Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Maj Siddalingayya Hiremath vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2025
1
CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.469/2025
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.170/00057/2017
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00230/2016
ORDER RESERVED :05.12.2025
DATE OF ORDER:11.12.2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
Major (Retd)
Siddalingayya Hiremath, KAS,
CAO, DIMHANS,
Dharwad, -580001. ....Petitioner in CP
....Respondent in MA
(By Advocate, Shri G.I.Gachchinamath)
Vs.
1. Dr.Shalini Rajneesh, IAS,
The Chief Secretary to Government
State of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-560001.
S SARALADEVI
S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE
2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30'
2
CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. Dr.Jagadeesha K.G., IAS,
Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel &,
Administrative Reforms,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-560001. ...Respondents in CP
...Applicants in MA
(By Additional Advocate General, Shri Reuben Jacob and Advocate,
Shri M.Rajakumar for Respondents)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
This MA is filed by the Respondents No. 10 & 11 in Contempt Petition (hereinafter referred to as Miscellaneous applicants) to recall the order dated 09.10.2025 in CP No.57/2017 and permit the Respondents No.10 & 11 to address the arguments regarding compliance of order dated 01.02.2017 in OA No.230/2016.
2. This case has a checkered history. Marshalling of facts is necessary for a better understanding of the case. OA No.230/2016 was filed by the original applicant in OA/Contempt Petitioner (herein S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 3 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH after referred to as original applicant) seeking for the following reliefs:
"a) Call for the records pertaining to communication bearing No. DPAR 119 SAS 2015 dated 15/07/2015 at Annexure A12 of the third Respondent and peruse the same;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to take into consideration seven years of service rendered as Short Commissioned Officer for the purpose of eight years continuous service in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent cadre as stipulated in third proviso to Regulation 5 (2) of the Regulations and on such determination to include the name of Applicant for the purpose of selection to Indian Administrative Service from State Civil Service of Karnataka State against 2015 vacancies, and also to determine equivalence of the post.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus to determine the seniority in the select list by treating the Applicant as Senior to 2006 Batch Direct Recruits to Karnataka Administrative Service;
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 4 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the representations submitted by the Applicant at Annexures - A8 to A14 and grant relief as claimed therein,
e) Grant such other suitable reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case."
3. The said OA No.230/2016 was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 01.02.2017. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
"15. We hold that the applicant is entitled to the benefit offered by the fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2). The respondents are directed to consider the applicant's representations and decide any pending issues including the question of the applicant's position in the seniority list of KAS officers and his claim to be considered for appointment to the IAS within three months of receiving a copy of our order. We make it clear that these issues will be decided in accordance with the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and other relevant rules, and based on the merits of the case."
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 5 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. Writ Petition No.11337/2017 filed by the Union of India against the said order dated 01.02.2017, came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2017. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:
"5. In our view, the contention cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The first is that Regulation 5(2) including the 4th proviso, which has been relied upon by the Tribunal, is in exercise of Rule/Regulation making power by way of any subordinate legislation and therefore, when so long as the 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) is on the statute book, it cannot be heard from the petitioner-Union of India to contend that the Regulation may not be applied in case of Emergency Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned Officers. It is an undisputed position that respondent No.1 is falling in the category of Emergency Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned Officer, who is appointed to the State Civil Service.
6. The contention raised that after the deletion of Rule 4(1) (aa) in 1997, the Regulation is not amended even if considered for the sake of examination, would not be of any help to the petitioner for the simple reason that what could S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 6 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH be the wisdom of the Rule making authority is better left to the Rule making authority, more particularly, when the legality or the constitutional validity of Regulation 5(2) was not under challenge at any point of time. We are afraid that the Central Government-Union of India even can question the legality or the constitutional validity of the 4th proviso to the Regulation 5(2) when the Central Government Union of India itself has formulated the Regulation in exercise of its power to make subordinate legislation.
7. In our view, the Tribunal was right in observing that by Office Memorandum, the effect of the Regulation cannot be diluted nor the amendment in the Regulation can be brought about.
8. The resultant situation is that the Tribunal has enforced the 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) which has remained on the statute book and therefore it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error.
9. ..................................
(emphasis Supplied) S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 7 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
10. ........................ Further, in any case, 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) does not restrict the applicability or the benefit for consideration of the period of service in Army to only of those Officers who joined service during war or emergency. The 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) puts no restriction, as sought to be canvassed. Hence, the said decision is of no help to the petitioner."
5. On further challenge made before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.15887/2017 by the Union of India, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2017. Pursuant to which, this contempt petition was filed by the applicant. Considering the letters of the State Government dated 26.05.2017 and 02.06.2017 addressed to the UPSC that the original applicant's name has been placed at Sl.No.57 in the eligibility list for the select year 2015 and notifying the seniority at Sl.No.1329 under Rule 6A of KGS, Seniority Rules, 1957, this Tribunal by its order dated 21.03.2018 held that the order of the Tribunal dated 01.02.2017 in OA No.230/2016 has been complied with, in case the applicant has any grievance with regard to S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 8 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH his seniority in the seniority list of KAS officers which according to the State Government has been done in terms of Rule 6A of KGS Seniority Rules, 1957, he may agitate the matter in the appropriate forum as in terms of the 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 ('Regulations' for short), his name was included in the proposal sent to the UPSC for consideration for appointment to the IAS for the Select List, 2015 at Sl.No.57. Being aggrieved, the original applicant preferred Writ Petition No.103232/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said Writ Petition, which are extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"7. Revisiting paragraph 15, it clearly discloses that the issue with reference to the appliant's position in the seniority list of KAS Officer and his claim to be considered for appointment to the IAS is the direction strictly ought to have been complied by the respondents. It appears that, the same has not been done in the particular case. Therefore, this Court has directed them to S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 9 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH produce the consideration of the petitioner's name for the said post considering the pending issue of the applicant including the question of applicant's seniority and thereafter appropriate order ought to have been passed. Whether consideration of the seniority has been done by the respondents, if so, how is the moot question that ought to have been taken into consideration by the CAT while dealing with the contempt proceedings.
7a. It is not that compliance of the directions issued by the Courts are mechanically done like a post office without really understanding what exactly the direction to issue and what is the responsibility of the respondents by virtue of the directions issued. According to the direction, they have to give reasons and findings as to the decision taken by the respondents as the seniority of the petitioner was called in question and such directions have been issued. The act of the respondents should flow from legal understanding of the orders and logical conclusion with specific findings. The same is conspicuously absent in this case. Of course that can also be shown by producing the surrounding circumstances and documents which is also not been done for the present.
