Karnataka High Court
Sudhanva S/O Gopal Kukanur vs The Managing Director And Ors on 13 March, 2024
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION No.204091 OF 2019(S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SUDHANVA S/O GOPAL KUKANUR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
KALABURAGI-585 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SACHIN M., MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC) CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTI NAGARA
BENGALURU-560 027.
2. SMT. H. K. RAMAMANI
AGE MAJOR, OCC: CHIEF ACCOUNTS
OFFICER/FINANCIAL ADVISOR CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
3. M. MUNIRAJAPPA
AGE MAJOR, OCC: DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
2
4. SMT. U. SUMANA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
5. BASAVARAJ C. BELAGAVI
AGE MAJOR, OCC: CHIEF ACCOUNTS
OFFICER/FINANCIAL ADVISOR
NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
OPP KBN HOSPITAL, KALABURAGI-585 101.
6. ABDUL KHUDDUS
AGE MAJOR,
OCC: CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER/FINANCIAL
ADVISOR CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
7. SMT. MANJUSHREE R
AGE MAJOR,
OCC: DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER KSRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
8. SMT. MANJULA SANNA THAKUR
AGE MAJOR, OCC: CHIEF ACCOUNTS
OFFICER/FINANCIAL ADVISOR
NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD
HUBBALLI-580 030.
9. SMT. G.S. SRIDEVI
AGE MAJOR,
OCC: DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER NEKRTC
CENTRAL OFFICE, OPP. KBN HOSPITAL
KALABURAGI-585 101.
10. SMT. HEMALATA KOTTANTI
AGE MAJOR
OCC: DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER CENTRAL
OFFICE, SHANTI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560027.
3
11. GOLLAR SEENAIYYA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE HOSAPETE
DIST. BALLARI-583 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R9;
R2, R3, R4, R6, R7 & R8, R10 & R11 SERVED &
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED
01.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, BEARING
NO.KaRaSa/KeKa/VaSha/Aa/211/2019-2020, WHICH IS
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H AND QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE DATED 19.08.2019 BEARING
NO.KaRaSa/KeKa/Sibbandi/C.4/97/574/2019-20, ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.
THIS PETITION BEING HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the final list of seniority/promotion notification dated 01.08.2019 issued by the respondent No.1 produced at 4 Annexure-H and also for quashment of show cause notice dated 19.08.2019 issued by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-J.
2. The case of the petitioner is that:
a) Petitioner having completed his BBM and MBA from Kevumpu University, Shivamogga, joined services of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) as Assistant Accounts Officer on 30.11.1999. Initially he served as Trainee cum Probationary officer at the Central Office, KSRTC, Bengaluru. Later he served as Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) at NWKRTC at different divisions between 2000 to 2014. That he also served at Regional Workshop at Yadagiri in the year 2014. That he was promoted as Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division and continued to serve at Yadgir District till 2016. Thereafter, he was posted as Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division, Kalaburagi from 2016 to 2018.
b) That by virtue of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of B.K.Pavithra Vs Union of India reported in (2017) 4 SCC 620 (B.K.Pavithra I) the respondent No.1 prepared seniority list for the post of 5 Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division vide notification dated 17.04.2018. In the said Seniority list name of the petitioner was reflected at Sl.No.49. In the said list the actual date of seniority/promotion is shown as 28.02.2014 and the date of eligibility for seniority/promotion is shown as 09.08.2006.
That in the month of April 2018, petitioner was promoted as Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class-I Senior and since then he has been posted at Central Office, NWKRTC, Kalaburagi.
c) When things stood thus, the Apex Court by its judgment dated 10.05.2019 passed in (B.K.Pavithra II) reported in (2019)16 SCC 129 upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension Of Consequential Seniority to Government servant promoted on the basis of reservation (to the post in the Civil Service of the State) Act, 2018. That the said Act provides for reservation for seniority and promotion to the extent of 18% to the SC and ST employees.
d) That a mechanism had been devised by the State Government not to disturb the Seniority and promotion of non SC and ST employees by making provision for creation of supernumerary posts. In furtherance to the same 6 Government of Karnataka also issued an Order dated 27.02.2019 making a specific provision that the existing promoted cadre working as per the seniority shall not be demoted.
