Dismissed¶100

Sri Gopi S a v. the State of Karnataka

Service law – Seniority – Promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits – First Division Assistants (Excise Department, Karnataka)

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026WP/24354/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority; promotee vs direct recruit; First Division Assistant; FDA; Second Division Assistant; Excise Department Karnataka; KSAT; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal; seniority list 17.08.2019; Annexure-A11; O.M. 09.11.2015 eligibility date postponement; acquiescence; laches; stale claim; delay in challenging seniority; quota rule; block periods; Kuldeep Chand (1995) 5 SCC 680; P.S. Sadasivaswamy (1975) 1 SCC 152; K.R. Mudagal (1986) 4 SCC 531; W.P.No.9037/2023 K.G. Kulkarni; Articles 226 and 227; certiorari; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the challenge to the seniority list failed. ¶100

Sri Gopi S a Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the challenge to the seniority list failed.

¶100

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (promotee First Division Assistants) were correctly ranked below the directly recruited respondents No.3 to 10 in the seniority lists of the FDA cadre, culminating in the list published under O.M. dated 17.08.2019. +2 more

¶67

Court's answer

By virtue of the unchallenged order dated 09.11.2015 determining/postponing the petitioners' dates of eligibility for promotion to the FDA cadre to 08.04.2013 and subsequent dates, the petitioners are to be considered as promoted only from those dates, i.e., subsequent to the direct recruitment of respondents No.3 to 10; therefore, assigning ranking to the petitioners below respondents No.3 to 10 (direct recruitees) is proper and correct.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

Having failed to challenge the ranking assigned to them and to respondents No.3 to 10 in the earlier seniority lists of FDAs published in 2015 and 2017, and having accepted that ranking for long, it is not open to the petitioners at this stage to contend that the subsequent (17.08.2019) list is not proper.

¶98

Key takeaways

The decision in Kuldeep Chand would not assist the petitioners: they failed to demonstrate how the block periods were wrong and what ought to have been the block periods, and also failed to demonstrate the vacancy position of direct recruitees and promotees.ratio¶95
Although the date of entry into a cadre ordinarily determines seniority, the petitioners' dates of eligibility for promotion were postponed to the year 2013 by the unchallenged O.M. dated 09.11.2015; the petitioners therefore cannot contend that their promotion is earlier to that of the direct recruitees.ratio¶89

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — Seniority — Promotees vis-a-vis direct recruits — First Division Assistants (Excise Department, Karnataka) — Writ petition under Articles 226/227 against KSAT order refusing to quash final FDA seniority list dated 17.08.2019 placing direct recruits (respondents 3-10, appointed from 12.10.2009) above petitioner-promotees (promoted under O.M. dated 21.08.2009). Held, dismissing the writ petition: (i) by the unchallenged order dated 09.11.2015, issued for non-availability of promotional vacancy, the petitioners' eligibility dates for promotion were postponed to 08.04.2013 and subsequent dates; they must be deemed promoted only from those dates, after the direct recruits, so the ranking below respondents 3-10 is proper; absent challenge to the eligibility-fixing order, the seniority alone cannot be questioned; (ii) the petitioners did not challenge the earlier seniority lists of 25.08.2015 and 25.01.2017 and acquiesced; a ranking accepted and continued for long cannot later be questioned — stale claims will not be entertained (principle of P.S. Sadasivaswamy and K.R. Mudagal, pressed via co-ordinate bench decision in W.P.No.9037/2023, whose SLP was dismissed on merits); (iii) Kuldeep Chand does not assist, the petitioners having failed to demonstrate error in block periods or the vacancy position. Date of entry into cadre determines seniority, but here entry itself stands postponed by the unchallenged 09.11.2015 order.

¶1

¶2

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 24354 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI GOPI S A

¶12

S/O LATE ASHWATHANARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE KSBCL DEPOT, BANGARPET KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI. SOMASHEKAR M C S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION) MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU.

¶14

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI GOVARDHAN S S/O LATE N.R. SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE BANASHANKARI RANGE BENGALURU.

