Karnataka High Court
Sri N.R. Umesh S/O Late N. Rama Nayak And ... vs The State Of Karnataka Represented By ... on 13 January, 2006
Bench: Chief Justice, B. Padmaraj
ORDER
1. The 1st petitioner is the Assistant Secretary, Dakshina Kannada Zilla Panchayat, Mangalore, and the 2nd petitioner is the Assistant Secretary, Bangalore urban Zilla Panchayat, Bangalore. The dispute in this writ petition relates to inter se seniority between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 16 and their rival claims for promotion to the higher cadre.
2. According to the petitioners, they were promoted as Block Development Officers (B.D.Os.) before respondents 2 to 16 were directly racruited as B.D.OS. It is also stated that the petitioners were promoted as Executive officers before respondents 2 to 16 were promoted to the cadre of Executive Officers. When the final seniority list of B.D.Os. was published on 27.10.2001, respondents 2 to 16 were ranked above the petitioners, challenging the said final seniority list of B.D.Os., the petitioners filed Application Nos. 4739-4740/02 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which is still pending. There is no order staying the operation of the said final seniority list of B.D.OS. Even before the petitioners filed the above mentioned applications in the Tribunal, a provisional list of Assistant Development Officers (Executive Officers) was published on 7.2.2002. In the said provisional list also, respondents 2 to 16 were ranked above the petitioners. However, in the reply filed by the Government in Application Nos. 4739-4740/02, it was stated that the provisional gradation list of Executive Officers had been published and that the same was yet to be finalised and further that unless and until the same was finalised, no promotions would be considered for filling up of the post of Council Secretaries. It is alleged that in violation of the above undertaking in the reply filed on behalf of the Government, promotions were ordered to the cadre of Council Secretaries on the basis of the provisional seniority list of Executive officers. Therefore, the petitioners filed contempt of court application Nos. 448-449/05 in the Tribunal praying to take action against the alleged contemnors. Those applications are also pending. In the meanwhile, the final seniority list of Executive officers was published on 14.11.2005. In the said final seniority list also, respondents 2 to 16 are ranked above the petitioners. Challenging the said seniority list of Executive Officers, petitioners filed application Nos. 8893-8894/05 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, while issuing notice to the respondents, the Tribunal passed an interim order dated 30.11.2005 that if the seniority list dated 14.11.2005 vas not operated as on that day, the same should be deferred till the next data of hearing. The case came up for further hearing on 19.12.2005. On that day, the Tribunal modified the interim order dated 30.11.2005 and permitted the official respondents to operate the seniority list dated 14.11.2005 subject to further orders and the result of the applications. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2005, this writ petition has bean filed.
3. Having heard Sri Narasimha Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and having perused the materials placed on record, we do not find valid and sufficient grounds to entertain this writ petition. Admittedly in the final seniority list of B.D.Os., respondents 2 to 16 are ranked above the petitioners. Though the said seniority list is under challenge before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not passed any interim order staying the operation of the said final seniority list. It is also not disputed that in the final seniority list of Executive Officers published on 14.11.2005 also, respondents 2 to 16 are ranked above the petitioners. The said seniority list also is under challenge before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has permitted the Government to order promotions on the basis of the said final seniority list.
4. Ordinarily promotions and reversions have to be ordered on the basis of the seniority list in force. The seniority lists in force are the final seniority list of B.D.Os. published on 27.10.2001 and the seniority list in force in respect of Executive Officers published on 14.11.2005. We do not find anything wrong or illegal about the order of the Tribunal in declining to stay the operation of the final seniority list and permitting the Government to make promotions on the basis of the final seniority list subject to the decision in the applications pending before it. In our view, the Tribunal has exercised its discretionary power to grant interim order in a just and fair manner. The impugned order is not vitiated by any illegality.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that it was highly objectionable on the part of the Government to make promotions on the basis of the provisional seniority list of Executive Officers after giving the undertaking in the reply filed by it before the Tribunal that till the provisional seniority list is published, no promotions will be made. We do not want to express any opinion on this aspect because the matter is pending before the Tribunal in Contempt of Court application Nos. 448-449/05. It is for the Tribunal to consider the matter in accordance with law.
6. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
7. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that delay in the final disposal of the applications pending before the Tribunal will cause serious hardship and irreparable injury to the petitioners, we request the Tribunal to dispose of the said applications as expeditiously as possible.