e) Inspite of aforesaid clear provision of law the respondent No.1 issued provisional Seniority list dated 01.08.2019 in which the petitioner has been pushed at the bottom of the list at Sl.No.33. In the said list the actual date of seniority/promotion of the petitioner is shown as 17.04.2018 instead of 28.02.2014 as shown in the earlier final list of seniority/promotion issued by the respondent. Thus the seniority of the petitioner in the recent list published by the respondent on 08.07.2019 is reduced by four years, so also in the column No.8 pertaining to the eligibility of the seniority/promotion is shown as 'blank'/'Nil' against the name of the petitioner.
f) The petitioner filed his objections to the said provisional list on 15.07.2019. On receipt to the same respondent No.1 issued untenable endorsement dated 01.08.2019 justifying the issuance of provisional list without 7 adverting to the points of objections raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued final list of seniority/promotion on 01.08.2019 without considering the objection raised by the petitioner and seniority of the petitioner has been reduced by four years.
g) That after issuance of final list of seniority/promotion the respondent No.1 issued show cause notice on 19.08.2019 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be demoted from the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class-I Senior to the post of Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division. Being aggrieved by issuance of said show cause notice the petitioner has approached this Court by filing above writ petition.
3. Objection statement is filed by the respondent- KSRTC to the writ petition contending that:
a) On 28.02.2014 petitioner was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of B.K.Pavitha-I(Supra) as per 'catch up principles' seniority list was revised and accordingly 8 eligibility date of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5, who was senior to the petitioner for the post of Accounts Officer was fixed as on 09.06.2006.
b) It is further contended that on 11.09.2015, while considering the promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class-I Senior, there were disciplinary proceedings pending against respondent No.5. In view of the pendency of the cases promotion of respondent No.5 was placed under sealed cover.
c) That the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class-I Senior with a conditional order that if anybody who was eligible for the aforesaid post was found to be senior to him in the seniority list, the same shall be considered by reverting the junior most officiating person.
d) It is contended that subsequently pursuant to the Government Order dated 27.02.2019 issued in consonance with the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation Act, 2018 and the Order passed in the Civil Appeal 9 No.2368/2011 in B.K.Pavitha-II (Supra), the respondent No.1 published revised provisional list dated 17.08.2019 for the post of Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division. In the aforesaid list published by the respondent No.1, the eligibility of the petitioner has been considered as on 28.02.2014 and he stood at Sl.No.68 in the seniority list. In the said seniority list, officers at Sl.No.63, 64, 66 and 67 were senior to the petitioner, inasmuch as they had eligibility earlier to the date of the petitioner's eligibility holding post of Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division.
e) Subsequently the cases against the respondent No.5 were disposed of and he suffered no punishment. That as per the Circular dated 04.04.2005 the respondent No.5 was eligible for promotion as on 11.09.2015 and accordingly he gave a representation seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class-I Senior.
f) It was found that respondent No.5 being senior to the petitioner was eligible to be promoted and was accordingly promoted and placed at Sl.No.54 of the Seniority List of the Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division and the petitioner was 10 placed at Sl.No.68 of the said list. It is further contended that the respondent No.5 who was senior to the petitioner in the seniority list as on 01.08.2018 was given promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class-I Senior. The other four officers who are senior to the petitioner continued in the post of Accounts Officer Class-I Junior Division. That since the promotion of the petitioner was conditional and he being junior most in the seniority list his claim was not sustainable. As such the show cause notice dated 19.08.2019 was issued, the show cause notice cannot be related to the judgment passed in B.K.Pavitha-II(Supra) case.
4. Petitioner filed an additional affidavit in response to the statement of objection filed by the respondent No.1, denying the averment regarding the promotion of the petitioner as Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class-I Senior being subject to a conditional order. It is contended that as on 09.08.2006 which is a date of eligibility of the petitioner for promotion as Accounts Officer and which is the earliest list of seniority prepared by virtue of judgment in the case of B.K.Pavitha I (Supra), there were 13 posts for Accounts Officer, details of the said posts is also provided in the said 11 list. It is also contended that there was contravention of Section 5 of Act, 2018 and also the Government Order dated 21.07.2019. That there was no provision for demoting or reverting the petitioner to the earlier post. That there is no reference in the statement of objection for creating supernumerary posts as required under the Act, 2018. That no such notice has been issued in respect of several other employees whose seniority list was prepared on 01.01.2020 and their eligibility is shown as 'Nil' as in the case of the petitioner. That the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination by the respondent-Corporation.