¶16

SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O LATE BHEEMARAYA AGED AOBUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE KSBCL, KALABURGI.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶19

SRI ASHOK H BAJANTRI S/O HANUMANTHAPPA BAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, CHIKKODI SUB DIVISION, CHIKKODI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

¶20

SRI PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA.

¶21

SRI WAHID SHARIF S/O DAWOOD SHARIF AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE M/S USL DISTILLERIES NANDHURA, KALABURGI.

¶22

SRI RAVI D K S/O S. KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU.

¶23

SRI HONNANNAVAR C N S/O C.H. HONNANAVAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI.VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H. M., ADV. FOR P4, P7-P9 (MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL FILED BY P4, P7-P6) SRI. T NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV. FOR SRI CHETAN DESAI, ADV. FOR P1 TO P3, P5 & P6)

¶26

¶27

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶30

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2^ND FLOOR, T.T.M.C., ‘A’ BLOCK BMTC SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU.

¶31

SRI. MONISH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2^ND FLOOR, T.T.M.C., ‘A’ BLOCK BMTC SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU.

¶32

SRI BASAVARADHYA T M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE K.S.B.C.L DEPOT

¶33

BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY.

¶34

SRI SUNIL N N AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2^ND FLOOR, T.T.M.C. ‘A’ BLOCK BMTC SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶35

SRI BEEREGOWDA G S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT POOJA TOWERS, K.M. ROD, HOUSING BOARD CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577102.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶38

SRI PRASANNA N M S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶39

SRI Y J PAPHULLA CHANDRA S/O JAVARE GOWDA AGED MAJOR FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF EXCISE INSPECTOR KSBCL DEPOT, KNDUWALA.

¶40

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY H S/O HOOVAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS FIRST DIVISIONA ASSISTANT O/O DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE SAGAR SUB DIVISION SAGAR, JOG ROAD-577401 SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶41

SRI BHUPATI MANAGER S/O HANUMANTHAPPA M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (BUD-06), KSBCL BUILDING BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU - 560 028.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI GURURAJ R, ADV. FOR R4 & R5 SRI H.N. ANANDA, ADV. FOR R3, R5, R6 & R7 SRI SATISH K, ADV. FOR R8 TO R10)

¶43

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.05.2021 PASSED BY THE

¶44

¶45

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶46

KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7267-7276/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE SAME BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.7267-7276/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER (ANNEXURE - B) IN SO AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONER AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶47

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 08.07.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶49

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶50

CAV JUDGMENT

¶51

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

¶52

The petitioners are before this Court, questioning the

¶53

order dated 21.05.2021 in Application Nos.72677276/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) whereunder, the Tribunal refused to quash the final seniority list of the cadre of First Division Assistants (for short “FDAs”) published under O.M. dated 17.08.2019 insofar as it relates to the petitioners and respondents No.3 to 10 are concerned.

¶54

¶55

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶56

The brief facts of the case are that:

¶57

The petitioners are promotees to the cadre of FDAs

¶58

from the cadre of Second Division Assistants (for short “SDAs”). The petitioners were promoted as FDAs under O.M. dated 21.08.2009 (Annexure-A6). Respondents No.3 to 10 are directly recruited as FDAs, having been appointed on 12.10.2009 onwards till 12.01.2009. Subsequent to promotion of the petitioners as FDAs, it is stated that for the first time, seniority list of the cadre of FDAs was published on 25.08.2015 (Annexure-R2) wherein, respondents No.3 to 10 were placed above the petitioners and petitioners were placed below respondents No.3 to 10. Thereafter, one more seniority list of FDAs was updated on 25.01.2017 (Annexure-R3) and in the said updated list also, respondents No.3 to 10 were shown above the petitioners and petitioners were shown below respondents No.3 to 10. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that under O.M. dated 09.11.2015, the eligibility dates of the petitioners were revised and they were given eligibility dates for promotion to the cadre of FDAs as

