Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Susheelamma N vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 16 March, 2026
1
O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOs.170/00339/2023,
170/00098/2023 & 170/00103/2025
Order Reserved on: 17.2.2026
Date of Order: 16.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
O.A. NO. 170/00339/2023
1. Mrs. Susheelamma N.,
D/o M. Narayanappa, Aged about 48 years,
Working as Joint Managing Director,
Bangalore Smart City Limited,
Bengaluru 560052.
R/o No. 1872, 2nd-A Main,
Judicial Layout, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru 560065.
2. Dr. A. Channappa,
S/o Ayyanagouda, Aged about 53 years,
Working as Chief Executive Officer,
Davanagere Zilla Panchayat,
Davanagere 577002.
3. Mrs. Seema Naik,
W/o Ashoka Kumar,
Chief Administrative Officer,
Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology,
Bangalore 560029.
R/o No. 3, 37th Main, B.T.M. Layout,
2nd Stage, Bengaluru 560068. ..... Applicants
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.16
17:05:40+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
(By Advocate:Shri.J.M.Anilkumar- through video conference)
Vs.
1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Training,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110003.
3. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its
Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560001.
4. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel
and Administrative Reforms, Represented by its Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru 560001. ...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri.Vishnu Bhat for respondent no.1 through video
conference, Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No.2, Shri.Reuben Jacob,
AAG along with Shri.Mahantesh Shettar, AGA for respondent nos.3
and 4 through video conference)
O.A No.170/00098/2023:
1. Mrs Susheelamma N.
D/o M Narayanappa,
aged about 48 years,
working as Joint Managing Director,
Bangalore Smart City Limited,
Bengaluru-560052.
R/o No. 1872, 2nd A Main,
Judicial Layout, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru-560065.
2. Dr. A. Channappa,
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.16
17:05:40+05'30'
3
O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
S/O Ayyanagouda,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Chief Executive Officer,
Dawanagere Zilla Panchayat,
Dawanagere 577 002
3. Mrs Seema Naik,
Wife of Ashoka Kumar,
Chief Administrative Officer,
Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology,
BANGALORE-560029.
R/o No. 3, 37th Main,
B.T.M. Layout, 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560068. ...Applicants
(By Advocate Shri.J.M.Anilkumar- through video conference)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Training.
New Delhi-110001
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its
Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Vidhana Soudha
Bengaluru-560001.
4. Principal Secretary to Department of Personnel
and Administrative Reforms,
Represented by its Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru-560001. ...Respondents
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.16
17:05:40+05'30'
4
O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
(By Advocates: Shri. Shri Vishnu Bhat for Respondent No. 1 - through
video conference, Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent No. 2, Shri Reuben
Jacob, AAG along with Shri Mahantesh Shettar, AGA for Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 - through video conference)
O.A. NO. 170/00103 /2025
Dr .Shivakumar H.R
S/o Late H. C. Ramaiah,
Aged about 56 years, Working as
Zonal Joint Commissioner (South Zone) BBMP,
#8, 2nd floor, 9th Cross Road, 2nd Block,
RNS Shanthinivas Apartment
Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru 560022 ...... Applicant
(By Advocate Smt. Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions (DoPT),
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
2. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Represented by Secretary, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110 069
3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru 560 001
4. The Secretary
Department of Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (DPAR) Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru 560 001 ...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri.N.Amaresh for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri
Reuben Jacob, AAG along with Shri Mahantesh Shettar, AGA for
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 through video conference)
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.16
17:05:40+05'30'
5
O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
These three Original Applications are inter-related as they are regarding appointments based on the KPSC Selection Gazetted Probationers - 1998 examination. Related prolonged litigations were there and the applicants were similarly placed and were in non-state civil service earlier in the original selection list of 2006. But after prolonged litigations and the judgment in the case of Khaleel Ahmad vs. State of Karnataka and its confirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the revised list prepared in the years 2019 to 2021, they all were in the State Civil Services Group A (K.A.S). Hence, the subject matter being inter-related and similar, all three original applications are taken together for consideration. These Original Applications are filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
O.A No.170/00339/2023:
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or such other writ, order or direction, quashing communication bearing No. e-DPAR 44 SAS 2023 dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure-A30) of the respondent No.4, as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and grant all consequential reliefs, in the interest of Justice and equity;
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to recommend the names of the applicants and to respondent No.3 to consider the names of the applicants, based on their dates of eligibility for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 to the Karnataka Cadre for the Select List of 202) and grant all consequential reliefs, in the interest of justice and equity;
c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to recommend the names of the Applicants and to respondent No.3 to consider the names of the Applicants, based on their dates of eligibility for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 955 to the Karnataka Cadre for the select list of 205 and grant all consequential reliefs, in the interest of justice and equity;
d) ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this application."
