02.1999. Immediately,

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30710-DB WP No. 9886 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

thereafter, seniority list would have been published and he

¶65

could have known his ranking. But, however, along with the application and the present writ petition, the petitioner has produced seniority list published for the year 2013 and submits that his ranking is not shown properly in terms of the merit list of the Chief Officer, Grade-I. We are of the considered opinion that the cause of action to question his seniority arose much prior to 2013 and the petitioner approached the Tribunal only after his retirement in year 2017.

¶66

9. It is also to be observed that the repeated

¶67

representation would not extend the limitation. In terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, one year limitation is provided to approach the Tribunal by an aggrieved person. The contention of the petitioner that he has approached within one year from the date of representation would be untenable when the original cause of action from the petitioner arose when the first seniority

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:30710-DB WP No. 9886 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

list was published after the direct recruitment of the petitioner as Chief Officer, Grade-I.

¶72

Having slept over his right throughout his

¶73

service and when the petitioner approaches the Tribunal only after his retirement, he would not be entitled for any relief. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

¶74

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶75

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶76

VBS,NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri. C. R. Rangaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C. R. Rangaswamy 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

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Oasis Centre Llc

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Shri Jagadish N Hinduja

Sri Y M Thippesh Vs the Deputy Director

Smt. Suma Vs Deputy Director

Sri a v Srinivasulu Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Kantharaja. Y. M. Vs the State of Karnataka