(emphasis Supplied) S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 10 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. Now we come back to the orders passed which is impugned in the contempt proceedings. The contempt Court has reiterated at para 8 what are the directions issued and also the document produced by the respondents. At paragraph 9, it has simply stated that there has been no case of any willful violation of the order passed by the Tribunal. Whether there was any willful violation or not is the second question that ought to have been considered by the CAT. First it has to consider whether there was strict compliance of the order passed by the CAT in the letter and spirit of the directions issued. In our opinion, without production of the document as sought for by this Court either before this Court or before the CAT, the contempt Court could not have been concluded that there was a strict compliance of the directions issued by the CAT. Therefore, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that dropping of the contempt proceedings without considering whether there was strict compliance of the directions issued by the CAT is erroneous.
9. There was an objection raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that, consideration order passed by the respondents even if it is erroneous ought to have been challenged before the CAT in an S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 11 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH independent proceedings not by continuing the contempt proceedings. Secondly, the learned counsel appearing for the UPSC also submitted that the appeal is maintainable against the orders in the contempt proceedings passed by the CAT. These two objections raised, in our opinion, are superfluous. When this Court is of the opinion that dropping of the contempt proceedings itself is erroneous because the CAT has not properly considered whether respondents have strictly complied with the directions or not. In such an eventuality, filing of separate proceedings challenging the alleged compliance order does not arise. When the compliance order itself is not in strict compliance of the directions as challenged by the petitioner herein. So far as other contention is concerned, in the contempt proceedings if a conviction order is passed then only the appeal provision can be invoked under the Contempt of Courts Act. But when the proceedings are dropped, in such an eventuality , the appeal provision cannot be invoked. Therefore, on both the counts the writ petition is maintainable before the Court. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition is maintainable.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, we are of the (emphasis Supplied) S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 12 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH opinion that, contempt proceedings have to be restored to the file of the CAT and the CAT has to examine the order passed by the respondents as to whether it is in strict compliance of its order after providing an opportunity to both the parties to produce any further documents in respect of the above said matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order passed by the CAT in contempt proceedings No.170/00057/2017 dated 21.03.2018 is hereby set aside."
6. Pursuant to which the matter was heard by the Division Bench of this Tribunal (Bangalore Bench). By order dated 10.08.2021 this Tribunal observed thus:
"The Original Application No. 230/2016 was allowed by this Tribunal on 01.02.2017 and it was held that the applicant is entitled to the benefits offered by the 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
A further direction was issued to the respondents to consider the applicant's representations and decide any (emphasis Supplied) S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 13 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH pending issues including the question of the applicant's position in the seniority list of KAS officers and also to consider his claim for appointment to the IAS within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
Alleging wilful disobedience of the said order, the petitioner herein preferred a Contempt Petition No.57/2017, which was closed on 21.03.2018 with the observations that the order dated 01.02.2017 passed in the Original Application No.230/2016 stands complied with.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 103232/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 08.01.2020 and the matter was remitted back to this Tribunal to decide it afresh.
It appears from the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court that during the course of hearing, the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 03.12.2019 directed the learned Government Advocate to produce a copy of the order vide which the seniority of the petitioner herein was refixed on the post of Deputy Collector. The said document was not produced before the Hon'ble High Court. The S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 14 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH relevant observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in Para 6 and Para 7 are reproduced herein:-
6. xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx In order to ascertain the fact as to whether the consideration with regard to re-fixation of seniority of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Collector has actually taken place or not, we summoned the records in original.
After perusal of the records with the assistance of Shri. Ramesh Jois, learned counsel representing the Respondents No.1, 2, 6 & 7 we find that no such consideration has actually taken place even uptil now.
The situation which has emerged from the facts and circumstances of this case leads us to form a prima facie view to summon the respondents in order to frame a charge against them.
However, Shri. Jois, learned counsel representing the Respondents No. 1, 2, 6 & 7, confronted with the said situation, stated that the respondents shall now reconsider the issue of refixation of the petitioner's seniority on the post S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 15 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of Deputy Collector and the order in this regard shall be issued within a period of six weeks from today. Adjourned to 24.09.2021 enabling the respondents to do the needful."
7. Subsequently, Memo dated 17.12.2022 was filed by the respondents/State along with copy of the order dated 16.12.2022 stating to be the compliance affidavit, mentioning that as per Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations, read with 4th Proviso thereof, the eligible candidates to be considered for the Select List 2015, must be from the order of seniority in State Civil Service i.e., Karnataka Administrative Service. Secondly, eligibility of officers must be seen and considered as per proviso (1) to (4) of the Regulations. Original applicant's name was shown in the eligibility column at Sl.No.57. Likewise, for the select list 2016 as well. There being a difference of opinion regarding the acceptance of the said compliance amongst the Members of the Bench, the matter was referred to 3rd Member. After hearing both sides and examining the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 16 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH records, the 3rd Member passed the order dated 25.07.2023. The relevant paragraphs of the 3rd Member decision are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"35. A close perusal of the said proviso clearly indicates that the fourth proviso has two parts. The latter part states that officers mentioned in that proviso shall be eligible for consideration if they have completed four years of continuous service as Deputy Collector or equivalent posts. If the intention of the fourth proviso was only to relax the eight year period prescribed in the third proviso, in the case of officers mentioned in fourth proviso, only the latter part alone should have been there. However, the former part deals with another aspect, how to count the eight year continuous service prescribed in third proviso. It states that it shall be counted from the deemed date of their appointment to that service. The conscious usage of two phrases "deemed date of their appointment to that service" and "not less than four years of actual continuous service" clearly indicate the crux of the benefit bestowed on such persons. The latter part of said proviso clearly indicates that such officers will be eligible if (emphasis Supplied) S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 17 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH they have completed not less than four years of "actual continuous service as Deputy Collector or in equivalent post". It clearly indicates that if such officers have completed four years of actual continuous service in the Karnataka Administrative Service, they are eligible, in relaxation of 8 years term prescribed in third proviso. However, the former part of the above proviso refers to length of service of such officers. It states that 8 years of continuous service as required under the preceding proviso shall be counted from the "deemed date of their appointment to that service". It clearly indicates that for the purpose of counting the 8 years of continuous service there shall be a deemed date of their appointment. Consciously, here the Regulation does not use the words "actual date of their appointment", but use the words "deemed date of their appointment to that service".