¶59

¶60

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶61

08.04.2013 and subsequent dates which order has not been challenged by the petitioners. Respondent No.2 published one more updated seniority list of cadre of FDAs under O.M. dated 17.08.2019 (Annexure-A11) wherein also, the petitioners were shown below the direct recruitees, Respondents No.3 to 10 and direct recruitees Respondents No.3 to 10 were placed above the petitioners-promotees. Questioning the said seniority list and their placement, the petitioners approached the Tribunal in the above stated applications. The Tribunal, under the impugned order dismissed petitioners’ challenge to the seniority list observing that as the petitioners have not challenged the earlier seniority list of the cadre of FDAs, they have acquiesced their right. Questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as the seniority list, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶62

Heard learned counsel Sri.T.Narayanaswamy for

¶63

learned counsel Sri.Chethan Desai for petitioners; and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Harish for respondents No.1 and 2: Sri.Gururaj R, learned counsel for

¶64

¶65

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶66

respondents No.4 and 5; Sri.H.N.Ananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 and Sri.K.Satish, learned counsel for respondents No.8 to 10. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶67

The dispute of the petitioners as well as respondents No.3 to 10 is with regard to their seniority in the cadre of FDAs. In other words, the dispute is with regard to seniority between the promotees and direct recruitees. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially promoted to the cadre of SDAs under O.M. dated 21.08.2009 and respondents No.3 to 10 were directly recruited from 12.10.2009 to 12.11.2009. It is also an admitted fact that under order dated 09.11.2015, the second respondent on the reason of non-availability of promotional vacancy as on the date of petitioners’ promotion to the cadre of FDAs, the date of eligibility for promotion to the cadre of FDAs of the petitioners were determined as postponed to 08.04.2013 and on subsequent dates. The said order of postponement of their date of eligibility for non-availability of vacancy for

¶68

¶69

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶70

promotion was dated 09.11.2015 of second respondent is not questioned by the petitioners and they have accepted the said date of eligibility for promotion to the cadre of FDAs. Unless the petitioners question the said order of fixing the dates of eligibility for promotion, it is not open for the petitioners to only question the seniority assigned to them in the cadre of FDAs. By virtue of postponement or determination of eligibility dates of petitioners under order dated 09.11.2015 as 08.04.2013 onwards, it is to be considered that the petitioners are promoted on 08.04.2013 onwards, subsequent to direct recruitment of respondents No.3 to 10. Therefore, assigning of ranking to the petitioners below respondents No.3 to 10 direct recruitees is proper and correct.

¶71

Furthermore, the petitioners have not questioned the ranking assigned to them under the seniority list of FDAs dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure-R2) and 25.01.2017 (Annexure-R3). It is settled position of law that once the petitioners accept the ranking assigned to them and it is

¶72

10 -

¶73

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶74

continued for long, it is not open for such persons to subsequently question the seniority.

¶75

Learned counsel for respondents No.8 to 10 placed reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court dated 14.07.2025 in W.P.No.9037/2023 (SRI.K.G.KULKARNI AND ANOTHER v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) to contend that the stale claims cannot be gone into that too in the matter of seniority or promotion. It is also submitted that the SLP filed against the decision of the co-ordinate bench before the Hon'ble Apex Court is dismissed on merits. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said order reads as follows:

¶76

“15. In service jurisprudence it is settled position of law that settled position cannot be unsettled. Challenge to ranking or seniority or promotion shall be within a reasonable time. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.S. SADASIVASWAMY V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 has held as under:-

¶77

“2. ……………………… Not only Respondent 2 but also Respondents 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957, apparently on the

¶78

11 -

¶79

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶80

ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head. He could have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.”

¶81

(emphasis supplied)

¶82

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶83

K.R.MUDAGAL AND OTHERS V/S R.P.SINGH

¶84

AND OTHERS reported in (1986) 4 SCC 531 has observed that satisfactory service conditions postulates that there should be no sense of

¶85

12 -

¶86

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶87

uncertainty amongst the government servants created by writ petitions filed after several years. It is further observed that it is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by seniority assigned to him should approach the Court as early as possible, as otherwise in addition to the creation of sense of insecurity in the minds of the government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties.”