O.A No.170/00103/2025:
"a) call for records in communication bearing No. e-DPAR 44 SAS 2023 Dated 19.04.2023 (ANNEXURE -A27) and:
b) Issue a writ of certiorari, or such other writ, order or direction, quashing the para no.4 in the Note annexed to the communication bearing No. e- DPAR 44 SAS 2023 dated 19-04-2023 (Annexure A27) of the Respondent No.4, in so far as it states SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE that the Applicant does not have 8 years of continuous service in KAS scale, and grant all consequential reliefs, in the Interest of justice and equity.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent nos.3 and 4 to recommend the name of the Applicant to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and further direction to the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 to consider the name of the Applicant for the promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 to the Karnataka Cadre for the Select List of 2015 with grant all consequential benefits,
d) ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this application."
O.A 170/00098/2023:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to consider the representations dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure-A27 to A29, respectively) of the Applicants, and grant all consequential reliefs, in the interest of justice and equity;
b) ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this application."
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the synopsis, are that:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE O.A 339/2023:
The Applicants joined the services of the State Government in the Non-State Civil Services pursuant to the Gazetted Probationers -1998 examination vide select list dated 28.02.2006. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 21.06.2016 in the case of Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka and connected matters, reported in ILR 2016 Kar 5185/2016 (4) AKR 449, set aside the selections made by select list dated 28.02.2006 and issued fresh directions regarding preparation of select list. In compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the KPSC published select lists dated 15.06.2019, 03.12.2019 and 22.08.2019, wherein, the applicants and few others came to be selected to the post of Assistant Commissioners in place of certain others. The services of the applicants have been protected by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021. The State Government further published seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner, showing the date of eligibility for promotion as 06.04.2006.
The applicants are all eligible to be promoted to the Indian SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Administrative Service under the I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. The juniors of the applicants have been promoted, however, the cases of the applicants have not been sent for consideration, wholly contrary to law.
The applicants filed O.A No. 5901 of 2023 on 28.02.2023 praying for a writ of mandamus for consideration of their representation dated 20.04.2022 for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service and is pending consideration. During the pendency of the said Original Application, the State Government while recommending names to the U.P.S.C for preparation of select list-2022 for promotion of State Civil Services Officers to the IAS, by communication dated 19.04.2023 has not considered the cases of the applicants for promotion for the Select list 2022 since they have not rendered 8 years of continuous service in the KAS Scale since they were appointed to the KAS on 15.06.2019 and 02.01.2020. Ignoring that their initial appointment to Non-State Civil Service came to be revised to appointment to the State Civil Services, with retrospective effect, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka and connected SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE matters, fixing their date of entry into State Civil service from the date of appointment to the Non-State Civil Service. Very much aggrieved by the communication dated 19.04.2023 and notification dated 08.08.2022, promoting the juniors of the applicants, wholly contrary to law, the instant Original Application is preferred.
O.A 98/2023:
The Applicants joined the services of the State Government in the Non-State Civil Services pursuant to the Gazetted Probationers -1998 examination vide select list dated 28.02.2006. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 21.06.2016 in the case of Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka and connected matters, reported in ILR 2016 Kar 5185/2016 (4) AKR 449, set aside the selections made by select list dated 28.02.2006 and issued fresh directions regarding preparation of select list. In compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the KPSC published select lists dated 15.06.2019, 03.12.2019 and 22.08.2019, wherein the applicants and a few others came to be selected to the post of Assistant Commissioners in place of certain others. The SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE services of the applicants have been protected by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021. The State Government further published seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner, showing the date of eligibility for promotion as 06.04.2006.
The applicants are all eligible to be promoted to the Indian Administrative Service under the I.A.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. The juniors of the applicants have been promoted, however, the cases of the applicants has not been sent for consideration, wholly contrary to law. The applicants have submitted various representations, including the latest one being 20.04.2022, which has remained unanswered. Very much aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, which is wholly without any authority of law and contrary to the fundamental rights of the applicants, the instant Original Application is preferred.