This clearly shows that 8 years referred in third proviso is not reckoned the actual date of their appointment in the Administrative Service, but a deemed date reckoned from "the date of their appointment to that service". A cumulative reading of the proviso clearly indicates that the authority is bound to fix the deemed date for counting their 8 years of (emphasis supplied) S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 18 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH continuous service as required under the third proviso to Regulation 5(2). Thus fourth proviso of Regulation 5(2) contemplates both components of eligibility and length of service, in itself.
36. Evidently when the Tribunal indicated that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) and that it was well conceived measure of Government of India to encourage officers who had served Country and to effectively harness the services freshly released from armed forces, the Tribunal was conscious about the twin usages of "deemed date of the appointment into the service" and the "actual date of continuous service"
both employed in the fourth proviso. Evidently, for the purpose of fixing the 8 years of continuous service as provided under the preceding proviso, the authority was bound to fix the deemed date of his appointment to that service and fix the continuous service accordingly. This has not been done. By an interpretative technique, which does not either stand to reason nor does get it statutory support, the benefit bestowed on the applicant cannot be set at naught. To that extent the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble Member (emphasis supplied) S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 19 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH (Judicial) that the order of this Tribunal has not been implemented in its full spirit has to be accepted.
37. A recapitulation of the above legal proposition in the light of the facts mentioned above clearly indicates that it is evident that for the purpose of recommending a person and including in the person in the proposal for being considered to the IAS both the question of eligibility and seniority arises. Though I agree to that extent with the reasoning of the Member (A), the ultimate conclusion that the order of this Tribunal has been complied with cannot be accepted. To that extent, I am in concurrence with the conclusion arrived at by the Member (Judicial) that the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with and the matter needs to be proceeded to ascertain whether there is willful contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents.
38. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Member (Judicial) that the contempt petition cannot be closed. The matter shall now be placed before the Division Bench for consideration of further course of action and steps to be taken. Accordingly, place the matter before the Hon'ble Division Bench at the earliest, for ordering further steps."
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 20 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. Writ Petition No.22901/2023 was filed by the respondents/Government of Karnataka, challenging the majority verdict in Contempt Petition No.57/2017 vide orders dated 28.02.2023 and 25.07.2023. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka having analysed the matter categorically held that this Tribunal is justified in continuing with the Contempt Petition, more so when this Court in the earlier round of litigation of which a reference has been made, more particularly in paragraph-8, wherein this Court has stated, it required to be considered whether there was strict compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal in letter and spirit of the directions issued and also that there is a wilful violation or not. The majority view being the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with and the matter needs to be proceeded to ascertain whether there is wilful contumacious conduct on the part of the writ petitioners, considering the conclusion of the matter by the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even on merits of the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is justified, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 21 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Accordingly, dismissed the said writ petition. The said order has reached finality.
9. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 22901/2023, respondents/State Government has filed an affidavit styled as compliance affidavit dated 08.10.2025 submitting that the deemed date of the officer joining Short Service Commission as per the fourth proviso to Regulation 5 (2) of the Regulations, 1955 is now mentioned under Column 9 (Date of Continuous Officiation in the post of Deputy Collector or Equivalent) of Annexure 3.1 to checklist/proforma for sending proposals by State Government for promotion of SCS officers to Indian Administrative Service for the Select Lists 2015 and 2016 and the deemed date of the applicant joining the Short Service Commission is fixed as 30.10.2000. Revised Annexure 3.1 is enclosed therewith.
10. Considering the same, this Tribunal vide order dated 09.10.2025 observed thus:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 22 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "M.A No.442/2025:
Heard. For the reasons stated in the Miscellaneous Application No.442/2025, the personal appearance of respondent Nos.10 and
11 are exempted for today. Accordingly, M.A 442/2025 is allowed. C.P 57/2017:
Compliance affidavit filed along with Annexure A dated 8.10.2025, in our considered opinion, is not the compliance with the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A 230/2016 dated 1.2.2017, confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.11337/2017 dated 23.3.2017 and further by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.15887/2017 dated 4.7.2017.
Hence, the respondents are directed to comply with the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A 230/2016, in letter and spirit. We make it clear that the deemed date of the officer joining the Short Service Commission as per the fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, fixed as 30.10.2000 is not compliance at all. On the other hand, compliance has to be made counting of the services of the petitioner in the Short Service Commission and, accordingly, fixing the deemed date of appointment in KAS as per the fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. List the matter for reporting compliance by S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 23 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 13.11.2025, failing which Respondent Nos.10 and 11 shall be present in person before this Tribunal for hearing before framing of the charges."
11. MA No. 470/2025 was filed by the miscellaneous applicants for directing the Registry to post the matter before the Bench on 07.11.2025 instead of 13.11.2025 (preponing the matter) and MA 469/2025 was filed for recalling the order dated 09.10.2025 in the Contempt Petition. After hearing both sides, the following order was passed by this Tribunal:
"M.A 470/2025 (Early Hearing) and M.A 469/2025 (Recalling order):
Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the miscellaneous applicants/original respondents and learned counsel Shri. Gachhinamath for the miscellaneous respondent/petitioner. Respondent Nos.10 and 11 in C.P 57/2017 have filed M.A No.469/2025 seeking recalling of the order dated 09.10.2025 and M.A No.470/2025 for early hearing, the same are signed by the learned counsel for the miscellaneous applicants accompanied with the affidavits of Shri.T.Mahantesh, presently working as Under Secretary to Government in the office of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Services-
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 24 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1). The repetitive statements of the State Government regarding the compliance of the order passed in O.A 230/2016 dated 01.02.2017 have been rejected by this Tribunal on several dates of hearing. Despite the same, the State Government filing mischievous petitions is highly deprecative and cannot be countenanced. These frivolous miscellaneous applications not accompanied by the affidavits of the applicants are filed in order to overcome the judicial orders passed by this Tribunal, confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. We find no merit in these miscellaneous applications. Accordingly, stand dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- payable by the miscellaneous applicants to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority by one week from today. List the matter on 13.11.2025 as directed earlier by this Tribunal by order dated 9.10.2025 for reporting compliance, failing which respondent nos.10 and 11 shall be present in person before this Tribunal for framing of charges."
12. On the challenge made to the said order by the miscellaneous applicants before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 34073/2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 25 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 12.11.2025 allowed the Writ Petition in part. The relevant portions of the said order reads as under:
"3. Mr. Shashikiran Shetty, on the petitioners' grievance with the impugned orders, submits that the petitioners are called upon to be present for Framing of Charges but they have filed applications [in MA Nos. 470/2025 and 469/2025] contending that the participation on their behalf in the hearing on 09.10.2025 was with the anticipation that the respondent would file objections to the compliance affidavit and the order dated 08.10.2025. The learned Advocate General submits that the petitioners, who have only been impleaded recently, must have a complete opportunity of hearing even before there is an opinion on whether charges must be framed against them.