¶88

Learned counsel Sri.Narayanaswamy for petitioners

¶89

also contended that the date of entry into the cadre determines the seniority and in the light of the fact that the petitioners entered the cadre of FDAs prior to the direct recruitees, he contends that they shall be placed above the direct recruitees. It is true that it is settled position of law that the date of entry shall determine the seniority of a person in a cadre. However, in the instant case, though the petitioners were promoted earlier to the direct recruitees respondents No.3 to 10, subsequently by O.M. dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure-R2) the date of eligibility for promotion to the petitioners has been postponed to the year of 2013, which is unchallenged, as

¶90

13 -

¶91

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶92

such, the petitioners cannot contend that their promotion is earlier to direct recruitees.

¶93

Learned counsel Sri.Narayanaswamy also contended that the seniority list suffers from many errors and illegalities. He would submit that the quota rule as well as block periods are not properly taken note of and as the proper block periods are not drawn, seniority list itself is liable to be set aside. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of KULDEEP CHAND v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1995)5 SCC 680 . The petitioners have failed to demonstrate how the block periods are wrong and what ought to have been

¶94

the block periods. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate the vacancy position of direct recruitees and promotees.

¶95

In the above circumstances, the decision in KULDEEP CHAND would not assist the petitioners. Moreover, having failed to challenge the ranking assigned to them as well as to respondents No.3 to 10 in the earlier

¶96

14 -

¶97

WP No. 24354 of 2021

¶98

seniority list of FDAs published in the year 2015 and 2017, it is not open for the petitioners at this stage to contend that subsequent list is not proper.

¶99

For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits

¶100

and accordingly the petition stands dismissed .

¶101

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶102

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶103

CT:bms

¶104

mpk

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 21.05.2021 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application Nos.7267-7276/2019 dismissing the petitioners' challenge to (refusing to quash) the final seniority list of First Division Assistants published under O.M. dated 17.08.2019, on the ground that the petitioners had acquiesced by not challenging the earlier seniority lists.¶53
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru · 21.05.2021
Prior proceeding
Petitioners, promotees from the SDA cadre, were promoted as FDAs under O.M. dated 21.08.2009 (Annexure-A6).¶58
Prior proceeding
Respondents No.3 to 10 were directly recruited as FDAs, appointed from 12.10.2009 onwards (caption states till 12.01.2009; body of judgment states till 12.11.2009).¶58
Prior proceeding
First seniority list of the FDA cadre published on 25.08.2015 (Annexure-R2), placing respondents No.3 to 10 above the petitioners.¶58
Prior proceeding
Under order/O.M. dated 09.11.2015, respondent No.2, for non-availability of promotional vacancy, determined/postponed the petitioners' dates of eligibility for promotion to the FDA cadre as 08.04.2013 and subsequent dates; this order was not challenged.¶67
Prior proceeding
Updated seniority list of FDAs published on 25.01.2017 (Annexure-R3), again showing respondents No.3 to 10 above the petitioners.¶58
Prior proceeding
Updated seniority list of the FDA cadre published under O.M. dated 17.08.2019 (Annexure-A11), again placing the direct recruitees (respondents No.3 to 10) above the petitioner-promotees; this is the list challenged before the Tribunal.¶61
Prior proceeding
Petitioners approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos.7267-7276/2019 questioning the seniority list and their placement; the Tribunal dismissed the challenge by order dated 21.05.2021.¶61
Prior proceeding
Present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash the Tribunal's order dated 21.05.2021 and to allow Application Nos.7267-7276/2019.¶43

Sri Gopi S a v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gopi S a v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax., Vs Mr. Shankar Suresh

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Sri Manjunatha G.S. S/O Shivanna

Smt. Neelamma Vs Sri. Sri. B.A. Ibrahim

Sri Atmananda Mallappa Ghatnur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Praneshkumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Manju M S/O Muniyappa Vs the Principal Secretary