O.A 103/2025:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
1.(i) The Applicant has challenged the Note to the Communication dated 19-04-2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent in so far as it states that the Applicant does not have 8 years of service as Deputy Collector and has sought a direction to the Respondent nos.3 and 4 to recommend the name of the Applicant to the 1st and 2nd Respondents,
(ii) Further direction has been sought to the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the name of the Applicant for the promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 to the Karnataka Cadre for the Select List of 2015.
2. The KPSC issued a Notification dated 9-3-1998 calling for applications from eligible candidates for Group A and Group B Posts and the Preliminary and Final examinations were conducted accordingly. After the Provisional Select list was issued by the KPSC in 2001, there was a series of litigations and several aggrieved candidates approached the Learned Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal alleging mass irregularities in the conduct of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE preliminary and final examinations and valuation of papers by the KPSC.
3. There was also a PIL filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by one Khaleel Ahmed & ors against the State of Karnataka & ors (Writ Petition No.27674/2012) and connected matters. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 21-06-2016 setting aside the Select List dated 28-02-2006 issued several directions including one to issue a revised list of eligible candidates. Against the said order of Hon'ble High Court, aggrieved candidates filed SLP (Civil) No 29245 of 2016 and other connected matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which ultimately came to be dismissed.
4. The Applicant was one of the aspirants who had, in response to the said recruitment notification issued in 1998 for the Gazetted Probationers Group A & B posts, applied for the Group A Post. The applicant had preferred State Civil Services as his first choice.
5. The Applicant, who had preferred State Civil Services as his first choice in response to the recruitment notification issued in 1998 for the Gazetted Probationers SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Group A & B posts, was initially wrongly selected to the Group A post in the "Non-State Civil Service" vide Select List dated 28-02-2006 issued by the KPSC. The Applicant's name is shown at Sl. No 5 in the select list of Asst.
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, which is a non-state civil service post, vide Notification dated 26-04-2006. The Applicant completed his probationary period.
6. After the dismissal of the SLP, the State Government issued a revised Select List vide Notification dated 25-01- 2019. Pursuant to the Revised Select List, the State Government issued a Notification dated 15-06-2019, appointing the Applicant and few others to the post of KAS (Jr. Scale) with all consequential benefits with effect from 15- 06-2006 and those ineligible candidates who were illegally appointed to KAS (Jr Scale) were dislodged/removed and were shifted to Non-State Civil Services. The seniority lists were also revised accordingly.
7. The State Government published a Provisional Seniority List in the cadre of K.A.S. (Junior Scale) by Notification dated 16.09.2021, published in the official gazette on 18.09.2021. The name of the Applicant is shown SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE at S.No. 714A and the date of eligibility is correctly shown as 06.04.2006.
8. Consequently, the State Government published the Provisional Seniority List in the cadre of K.A.S. (Senior Scale), by notification dated 17.11.2021. The applicant's name is placed at SI No 567A in the order of Seniority and the date of eligibility to the cadre of the K.A.S. Senior Scale is correctly shown as 17.09.2011.
9. Based on the above seniority lists, a Provisional Seniority List in the cadre of K.A.S. (Selection Grade) was published by Notification dated 14.12.2021. The Applicant is shown at Sl. Nos.322 and the date of eligibility for the said cadre is correctly assigned as 20.09.2019.
10. The Applicant submitted his representations to the Respondents herein to accord promotion to IAS as per IAS Promotion Rules. However, Respondents 3 and 4 have failed to consider the same. Hence, the applicant has sought the aforesaid prayers.
3. On notice, the respondents have appeared. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE In O.A 103/2025, the respondents have filed their respective reply statements. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder thereafter.
In O.A 98/2023, the respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant thereafter.
In O.A 339/2023, respondent nos.1 has filed their reply statement, Respondent nos.2 has filed a Memo adopting the reply statement filed in O.A 98/23 in this case as well and respondent nos.3 and 4 have filed their reply statement and additional reply statement to the amended O.A. Rejoinders have also been filed by the applicants to the reply statement of all respondents.