4. Mr. Shashikiran Shetty canvasses that with the first respondent filing a representation on 12.10.2025, the first petitioner has extended an opportunity of hearing to him, and he is issued with another Endorsement dated 29.10.2025 and that the efficacy of these proceedings must also be considered on deciding whether charges should be framed against him. Mr. Gurudev Gachchinamath, on due opportunity in the circumstance, submits that it cannot be disputed that the Tribunal has heard not just the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 26 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH first respondent but also on behalf of the petitioners before passing the order dated 09.10.2025.
5. Sri Gurudev Gachchinamath is also heard on whether this Court must intervene to restore the application in MA No. 469/2025 for due consideration because, upon the charges being framed-if framed, the petitioners will have to stand trial to meet the charges. This Court must record that the learned counsel, on instructions from the first respondent who is with him, reluctantly submits that this Court may consider extending another opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against the framing of charges.
6. This Court has considered the question of interference in the light of the circumstances pleaded on behalf of the petitioners for an opportunity and the submission that the petitioners, who have been impleaded at the later stage in the contempt proceedings, want to be heard again to show why charges must not be framed. This Court is of the view that another opportunity would only subserve the cause of administration of justice and not be prejudicial to the first respondent, and as such, the Tribunal's order dated 07.11.2025 must be interfered with restoring the application in MA No.469/2025 for reconsideration.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 27 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
7. Further, this Court observes that this interference renders no opinion on the rival submissions and that the Tribunal, because of this order, may defer the hearing scheduled tomorrow to another date without insisting on the petitioners' presence and decide on the merits of the restored application. This Court also observes that the Tribunal, while considering the merits of the application in MA No.469/2025, may consider whether there must be a reiteration of the order dated 09.10.2025 as part of the opportunity of hearing before Framing of Charges. In the light of the above:
ORDER [i] The petition is allowed in part.
[ii] The Tribunal's order dated 07.11.2025 is interfered restoring the application in MA No. 469/2025 to be reconsidered in the light of this Court's observation as against the order dated 09.10.2025.
[iii] The Tribunal is requested to defer the proceedings scheduled on 13.11.2025 without insisting upon the petitioners' application and consider the application as aforesaid expeditiously."
After restoration of this MA for reconsideration, the matter was adjourned at the request of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State Government on S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 28 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 13.11.2025 and 17.11.2025. The matter was heard on MA No. 469/2025 on 25.11.2025 and 05.12.2025 at length.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the Miscellaneous Applicants in this MA No. 469/2025 would submit that in terms of Regulation 5(2) in the context of fourth proviso, inclusion in the list to be considered (field of consideration) by the committee for promotion will be in the ratio of 1:3 and completion of 8 years of continuous service in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent post. However, in the case of released emergency commission or Short Service Commission officers appointed to the State Civil Service, 8 years of continuous service is counted from the deemed date of appointment to that service, with an additional condition that they should have completed 4 years of actual continuous service in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent. The claim of the officer regarding fixing seniority in KAS has been considered under "Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957" and an endorsement dated 16.12.2022 has been issued. After the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 22901/2023, a compliance affidavit S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 29 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH dated 08.10.2025 has been filed fixing the deemed date of the officer joining the Short Service Commission as 30.10.2000, as per fourth proviso to Regulation 5 (2). Further, Annexure 3.1 has been revised as under and sent to UPSC for consideration under Select Lists 2015 and 2016:
"ANNEXURE 3.1 Particulars of State Civil Service Officer who are eligible for consideration for promotion to the IAS in their order of Seniority as on 1st January of the Select List - 2015 Sl Name of the Whether Date of Whether Whether Date of Date of Date of Remar N Officer SC/ST/O Birth the the Appointm Confirmati continuous ks o BC officer is officer is ent in the on in the officiation below 56 availabl State State Civil in the Post years .... e on the Civil Service of Dy year in Service Collector which or SL is Equivalent prepare d?1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
56 MAJOR OBC 22.07.1978 YES YES 24.08.2010 24.08.2010 30.10.2000 -
SIDDALINGAYY i.e., deemed
A S. HIREMATH date of the
(1329) Officer
joining
Short
Service
Commissio
n {as per
the fourth
proviso to
Regulation
5 (2) of the
IAS
(Appointme
nt by
Promotion)
Regulations
, 1955}.
S SARALADEVI
S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE
2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30'
30
CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH ANNEXURE 3.1 Particulars of State Civil Service Officer who are eligible for consideration for promotion to the IAS in their order of Seniority as on 1st January of the Select List - 2016 Sl Name of the Whet Date of Wh Whet Date of Date of Date of Re N Officer her Birth ethe her Appointme Confirmati continuous mar o SC/S r the nt in the on in the officiation ks T/OB the office State Civil State Civil in the Post C offi r is Service Service of Dy cer avail Collector is able or belo on the Equivalent w year 56 in yea which rs SL is .... prepa red?1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
24 MAJOR OBC 22.07.19 YES YES 24.08.2010 24.08.2010 30.10.2000 -
SIDDALINGA 78 i.e.,
YYA S. deemed
HIREMATH date of the
(1329) Officer
joining
Short
Service
Commissio
n {as per
the fourth
proviso to
Regulation
5 (2) of the
IAS
(Appointm
ent by
Promotion
)
Regulation
s, 1955}.
S SARALADEVI
S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE
2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30'
31
CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
14. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the said compliance, the observations with regard to non-compliance on that aspect of deemed date as pointed out in the order dated 25.07.2023 of the Third Member and the order in OA No. 230/2016 dated 01.02.2017 has been fully complied with in letter and spirit by the miscellaneous applicants.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that All India Service Rules cannot regulate state seniority covered under the State Rules. Captain Dr. Rajendra K. got selected ahead of his seniors of 1998 batch and his batch mates of 1999 not because of re-fixing his seniority in KAS by fixing the deemed date of appointment in KAS (Junior Scale) considering his service in Short Service Commission but because all the candidates who got selected to KAS (Junior Scale) under the 1998 and 1999 batch reported to service in 2006 due to various court cases and all of them except Captain Dr. Rajendra K., became eligible to be considered for empanelment to IAS in Select List-2011 in terms of the 4th Proviso to Regulation 5(2) otherwise, he was eligible only in Select List 2015. Reference is made to the communication dated 09.06.2016 issued by the DOPT. S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 32 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
16. Memo dated 05.12.2025 has been filed on behalf of the miscellaneous applicants along with the tabulated statements showing the details of officers considered and appointed against the select lists and other relevant particulars relating to prior recruitments. Placing reliance on the details placed on record, learned Additional Advocate General argued that Dr. Rajendra K. was considered at 24th position in Review Selection Committee Meeting for Select List - 2012 and at 11th position in Review Selection Committee Meeting for Select List-2013, and accordingly, he was appointed against the Select List-2013 in the 11th position. Similarly, the original applicant was considered at 56th position in the proposal of Select List 2015 and at 24th position in the Select List of the year 2016 but he was not coming under zone of consideration for the Select List of 2017 to 2022.