5. Respondent No.1 filed its additional statement of objection to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein;
a) at paragraph No.2 of the said additional statement of objection, it is contended that the petitioner was accorded promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class- I Senior vide Order dated 17.04.2018 as per Annexure-K. That the petitioner was assigned eligibility date as 11.09.2005, for the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, 12 Class-I Senior, this promotion was based on ranking in the seniority list of Accounts Officer, Class-I Junior. It is contended that in the said list the petitioner was assigned with the eligibility date as 09.08.2006, which is as per B.K.Pavithra I (Supra) case. However, the petitioner did not get eligibility date as 09.08.2006 in the list prepared as per B.K.Pavithra II (Supra) case. That the petitioner's turn for the post of Accounts Officer, Class-I Junior came to be examined for the dates 11.08.2008, 04.07.2011 and 28.02.2014.
b) It is further contended that the petitioner was not eligible for the promotion on 11.08.2008 and 04.07.2011 for the following reasons that:
(i) on 11.08.2008, enquiry was pending in the case No. 1399/2007 regarding irregularities in Earned Leave(EL) encashment under inquire (in Bagalkot division).
(ii) Case No.16/2008, irregularities in local purchase-under inquiry(NWKRTC) for the aforesaid reasons promotion/recommendation considered was kept under sealed cover.
(iii) Case No.16/2008, irregularities in local purchase and pay reduce by one step permanently vide Order dated 03.01.2011 currency upto 03.01.2012. As such the promotion was over-ruled.13
c) That though as on 28.02.2014 there were no cases pending against the petitioner, however in view of promotion to respondent No.5, petitioner became junior in the cadre of Accounts Officer, Class-I Junior.
d) That on 09.08.2006, two posts were filled by promoting One Sri.N.J.Fernandez and another Sri.A.S.Mallikarjun who were seniors to the petitioner. On that occasion, no SC candidates were promoted from lower rank. The said two persons were promoted by virtue of seniority not by reservation. The petitioner became the junior most in the feeder cadre and did not become eligible to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Class-I Senior. The other averments made were denied and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Sri. Sachin Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the petition submitted that;
(a) the seniority list dated 01.08.2019 prepared by the respondent is not in accordance with law and the same is contrary to the provision of the Karnataka Act, 14 2018 which provides for seniority in promotions to the SC and ST employees without disturbing the seniority of the existing employees. He referred to the said provision and the order wherein it provides for creation of supernumerary post in order to accommodate seniority and promotion of SC and ST employees.
(b) that the respondent-authority has not considered the statement of objections filed by the petitioner to the seniority list that was prepared on 08.07.2019 and that without adverting to the statement of objections, the seniority list was prepared on 01.08.2019.
(c) It is his further submission that after preparation of the final list, the respondent No.1 had issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be demoted from the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer-Class-I Senior to the post of Accounts Officer which in the facts and circumstances of the case is mere formality as the seniority list was already finalized.
15
(d) He further submitted that the respondent No.1 has taken inconsistent stand. In that, while responding to the objections filed by the petitioner to the seniority list, the respondents have stated that petitioner was promoted against the post reserved for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category. However in the impugned show cause notice for the first time it is contended that the promotion given to the petitioner was conditional and that since respondent No.5 Basavaraj C. Belagavi has been promoted effective from the date of 11.09.2015, the case of the petitioner was not considered. Thus, he submitted that the respondent has acted in an arbitrary manner violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner which was guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(e) Learned counsel relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohindar Singh Gill Vs Chief Election Officer reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 and referring to paragraph 8 of the said Judgment submits that authorities cannot be permitted to change 16 their stand by issuing subsequent communication. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition.
7. Per contra, Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel along with Sri.Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that;
(a) the promotion that was given to the petitioner was conditional. It was made clear that if anybody who was eligible for the post found to be senior to the petitioner in the seniority list, the same shall be considered by reverting the junior most officiating person. In that, she submitted that, at the time of considering the promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts -Class -1 on 11.09.2015, the respondent No.5 was facing disciplinary proceedings as such, his case was placed under sealed cover. Thereafter since the respondent No.5 did not suffer any punishment, as per the Circular dated 04.04.2005 he became eligible for consideration of promotion as on 11.09.2015. That since respondent No.5 was senior to the petitioner as per the circular dated 04.04.2005 in the list of seniority 17 he was placed at Sl.No.54 while the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.68. As such the show cause notice was issued which is in accordance with the rules.