4. The case came up for final hearing on 03.11.2025, 11.11.2025, 12.11.2025, 17.11.2025, 12.01.2026 and 17.2.2026. Shri.J.M.Anilkumar and Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath for the applicants and Shri Vishnu Bhat, Shri.N.Amaresh and Shri Reuben Jacob, AAG along with Shri Mahantesh Shettar, AGA for the respondents were present heard.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
5. O.A 98/2023 and O.A 339/2023 are claimed by the same three applicants and have the same facts and the same line of arguments with very small differences in relief, but the reliefs are also very organically inter-linked. Whereas O.A 103/2025 is filed by a different applicant, he is also in a similar predicament as he was also earlier in the 2006 list of Gazetted Probationers, was given a non-state civil service position but later, after the orders of Hon'ble High Court in Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka supra which was finally confirmed by the Apex Court and the seniority of 1998 gazetted probationers were changed and all the applicants got posts in the Karnataka Administrative Service. Hence, for convenience, we are taking the facts of the case in O.A 339/2023 as the lead case.
6. For examining the facts and arguments of the parties at the time of argument, all the cases were argued at length, and they are out of the same 1998 gazetted probationary exam in Karnataka and have been the victim of the associated controversies. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as made out in paragraph 5 of the respective Original Applications. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
7. The main contention of the applicants is that, in terms of the revised select list pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Khaleel Ahmed, the applicants, who were earlier in the Karnataka Non-State Civil Services, came to be appointed to the State Civil Services (SCS) with effect from their initial appointments in the year 2006. Accordingly, the applicants are asserting that they were entitled to all consequential benefits, including promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, as if they were appointed to the State Civil Services by the original select list in 2006. As asserted by the applicants, non-consideration of the applicants for promotion to I.A.S is a violation of the fundamental right to be considered for promotion guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Hence, the applicants contend that the action of the State Government in not considering the repeated requests of the applicants is wholly unsustainable.
8. Further, the Applicants have contended that they have the requisite qualifications under the I.A.S (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. The applicants have worked in posts equivalent to that of Deputy Collector as notified by the State Government. Under these circumstances, applicants are entitled to be considered for promotion.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
9. The applicants further say that the communication dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure A-30 in O.A 339/2023) in so far as it holds that the applicants have not completed 8 years of service in State Civil Service, is contrary to law and facts and is unsustainable. They assert that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.Β. Rajoria, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 562, has clearly held that "regular service" cannot be equated with "actual experience" wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had relied on the case in Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416, 1996 SCC (L&S) 9677 and in that case, the eligibility criterion was the "completion years' experience in Grade II" and that the case is therefore expressly entirely distinguishable.
10. The applicants further contended that the notional promotion to one Shri.Krishnamoorti (In S.Krishna Murthy v. General manager, Southern Railway reported in AIR 1977 SC 1858) was to right the wrong that had been done to him by his supersession on 22-2-1995. If Krishnamoorti is denied the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director General on the basis of such notional promotion/ particularly when the relevant provisions so provide, it would result in perpetuating the wrong done to him. That is exactly what the High Court has done/given to.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
11. Further, the applicants relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 230. The earlier writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed on 13-9-2010, and the Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the seniority amongst the seven shortlisted candidates. The appellant was one of them. The challenge to the said order by three affected candidates remained unsuccessful when SLP was dismissed by that Court on 8-10-2010 [Sulekha M. v. High Court of Kerala, 2010 SCC Online SC 80]. The SLP was filed by the candidates who were granted the benefit of moderation of marks. Once the direction of the Division Bench has attained finality, the appellant was entitled to seniority as per the select list to be revised as per the merit of the candidates. In terms of Rule 6(2), the seniority is to be determined by the serial order in which the name appeared in the appointment order. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 5 that the appellant was not appointed by the same appointment order, therefore, the appellant cannot claim seniority, is not tenable. The appellant was entitled to be appointed along with the other three candidates, but because of the action of the High Court in adopting moderation of marks, the appellant was excluded from appointment. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE The exclusion of the appellant from appointment was on account of an illegal act by the High Court which has been safe and sound by the judgment dated 13-9-2010 [Jayachandran C. v. High Court of Kerala, ((2010) SCC Online Ker 4891, (2010) 3 KLJ (2012)). Since the select list has to be revised, the appellant was deemed to be part of the appointment along with other candidates in the same select list. As the actual date of appointment was on 24-2-2011, the appellant cannot actually be treated as appointed on 30-3-2009 but is entitled to a notional appointment from that date and consequential seniority.