17. Further, placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Ors. vs. M. George Ravishekaran and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373 and the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 33 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Sri Vivekananda C.M. (Writ Petition No. 8816/2024, DD: 21.08.2024), learned AAG argued that the Courts must not travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Interpretation regarding Regulation 5(2) and the fourth proviso cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings. The original contempt petitioner if aggrieved by the compliance affidavit, is required to challenge the same by filing a separate OA. Thus, referring to the compliance affidavits dated 16.12.2022 and dated 08.10.2025, seeks for the closure of the contempt proceedings.
18. Learned counsel Shri G.I. Gacchinamath representing the original applicant submitted that in the letter dated 18.01.2016, DOPT has given clarification that in accordance with fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations, granting the benefit of deemed date of appointment in the State Civil Service to the Emergency Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned officers appointed to State Civil Service is the subject matter exclusively falling within the domain of the State S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 34 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Government. Further, clarification has been issued by the UPSC on the clarification sought by DPAR clarifying that the State Governments are requested to take necessary action for issuance of an order regarding counting of the service in Short Service Commission and consequential deemed date of appointment in KAS in terms of fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations. Captain Dr. K. Rajendra's case was considered for promotion to IAS in the Select List of 2013 at Sl.No.10 without disturbing seniority of those people who are much higher to him in the seniority.
19. Referring to the debates in the Seventh Lok Sabha on the specific subject of counting of service in armed forces for selection to IAS/IPS from state services, submitted that 8 years of continuous service shall be counted from the deemed date of their appointment to that service i.e., State Civil Service as determined by the State Government concerned after giving due weightage to the army service, subject to the condition that they have completed not less than 4 years of actual continuous service on the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 35 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH first day of January of the year in which the Selection Committee meets. Much water has flown since DOPT issued the letter dated 09.06.2016. The Hon'ble Courts/Tribunals have held that the fourth proviso requires assigning a deemed date of appointment in the State Civil Service. Reliance is placed on the order of this Tribunal dated 10.08.2021.
20. Learned counsel further submitted that the original applicant has never requested the fixation of seniority as per Rule 6A of KGS (Seniority) Rules and his request has always been regarding benefit offered in fourth proviso to Regulations 5(2) of the Regulations. The original applicant is entitled to the benefit offered by the fourth proviso to regulation 5(2) in terms of OA No. 230/2016 wherein, it has been categorically held that the Regulations cannot be superseded by the letter dated 09.06.2016 issued by the DOPT observing that this is a classic case of the left hand and right hand working at cross purposes.
21. Learned counsel pointed out that in the pleadings of Writ Petition No. 34073/2025, the miscellaneous applicants had submitted in para 27 of the Writ Petition that after the dismissal of the Writ Petition S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 36 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH No.22901/2023, a compliance affidavit dated 08.10.2025 along with Annexure A dated 08.10.2025 has been filed fixing the deemed date of the applicant's appointment to that service (i.e. Karnataka Administrative Service-KAS) as 30.10.2000, the date of the said officer joining the Short Service Commission, which is as per fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) but whereas in the compliance affidavit filed before this Tribunal dated 08.10.2025, in the revised Annexure 3.1 deemed date is shown as 30.10.2000 i.e., deemed date of the officer joining Short Service Commission as per the fourth proviso to regulation 5(2) of the Regulations. Accordingly, seeks for dismissal of the subject MA and to continue the contempt proceedings.
22. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the applicants in the MA and the learned counsel for the original applicant and perused the material on record in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.34073/2025.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 37 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
23. This Contempt Petition is filed by the original applicant alleging wilful disobedience and breach of the order dated 01.02.2017 passed in OA no.230/2016, whereby this Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to the benefit offered by the 4th Proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations, further directing the respondents to consider the applicant's representation and decide any pending issues including the position of the applicant in the seniority list of KAS officers and his claim to be considered for appointment to the IAS within three months of receiving the copy of the said order, making it further clear that the said issues will be decided in accordance with the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and other relevant rules and based on the merits of the case. The said order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Apex Court.
24. In the first round of this Contempt Petition considering the letters of the State Government addressed to the UPSC dated 26.05.2017 and 02.06.2017 as compliance, the Contempt Petition S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 38 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH was closed, wherein, the original applicant's name was included at Sl.No.57, along with 56 eligible officers as per Regulation 5(2). On the challenge made by the original applicant against the order passed by this Tribunal, closing the contempt petition, in Writ Petition No.103232/2018, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that it was incumbent on the contempt court, first to consider whether there was strict compliance of the order passed by the CAT in letter and spirit of the directions issued. Dropping of contempt proceedings without considering whether there was strict compliance of the order passed by the CAT, is held to be erroneous observing that wilful violation or not is the second question that ought to have been considered by the CAT. In arriving at that decision in Paragraph- 7a of the said order extracted in the preceding paragraphs at Page-9, it has been copiously observed that compliance of the directions issued by the Courts not to be mechanically done like a Post Office without really understanding what exactly the direction so issued. Further making it clear that the act of the respondents should flow from legal understanding of the orders and logical conclusion with S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 39 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH specific findings, holding that the same is conspicuously absent in this case.
25. After restoration of the Contempt Petition to its file, this Tribunal by order dated 10.08.2021 observed that in order to ascertain the fact as to whether the consideration with regard to re- fixation of the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Collector has actually taken place or not, has summoned the records in original; after perusal of the record with the assistance of the learned Counsel representing Respondents No.1, 2, 6 and 7, has then recorded a finding that no such consideration has actually taken place even till that date. It was further observed that the situation which has emerged from the facts and circumstances of the case leads to form a prima facie view to summon the respondents in order to frame a charge against them. It has been recorded that on the confrontation made to the learned Counsel representing the respondents, the learned Counsel stated that the respondents shall reconsider the issue on re-fixation of the petitioner's seniority to the post of Deputy S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 40 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Collector and the order in this regard shall be issued within a period of six weeks from that date, the matter was adjourned.