(b) She further submitted that the petitioner was also facing enquiry in case No.1399/2007 as on 11.08.2008 regarding irregularities in E.L. encashment. That in case No.16/2008 regarding irregularity in local purchase, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of pay reduction by one stage permanently vide order dated 03.01.2011 and that the said order of punishment was in currency upto 03.01.2012. As such when the petitioner's turn for the post of Accounts Officer -Class 1 Junior came up for consideration as on 11.08.2008 and 04.07.2011 he was not eligible because of the pendency of the case No.1399/2007 and currency of punishment in case No.16/2008.
(c) When the matter was examined on 28.02.2014 though no case was pending against the petitioner he had become junior in the cadre of accounts officer by virtue of promotion given to respondent No.5 in terms 18 of circular dated 04.04.2005. Thus, she submitted petitioner was not eligible for promotion and the show cause notice issued in the circumstances was justified and no fault can be found with the same.
(d) She further submitted that the petitioner is always at liberty to submit his reply to the show cause notice and the same would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed after taking into consideration the present fact situation of the matter. Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard and perused the records.
9. There is no dispute of the fact that petitioner was promoted from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer to the post of Accounts Officer Class-1 Junior during 2004. There is also no dispute of the fact that in the seniority list for the post of Accounts Officer Class-1 Junior prepared by respondent No.1 vide notification dated 17.04.2018, name of the petitioner was reflected at Sl.No.49 showing the actual date of seniority/promotion as 28.02.2014 and the date of eligibility for seniority and promotion shown as 09.08.2006, and was 19 promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer- Class I.
10. The case of the petitioner is that when admittedly he has been promoted as Deputy Chief Accounts Officer-Class 1 on 17.04.2018, his seniority cannot be disturbed. That in terms of provisions of Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servant promoted on the basis of reservation (to the post in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2018, while providing for reservation for the seniority and promotion to the extent of 18% to SC/ST employees the State Government shall not disturb the seniority and promotion of non SC/ST employees but shall make provisions for creation of Supernumerary post. It is his further case that the show cause notice issued by the respondent-corporation as per Annexure-J in effect has demoted the petitioner from his present post which is in violation of provisions of the said Act, 2018.
11. The case of the respondent-Corporation on the other hand is two fold, that is, as per the seniority list dated 17.04.2018, petitioner was at Sl.No.49 and respondent No.5 20 was at Sl.No.48 and the eligibility date of the respondent No.5 was fixed as 11.08.2008 while the eligibility date of petitioner was fixed as 28.02.2014. That when the DPC was conducted on 11.09.2015, the case of respondent No.5 who was senior to the petitioner was kept under sealed cover as he was facing enquiry. That since the petitioner who was the immediate junior to respondent No.5, he was given promotion subject to condition that if anybody found to be senior to the petitioner and eligible for promotion, the petitioner would be reverted back to his original position and since respondent No.5 did not suffer any punishment his case was considered later and in the seniority list he was placed ahead of the petitioner. However, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondent-corporation that there has been no material placed on record to suggest that the promotion of the petitioner was subject to condition as contended by the respondent-corporation.
12. The other contention of the respondent- corporation is that the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer Class-1 Senior vide order dated 17.04.2018 with his eligibility date as 09.08.2006 21 instead of 28.02.2014 which was based on ranking in the seniority list of the Accounts Officer Class-1 Junior. That in the said list petitioner was assigned eligibility date as 09.08.2006 as Accounts Officer and 11.09.2015 as Deputy Chief Accounts Officer as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.K.Pavithra-I. The said eligibility was assigned to the petitioner in view of respondent No.5 facing disciplinary enquiry.
13. Once again the seniority of petitioner was reworked subsequent to Judgment of Apex Court in the case of B.K.Pavithra-II. By this time respondent No.5 had become eligible to be considered for promotion with retrospective effect on opening of a sealed cover which was 11.09.2015 the date on which the DPC was conducted. The effect of this was that the petitioner's eligibility that was fixed as 09.08.2006 in terms of B.K.Pavithra-I stood altered and was fixed as on 11.08.2008. Thus, petitioner turn for promotion came to be examined for the dates 11.08.2008, 04.07.2011 and 28.02.2014.