12. In view of the above, the appellant, having participated in the same selection process and in view of the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court, was rightly placed by the High Court by giving him a revised select list placing him at Sl. No. 41 by pushing Badharudeen from the general category candidate to the OBC category candidate at Sl. No. 42.
13. The appellant was wrongfully excluded from the process of appointment on account of an illegal and arbitrary grant of moderation of marks. The Government, in its Order dated 22-12-2010, cancelled the appointment of three District and Sessions Judges who were granted the benefit of moderation. Badharudeen was earlier assigned a general SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE category seat, but since the appellant was higher in merit, Badharudeen was pushed down and adjusted against an OBC category seat at Sl. No.
42. Badharudeen has not challenged his being pushed down at Sl. No. 42 either before the learned Single Bench of the High Court, or before the Division Bench of the High Court or even before this Court. Therefore, as a respondent, he cannot be permitted to dispute the grant of seniority to the appellant at Sl. No. 41. The Judgment referred to by the learned counsel is not helpful to the arguments raised, as the appellant therein sought seniority as a direct recruit from the time when the vacancies occurred. To raise such an argument, reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711], wherein this Court held that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from the date he was not borne in the service. The said finding is in the context of the claim of the appellant to claim seniority from the date of availability of the vacancies; whereas in the present case, the appellant is claiming seniority from the date the other candidates in the same selection process were appointed but the appellant is excluded on account of an illegal act of the High Court of the moderation of marks. Therefore, the said judgment is not of any help to the arguments raised. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
14. Further, the applicants have contended that their case is supported by this Tribunal's order dated 12.12.2022 in O.A No. 450 of 2021 in the case of S. Jahnavi v. State of Karnataka & Others, which held as follows:
"20. A reading of these judgments would establish that when there was no lapse/delay on the part of the candidate, she cannot be punished for no fault of her, though she was found to be more meritorious candidate than the last candidate appointed. Third proviso to Regulations 5(2) of the Regulations has to be interpreted in the light of these judgments. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by KSAT and during the pendency of contempt proceedings, appointment order was issued to the applicant herein. Merely for the reason that the applicant was not entitled to arrears of salary prior to the date of actual appointment albeit she is entitled for seniority and fixation of pay on par with that of her juniors in the select list, in terms of the order of KSAT, it cannot be held that the applicant's service cannot be considered to be a continuous service from her Initial date of appointment i.e., 21.05.2008. The stance of the State Government that the applicant is not qualified for induction into the Indian Police Service by way of promotion is unjustifiable, being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Hence in my considered view the OA deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, 1 concur with the decision of the Hon'ble Member(J) and respectfully disagree with the order of Hon'ble Member (A). Ordered accordingly."
The said order has been questioned by the State Government in W.P NO. 590 of 2023 before the Hon'ble High Court. However, there is no stay to the order of this Tribunal.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
15. Further, the applicants have relied on the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench order dated 05.05.2022 in Surya Madhaba Panigrahi v. Union of India and Others in O.A No. 521 of 2021, wherein the Tribunal has held as follows:
"8. After giving thoughtful to the various arguments advances by the parties we have perused the pleadings and documents/rules/judgment relied on by respective parties. The issue in the instant case was exactly the issue before the Hyderabad Bench in the case of Sri Sri Ramanjaneyulu vs UPSC in OA No 1826/2000 batch cases. Vie where there is a qualifying service for promotion the notional date of appointment or notional date of promotion was to be taken into consideration and after due discussions and deliberations the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal had held that that there can be no good reasons for taking into consideration the actual date of promotion in the feeder cadre for the purpose of making state service employee to be eligible for consideration for selection to IAS.
9. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in Sri Ramanjaneyulu (supra) is extracted below:
"18. The judgement of the Supreme Court in K.B. Rajoria's case (supra) also lends support to the view that regular service does not mean actual service only and the eligibility could be determined with reference to the notional promotion granted from a retrospective date. In that case, one officer was wrongly superseded in 1995 for promotion as Additional Director General. The wrong was set- right by the order doted 10.6.98 by granting him promotion retrospectively with effect from 22.2.95. In January 1999, he was considered for further promotion as Director General. The Recruitment SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Rules provide "two years regular service" as eligibility condition for promotion as Director General. The Officer did not fulfil the condition of two years if his date of actual promotion was reckoned as 10.6.98, but fulfilled this condition if the period was reckoned from the date of notional promotion I.e, 22.2.95. The Supreme Court held that the regular service in the grade did not mean actual physical service and that notional promotion could not be considered as irregular. By giving the officer notional promotion with effect from 22.2.95 the officer in fact was regularly appointed to that post, on that date. The Court also referred to the decision in M.Bhaskar's case (supra) and clarified that the eligibility criteria in that case was two years experience, and on that point, the case was distinguished. In the above cases viz., Sitaram Raghunath Kapse and K.B.Rajoria (supra), the learned judges have stressed the point that where a mistake initially committed having been set-right and justice was done to the officers, it would amount to perpetuating the mistake committed/injustice done.
If the corrected dotes were not given effect for promotion.
19. In "S. Krishna Murthy Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway: AIR 1977 SC 1858", the appellant was not considered for absorption as Traffic Inspector along with other similarly situated employees and the Hallway Administration discovering the injustice, set-right the error subsequently. But by that time, others have been promoted as Traffic Inspectors and the appellant was not. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that.
"The appellant has a future and hopefully looks forward for promotion. It is, in our view, right and reasonable that for purposes of promotion, seniority will be reckoned from 20th December, SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE 1967 but for qualifying period, if there is such a condition for promotion, his notional service from 1st January, 1959 will be considered."
Thus, we find that in all the above cases where there is a qualifying service for promotion, the notional date of appointment or the notional date of promotion was taken into consideration and the courts in all the cases uniformly held that failure of the same would only perpetuate the injustice initially committed. No other judgments have been cited by the respondents in support of their contention.
20. In fact the actual dates of appointment of the applicants herein, as Deputy Collectors were invalid and unlawful. The correct dates of their appointment of promotion have been finally assigned by the Government and hence for all purposes, thereafter those dates have to be taken into consideration. There can be no good reason for taking into consideration the actual dates of their appointment for promotion to IAS. If that were to be done, we would be only undoing the right done to them by the Government. It should also be remembered that the respondents are not disputing the deemed date of appointment.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that all the applicants are eligible for Inclusion in the select list of the site Civil Service Officers for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 to be considered by the Select Committee which met on 15.12.2000 and 16.12.2000 on they had completed 8 years of continuous service in the cadre of Deputy Collectors in terms of 3rd proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the Promotion Regulations. As it is now stated that in pursuance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court, all the applicants have been considered and their results have been withheld, the respondents are directed to declare SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE the results within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. The OAs is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, we do not order costs."
10. It is not the case of the respondents that decision of the Hyderabad Bench has been reviewed or set aside by Tribunal or in any higher forum. We do not find any ground/new ground to differ/disagree with the view taken by the Hyderabad bench of the Tribunal. The doctrine of precedence has been well enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal & Others v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi (JT 1999 (9) SC 597] where Hon'ble Supreme Court had held: "At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to low A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 28 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdos Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, (1968) 1 SCR ass while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same court observed thus:
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhogwati, J., in Pinjore Karimbhai's case and of Macleod CA, in Haridas 's case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it our system of Administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, CJ. observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr v. Shri Ram Chand and Anr.
"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re- considered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 29 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier thereby creating uncertainty in regard to the declaration of Judgment involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship."
11. In view of the foregoing discussion made above, we are of the view that rejection of candidature of the applicant as he does not complete eight years of continuous service in terms of 3rd proviso to Regulation 5 (2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 does not hold good. Hence the impugned order is quashed. The respondents/UPSC are directed to convenes the review DPC and consider the case of the applicant as against the select year 2020 strictly in terms of rules and law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. The OA is accordingly allowed to the extent above. No costs."
16. Further, the applicants have relied on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604.
17. Further, the applicants have further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Hanumantha Reddy v. Union of India, reported in 1985 SCC Online AP 228.
18. The applicants contend that KPSC and the State Government cannot take benefit of its own wrong in preparing and operating the select list and deny the applicants right to be considered for promotion. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 30 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
19. Further, the applicants contend that the impugned order of promotion, promoting the juniors, is wholly illegal and unsustainable in any view of the matter. Juniors of the applicants are promoted to the cadre of I.A.S. The non-consideration of the applicants' cases for promotion is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, guaranteed to the applicants.