26. After several adjournments, again an endorsement styled as compliance report dated 16.12.2022 has been filed before this Tribunal, Annexure-3.1 as part of the memo filed along with the compliance report deals with particulars of the State Civil Service Officers who are eligible for consideration for promotion to the IAS in their order of seniority as on 1st January of the Select List year i.e., 01.01.2015. The applicant's name is figured at Sl.No.57, wherein the date of appointment in the State Civil Service, Date of confirmation in the State Civil Service and Date of continuous officiation in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent is shown as 24.08.2010 in all the three columns. Seniority at Sl.No.57 in the first compliance report shown remains the same in this compliance report dated 16.12.2022.
27. It is apt to refer to Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations, which reads thus:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 41 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "5(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion to the said list, the cases of members of the State Civil Services in the order of a seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred in sub-regulation (1):
Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of a State where the total number of eligible officers is less than three times the maximum permissible size of the Select List and in such a case the Committee shall consider all the eligible officers:
Provided further that in computing the number for inclusion in the field of consideration, the number of officers referred to in sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded:
Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case o f a member of the State Civil Service unless on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared, he is substantive in the State Civil Service and has completed not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other-post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 42 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Provided also that in respect of any released Emergency Commissioned or Short Service. Commissioned officers appointed to the State Civil Service, eight years of continuous service as required under the preceding proviso shall be counted from the deemed date of their appointment to that service, subject to the condition that such officers shall be eligible for consideration if they have completed not less than four years of actual continuous service, on the first day of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared, in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government."
28. In S. Sundaram Pillai vs. V.R. Pattabiraman (AIR 1985 SC
582), the Hon'ble Apex Court analyzing the scope of 'Proviso', laid down the legal principles in the following terms:
"26. The next question that arises for consideration is as to what is the scope of a proviso and what is the ambit of an Explanation either to a proviso or to any other statutory provision. We shall first take up the question of the nature, scope and extent of a proviso. The well established rule of interpretation of a proviso is that a proviso may have three separate functions. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an exception to something within the main enactment or to qualify something enacted therein S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 43 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment In other words, a proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify or set at naught the real object of the main enactment.
.................
35. While interpreting a proviso care must be taken that it is used to remove special cases from the general enactment and provide for them separately.
36. In short, generally speaking, a proviso is intended to limit the enacted provision so as to except something which would have other wise been within it or in some measure to modify the enacting clause. Sometimes a proviso may be embedded in the main provision and becomes an integral part of it so as to amount to a substantive provision itself.
.............
42. We need not multiply authorities after authorities on this point because the legal position seems to be clearly and manifestly well established. To sum up, a proviso may serve four different purposes:
(1) qualifying or excepting certain provisions from the main enactment;
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 44 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH (2) it may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable; (3) it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself; and (4) it may be used merely to act as an optional addenda to the enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intendment of the statutory provision."
29. In the light of the settled legal principles, Provisos' appended to Regulation 5(2) are to be read together harmoniously with Regulation 5(2). Proviso carves out an exception to the main enactment-Regulation hereine. Virtually, in effect, 4th Proviso carves out an exception to the 3rd proviso in as much completing not less than eight years of continuous service i.e., counting of eight years of continuous service.
30. On the difference of opinion raised between the Members of the Division Bench of this Tribunal, in accepting the compliance S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 45 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH report dated 16.12.2022, the matter was referred to the 3rd Member. 3rd Member considering the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.230/2016 dated 01.02.2017 and in the Writ Petition No.103232/2018, after hearing both the parties, held that the 4th Proviso of Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations is virtually a proviso to the 3rd Proviso. In case of officers covered by 4th Proviso, it relaxes the condition in the 3rd Proviso that for the purpose of considering the State Civil Servants for being promoted to IAS, 8 years continuous service in the cadre is essential. By virtue of the 4th Proviso, an exception is carved out of 3rd Proviso in the case of released emergency commissioned or short service commissioned officers appointed to the State Civil Service. The said Proviso prescribes four years of actual continuous service as Deputy Collector or in equivalent posts as on the 1st day of the January of the year for which select list is prepared.
31. It has been further held that the said 4th Proviso has two parts, the latter part states that officers mentioned in proviso shall be S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 46 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH eligible for consideration if they have completed four years of continuous service as Deputy Collector or equivalent posts. If the intention of the 4th Proviso was only to relax the eight years period prescribed in the 3rd Proviso, in the case of officers mentioned in 4th Proviso, only the latter part alone should have been there. However, the former part deals with another aspect, how to count the eight year continuous service prescribed in 3rd Proviso. It states that it shall be counted from the deemed date of their appointment to that service. Referring to conscious usages of two phrases "deemed date of their appointment to that service" and " not less than four years of continuous service", held that the said two phrases clearly indicates the crux of the benefit bestowed on such persons. Eight years referred in the 3rd Proviso is not reckoned from the actual date of their appointment in the Administrative Service, but a deemed date reckoned from "the date of their appointment to that service". The authority has to fix the deemed date for counting their eight years of continuous service as required under the 3rd Proviso to Regulation S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 47 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 5(2). Thus 4th Proviso of Regulation 5(2) contemplates both components of eligibility and length of service, in itself.
32. The majority verdict of this Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.22901/2023 giving a finding that even the merits of the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is justified, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Subsequent to the dismissal of the W.P.No.22901/2023, Revised Annexure-3.1 is placed on record showing the date of continuous officiation in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent as 30.10.2000 in place of 24.08.2010. Further clarifying that the said date 30.10.2000 i.e., the deemed date of the officer joining Short Service Commission as per the 4th Provision to Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations. The word 'deemed date' in the 4th Proviso is not the actual date of the officer joining State Civil Service but from the deemed date of their appointment to that service. It is well settled that the words gets the colour from the context. As discussed above, there being two parts in the 4th Proviso, First part deals with, S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 48 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH counting of eight years of continuous service as required under the 3rd Proviso with respect to released Emergency Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned officers appointed to the State Civil Service. It shall be counted from the deemed date of their appointment to that service, means State Civil Service. In fact this is what the applicants in this MA contended before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.34073/2025. In paragraph 27 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that after the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.22901/2023, a compliance affiadavit dated 08.10.2025 along with Annexure-A dated 08.10.2025 has been filed fixing the deemed date of the applicant's appointment to that service i.e., Karnataka Administrative Service - KAS, as 30.10.2000, which is the date of the said officer joining the short service Commission, which is as per 4th Proviso to Regulation 5(2). If this stance of the Miscellaneous applicants is confirmed, the same may be considered as the compliance of the order passed in OA No.230/2016. But on the contrary in the revised Annexure-3.1 filed before this Tribunal, 30.10.2000 is shown as the deemed date of the officer joined as Short S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 49 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Service Commission as per 4th Proviso to Regulation 5(2), not the deemed date of the applicant's appointment to State Civil Service - KAS and the arguments of the State is in conformity with the same. This is inconsistent and different from the plea of the Miscellaneous applicants in Writ Petition No.34073/2025.
