Sri.Dhanavantari Rao Vs the Registrar General

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2025 IN WP NO.23889/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, ETC.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:16023-DB WA No. 899 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶27

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶28

impugning the judgment and order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23889/2024 (S-RES), filed by the appellant herein.

¶29

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶30

Heard Smt. Sohani A. Holla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.A. Subramani, learned counsel appearing for respondent/High Court of Karnataka.

¶31

The petitioner filed W.P.No.23889/2024 for granting him retrospective promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar for the purpose of financial benefits. The petitioner demitted office on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Section Officer on 28.02.2019.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16023-DB WA No. 899 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

It may be noted that seeking retrospective promotion after retirement, the petitioner made a representation before the Registrar General for granting him promotion. However, the High Court Staff Committee vide Resolution dated 10.03.2021 with HC No.136/2017 rejected the representation of the petitioner, and the said resolution was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka.

¶35

Aggrieved by the said rejection of his request for retrospective promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, the petitioner instituted the writ petition.

¶36

The learned Single Judge in the light of the judgments in Union of India and Another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others reported in AIR 2010 SC 1682 and in Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3512 held that an employee has only a right for

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16023-DB WA No. 899 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

consideration of his case for promotion. The mere existence of the vacancy would not clothe the employee to claim the promotion.

¶40

It is not the case of the petitioner that his claim for promotion was overlooked and some junior was promoted from the post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant Register. The case of the petitioner is that because of some interim order passed by Supreme Court, the proceedings for promotion from the post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant Register were not undertaken when the petitioner was in service. Once the interim order

¶41

got vacated, the petitioner had filed the representation seeking retrospective promotion.

¶42

Smt. Sohani Holla, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the petitioner has

¶43

fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for non-arbitrary and fair action while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16023-DB WA No. 899 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Registrar. The petitioner was fully qualified to be promoted, but he could not get promoted because of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, hence the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the Court action and after vacating the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, his case should have been considered for promotion. She therefore, submits that the impugned endorsement (memo) dated 12.04.2021 is against Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶47

We find very little substance in the aforesaid argument of Smt. Sohani Holla, learned counsel.

¶48

The right to promotion is not a fundamental right. The right for consideration to promotion is a legal right. If there is a vacancy, and the candidate is qualified, he/she may have a legitimate expectation for fair consideration of his/her case for promotion.

¶49

However, once the person is retired, he cannot claim retrospective promotion to the post, where he has not

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16023-DB WA No. 899 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

been subjected to any indiscrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. No such

¶53

case has been made out in present appeal.

¶54

The learned Single Judge has extracted paragraph 21 of the judgment in Dr.Amal Satpathi cited supra, which reads as under:-

¶55

"21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that the promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No.1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity."

¶56