22
14. That the petitioner was not eligible for promotion as on 11.08.2008 and 04.07.2011 as he was facing enquiry in a pending case No.1399/2007 and was also imposed punishment of pay reduction by one stage permanently in case No.16/2008 vide order dated 03.01.2011 currency of which was upto 03.01.2012. However as on 28.02.2014 since the rank of the petitioner was of a junior most in the cadre of Accounts Officer Class-1 he could not be considered.
15. Relevant at this juncture to refer to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 23.01.2024 wherein it is contended that insofar as case No.1399/2007 relating to EL encashment he was acquitted on 03.12.2013 and insofar as case No.16/2018 relating to irregularity in local purchase wherein he was handed out punishment of permanent reduction of basic pay by one incremental stage vide order dated 03.01.2011, the currency of the same was only upto to 02.01.2012. That though the petitioner would not be eligible for promotion from 24.07.2008 to 02.01.2012, however, he was eligible at least as on 28.02.2014 as there was no or any charge, blemish or currency of punishment pending against the petitioner as on the said date. Thus, even as admitted by 23 the petitioner in his additional affidavit dated 23.01.2024 he was not eligible for consideration of his case for promotion from 24.07.2008 to 02.01.2012.
16. The only contention therefore required to be considered is as on 28.02.2014 when there was admittedly no proceedings pending against the petitioner or any punishment was in currency, could the respondent- Corporation not have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion? or whether as contended by the petitioner his date of eligibility i.e. 09.08.2006 which had enured to his benefit as per B.K.Pavitra-I case could have been changed to 28.02.2014 in view of specific order of the Government dated 27.02.2019 as per Annexure-D prohibiting reduction in seniority.
17. Though as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation has not placed on record any material with regard to promotion granted to the petitioner being conditional, that is, subject to the outcome of case of respondent No.5 and that the said stance is taken up by the respondent-corporation only for the first time in the 24 show cause notice as per Annexure-J and in the statement of objections filed to the writ petition, the fact remains that even as on the date of issuance of final seniority list dated 17.04.2018 as per Annexure-B the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.49 while name of respondent No.5 is shown at Sl.No.48. The date of eligibility of both petitioner and the respondent No.5 is shown as 09.08.2006.
18. There is no dispute or denial of the fact that respondent No.5 at the relevant point in time was facing disciplinary enquiry and he was exonerated of the charges, after the enquiry. During the said period his case was kept under sealed cover and that after his exoneration respondent No.5 was given promotion retrospectively effective from 09.08.2006. This aspect of the matter as rightly contended by the counsel for respondent-corporation is within the knowledge of the petitioner as could be seen from Annexure-B as noted above.
19. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been mentioned by the respondent -Corporation in the show cause notice at Annexure-J impugned in this petition. As rightly 25 contended by the counsel for respondent-Corporation petitioner has every opportunity to put forth his case while responding to the said show cause notice. After all the promotion of the petitioner has not been disturbed as on this date. The petitioner has been merely called upon by the respondent-Corporation to show cause in the fact circumstances of the case as to why he should not be reverted to his original posting.
20. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) is of no avail as the respondent -Corporation has not taken any final decision even as on this date. In the said Judgment the Apex Court has held that when the statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to the Court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. In the instant case since there is no order passed by the 26 respondent-Corporation petitioner cannot have much grouse in respondent-Corporation issuing the show cause notice as per Annexure-J.
21. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
a) The petitioner shall submit his detailed response to the impugned show cause notice at Annexure-J within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
b) The respondent -Corporation shall thereafter pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the circumstances of fixing of eligibility of petitioner in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.K.Pavithra -I and B.K.Pavithra-II as well as provisions of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation Act, 2018 within an outer limit of three months thereafter. If need be petitioner shall be given opportunity of personal hearing by the respondent- Corporation.
c) The respondent-Corporation shall not give effect to the notification dated 01.08.2019 as per Annexure - H until response of the petitioner to be submitted as 27 above, is considered and appropriate orders are passed within the time as directed hereinabove.
Sd/-
JUDGE RL/SBN