33. In order to reckon the deemed date of fixing eight years of continuous service in terms of 4th Proviso, it is beneficial to refer to the communication of the DOPT dated 18.01.2016 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the same is quoted hereunder:
"Sub: Representation of Capt. Dr. K. Rajendra, KAS for promotion to IAS-reg Sir, I am directed to refer to the State Government's letter No. DPAR 37 SAS 2015 dated 07.11.2015 on the above mentioned subject and to say that in accordance with 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 granting the benefit of deemed date of appointment in the State Civil Service to the Emergency Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned officers appointed to the State Civil Service, is the subject S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 50 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH matter exclusively falling within the domain of the State Government.
2. The State Government is requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly as per the provisions contained in the relevant Recruitment Rules of its State Civil Service officers."
34. Referring to the said communication, UPSC by its letter dated 01.02.2016 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, requested the State Government to take necessary action for issuance of an order regarding counting of the service in Short Service Commission and consequential deemed date of appointment in KAS in terms of 4th Proviso to Regulations, with respect to Captain Dr.K.Rajendra.
35. In the case of Captain Dr.K.Rajendra responding to the letter dated 18.01.2016 of the DOPT and UPSC letter dated 01.02.2016, notional seniority in the final gradation list of KAS Group 'A' Junior Scale cadre on 01.01.2004 was fixed at S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 51 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Sl.No.964A. Thus the State Government has fixed the seniority of the Captain Dr.K.Rajendra in the gradation list instead of assigning the deemed date of appointment in the State Civil Service, the action of the State Government in fixing the date of seniority of Captain Dr.K.Rajendra under Rule 6A of the Karnataka Government Service (Seniority) Rules, 1957, was illogical and incorrect. Despite the interpretation offered vide letter dated 09.06.2016 holding that Captain Dr.K.Rajendra was not eligible under 4th Proviso, he was considered for promotion to IAS in the Select List of 2012, 2013 and finally placed in the Selection List 2013, contrary to the opinion taken in the letter dated 09.06.2016. Having regard to the letter dated 09.06.2016, this Tribunal in the original OA No.230/2016 declared that even a cursory glance shows DOPT letter dated 09.06.2016 runs contrary to the 4th Proviso to the Regulation 5(2) both in letter and spirit. The said Proviso specifies nothing about conduct of any special competitive examination in respect of EC/SSC officers. There is nothing equivocal about the benefit offered to the target group. Government of Karnataka gave the S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 52 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH benefit of the said Provisio to Capt.Dr.K.Rajendra based on the DOPT concurrence. But in mysterious way the very same DOPT has given completely contrary advice in their letter dated 09.06.2016:
a classic case of the left hand and the right hand working at cross purposes. Further, it has been unequivocally stated as under:
"......................We cannot understand on what basis both the GOK and the DOPT have quoted the case of Capt. Dr.K.Rajendra as an alibi to deny the applicant the benefit of the said Proviso. We wonder why the respondents did not reveal the existence of Annexure A15 in the reply statement. We also note that the respondents have nowhere categorically stated that the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) conducts a special examination for ex- EC/SCS officers for recruitment to the KAS."
36. The observations made by this Tribunal in OA NO.230/2016 at Para-13 inasmuch as the object of the 4th Proviso of Regulation 5(2) vis-à-vis the 3rd Proviso issuing the letter dated 09.06.2016 without understanding or even adequately considering its implications, plays a significant role in understanding the benefit S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 53 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH offered by 4th Proviso to Regulation 5(2). The said paragraph is quoted hereunder for ready reference.
"13. The fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2) was a conscious and well-conceived measure of the Government of India to encourage officers who had served the country loyally for many years as EC/SCS personnel in the armed forces. These personnel placed their lives on the line in their service of the country. The objective of Government was not only to provide them adequate opportunity for career growth but also to effectively harness the services of a body of well- trained disciplined, experienced and dedicated men and women freshly released from the armed forces. The third respondent seems to have issued the letter dated 09.06.2016 without understanding or even adequately considering its implications. We do not know the reasons since the respondents have not provided any counter to the rejoinder filed by the applicant."
37. Hence the arguments advanced on behalf of Miscellaneous applicants that Capt.Dr.K.Rajendra was not considered as per 4th Proviso to Regulation 5(2) cannot be countenanced. Indeed it has S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 54 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH been accepted that as per the order dated 08.09.2015 in OA No.706/2015 Capt.Dr.KRajendra was considered for Select List 2012 and 2013. Reliance placed on the letter dated 09.06.2016 is not sustainable at this juncture.
38. On the query made with the State Government regarding the position of the original applicant in the Select List between 2015 to till date, details are furnished. According to which the petitioner was at Sl.No.56, of all eligible officers sent to UPSC for the Select List 2015, whereas number of officers appointed and the appointment notification issued are 33 and 23.02.2018 respectively. The original applicant was at 24th position during the Select List 2016, the number of officers appointed were 10 and the date of appointment notification was 18.01.2021. However, for the Select List 2017 to 2022, the original applicant was not coming under the zone of consideration. For the Select List 2023 proposal yet to be sent whereas for Select List 2024, it is shown as nil vacancy. The aforesaid would indicate that the position of the applicant is like S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 55 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH playing the board game of snake and ladder. He was considered to be eligible only for Select List of the year 2015 and 2016 and not for the years 2017 to 2022. Finally he may be considered along with his other colleagues, who will be eligible after eight years of continuous service in State Civil Service in terms of 3rd Proviso making the 4th Proviso as redundant. This is not the object and intent of the 4th Proviso. The benefit available to the applicant under the 4th Proviso cannot be put at naught.
39. The debate of Lok Sabha dated 12.11.1986, copy of which is placed on record by the learned Counsel for the original applicant, would also throw some light on the aspect of reckoning the deemed date in terms of 4th Proviso to Regulation 5(2). To the question at point No.1286 raised, whether service rendered in the armed forces is also counted in the total service for the purpose of making selections to IAS and IPS from among State Service Officers, the answer is 'yes'. The details are as under:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 56 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "(b) Under the IAS/IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, a member of the State Civil/Police Service is eligible to be considered for promotion to Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service if he is holding a substantive post in the State Service and has completed not less than 8, years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Dy. Collector/Dy.
Superintendent of Police or in any other post equivalent thereof. These Regulations were amended in 1978 to provide that in respect of any released Emergency Commissioned or Short Service Com-missioned Officers appointed to the State Civil or Police Service, 8 years of continuous service shall be counted from the deemed date of their appointment to that service, as determined by the State Government concerned after giving due weightage to the Army Service, subject to the condition that they have completed not less than 4 years of actual continuous service on the first day of January of the year in which the Selection Committee meets."
40. Thus giving due weightage to the armed services cannot be ignored. In a nutshell, 4th Proviso contemplates in itself both eligibility and length of service. Fixing the deemed date of S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 57 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH officer joining the Short Service Commission, is not compliance of the order passed in OA No.230/2016, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, unless it is specifically clarified that 30.10.2000 is the deemed date of the original applicant's appointment to KAS, fixed by the State Government. No such clarification is forthcoming despite putting several queries. This technique appears to have been adopted by the State Government to come out of the clutches of the contempt proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 103232/2018 (DD:
08.01.2020) while restoring this Contempt Petition observed that the act of the respondents should flow from legal understanding of the orders and logical conclusion with specific findings. Any compliance report not in conformity with the legal understanding of the orders cannot be accepted.
Such compliance report not only violates the order of this Tribunal but makes the object and purport of the Regulation 5(2) defeated.
41. In Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court enunciated the legal principles as under:
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 58 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt.
The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 59 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly [(2002) 5 SCC 352], V.M.Manohar Prasad vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another[(2004) 13 SCC 610], Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and Others[(2008) 5 SCC 339] and Union of India and Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV[(2006) 1 SCC 613]." There is no cavil on the said proposition. We are conscious about the jurisdiction of the contempt court. We have analyzed the case on hand based on the explicit directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.230/2016 and the subsequent orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, supra, inasmuch as the entitlement of the applicant under Regulation 5 (2) of the Regulations.
42. In the case of Vivekananda C.M, supra, while analysing the question as to what is the applicable interest, came to the conclusion that S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 60 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the adjudication on the admissibility of the interest was outside the purview of the contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This order has no relevancy to the facts of the case on hand since the Tribunal while disposing of the application directed the respondents therein to settle the retirement benefits of the applicant such as DCRG, CVP, Pension, Leave Salary and other benefits which the applicant therein was legally entitled to along with admissible interest from 01.06.2016 onwards till the payment of the entire benefits of the applicant. Admissible interest was not certain, may be or may not be, depends the facts and circumstances of the case.
43. Learned Counsel Shri N. Amaresh representing DOPT & UPSC, supporting the arguments of the learned AAG, made an endeavour to submit that the right of the employee is subject to the rights of other civilian employees/civilian servants. This argument of the learned counsel for UPSC cannot be countenanced at this stage since the first stage of fixing the deemed date of appointment of the applicant to the State Civil Service (KAS) is not yet complied with, which falls within the domain of S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 61 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH State Government. UPSC cannot rely on DOPT's letter dated 09.06.2016 which has been declared as not valid in the eye of law making it clear that the Regulations cannot be superseded by the letter dated 09.06.2016 in OA No. 230/2016 confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. DOPT having declared vide letter dated 18.01.2016 that granting the benefit of deemed date of appointment in the State Civil Service to the Emergency Commission or Short Service Commission officers appointed to the State Civil Service is the subject matter exclusively falling within the domain of the State Government and the same being accepted by the UPSC vide letter dated 01.02.2016 directing the State Government to take necessary action for issuance of an order regarding counting of the service in Short Service Commission and consequential deemed date of appointment in KAS in terms of fourth proviso to Regulation 5 (2) of the Regulations with respect to Captain Dr. K. Rajendra, cannot take a different view in the present case, more so, based on the communication of the DOPT dated 09.06.2016.
S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 62 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
44. It is significant to note that at every stage, the respondents are taking inconsistent stance to deny the benefit of fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) to the original applicant. The act of the miscellaneous applicants is not contumacious only against the order passed in OA 230/2016 but against the subsequent judicial orders passed by the higher forums. The original applicant is fighting this legal battle since 2016. Despite three orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.11337/2017 (DD:23.03.2017), W.P. Nos. 103232/2018 (DD:08.01.2020), W.P.No.22901/2023 (DD: 25.04.2025) and the dismissal of SLP No.15887/2017 (DD: 04.07.2017), at different stages, the respondents are, by way of interpreting technique, trying the benefit bestowed on the applicant to set at naught. Merely on the ground of compliance affidavits filed by the respondents, styled as so, no compliance can be accepted blindly sans examining the orders passed by this Tribunal in the OA whether has been strictly complied with in letter and spirit. In our considered opinion, the same is lacking. No two interpretations can be given to the benefits flowing from Regulation 5(2). S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 63 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Even assuming but not accepting two interpretations could be given, what is beneficial to the employee has to be accepted.
45. We fail to comprehend the purpose of the State Government giving deemed date to the original applicant joining Short Service Commission on 30.10.2000 which is his actual date of joining. Deemed date is legally or contractually established date that is treated as official date for an event, even if the actual occurrence happened on a different day. What is the necessity of giving 'deemed date' to an actual date of joining Short Service Commission remains a puzzle.
46. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that compliance herein, means first giving deemed date to the applicant joining State Civil Service
- Karnataka Administrative Service in terms of 4th Proviso to Regulation 5 (2), not to the Short Service Commission as carried out by the State Government. Fourth proviso is a beneficial legislation enacted with a laudable object of providing benefit to the released Emergency Commissioned Officers & Short Service Commission Officers in recognition of their sacrifice, commitment and discipline in safeguarding S SARALADEVI S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE 2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30' 64 CP 57/2017 IN OA 230/2016/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the national security which may involve their supreme life. The adoption of scrupulous devices/meticulous technicalities cannot be used to defeat beneficial legislation. Compliance of a judicial order is not an empty formality, strict compliance is warranted with application of mind but the same is absent in the so-called compliance reports filed by the State Government. Accordingly, contempt proceedings deserves to be proceeded with.
47. List the matter for reporting compliance by 19.01.2026, failing which miscellaneous applicants/Respondent Nos. 10 & 11 shall be present in person before this Tribunal for hearing before framing of the charges.
MA No.469/2025 stands disposed of accordingly.
sd/- sd/-
(DR.SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd./ksk
S SARALADEVI
S SARALADEVI CAT BANGALORE
2025.12.11 15:28:44+05'30'