20. The applicants are at S.No. 728A, 727, 729A in the provisional seniority list dated 16.09.2021 in the cadre of K.A.S Junior Scale; at S.No. 581A. 580A, 582A provisional seniority list dated 17.11.2021 in the cadre of K.A.S (Senior Scale); and at 328, 327 and 329 in the seniority list dated 14.12.2021 in the cadre of K.A.S (Selection Grade).
21. Further, the applicants contend that the promotion of the officers occurred during the pendency of the case were subject to the outcome of the case pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. All the officers were put on notice that their promotion shall be subject to the outcome. It was further notified that none shall claim equity. With the dismissal of the S.L.Ps, the orders of promotions granted earlier are null and void, and the revised select list and consequential seniority lists have to be given effect to.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 31 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
22. The applicants further contend that the State Government has granted notional date of eligibility to the applicants, as admitted by the communication dated 22.06.2019. Accordingly, the pay of the applicants is also notionally fixed. Under these circumstances, the applicants are entitled to the benefit.
23. The applicants have relied on the decisions in the following cases: -
UNION OF INDIA vs. K.B. RAJORIA reported in (2000) 3 SCC 562, UNION OF INDIA vs. SADHANA KHANNA reported in (2008) 1 SCC 720, C.JAYACHANDRAN vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 5 SCC 230, PILLA SITARAM PATRUDU vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1996) 8 SCC 637, SURENDRA NARAYAN SINGH vs. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (1998) 5 SCC 246, BIMLESH TANWAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604, G. HANUMANTHA REDDY vs. UNION OF INDIA (1985) SCC Online AP 228, NARENDRA SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2022) 3 SCC 286, UNION OF INDIA vs. MAJ. GENERAL MADAN LAL YADAV (RTD) reported in (1996) 4 SCC 127, SURYA MADHABA SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 32 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE PANIGRAHI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Order dated 05.05 2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.521 of 2021, MS. S. JAHNAVI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS Order dated 12.12.2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No. 450 of 2021, SRI. VISHWANATH P HIREMATH vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Order dated 05.04.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No. 358 of 2021, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs. ESCORTS LTD.
AND OTHERS reported in (1986) 1 SCC 264, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. A. BALAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2022) 9 SCC 186, SUNIL KUMAR KORI AND ANOTHER vs. GOPAL DAS KABRA AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 10 SCC and the decision in KHALEEL AHMED K.R vs. THE STATE OF KARNAΤΑΚΑ reported in ILR 2016 KAR 5185.
24. The applicants further contend that the non-consideration of the cases of the applicants for promotion is contrary to law, is in violation of principles of natural Justice, without any authority of law, is arbitrary, unfair, unjust, contrary to the rules and regulations as applicable to the applicants, unreasonable, discriminatory, contrary to SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 33 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE public interest, without application of mind, highhanded, irrational, and is violative of Articles 14, and 16 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be set aside.
25. To which the respondents 2 and 3 representing the State Government who are the main respondents have agreed to all the facts of the case and the timeline of KPSC Gazetted Probationary 1998 examination, the legal disputes in various Courts of law and finally revision of the select list which was originally made on 28.02.2006, by revised select list on 25.01.2019, 22.08.2019 and 30.01.2021, and it is also not disputed that 9 others who were displaced from KAS Class I to non-state civil services have been promoted to the IAS against the select list of 2015 vide order dated 27.02.2018 and those orders were subject to the outcome in SLP etc. It is further not disputed that all four applicants were earlier in the select list of 28.02.2006 in non-state civil services, where they had exemplary services, and they were regularly promoted to the higher grade in their own respective cadres, and were brought into the state civil services cadre of K.A.S Group A vide KPSC select list of 28.02.2006 due to Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders and revised select list prepared in the year 2019-2021. It is also contended that the select list of 25.01.2019 and 22.08.2019 was SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 34 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE challenged by the displaced persons in KAT as per the liberties which were given to them in the High Court order earlier in Application Nos. 147-152 of 2020 and vide order dated 24.09.2020, their application was allowed, and the select list was quashed for reconsideration, and KPSC were asked to re-do the moderation and scaling of the answer scripts of the applicants as well as private respondents, in accordance with the orders of the High Court dated 11.10.2002 and 10.02.2003, the parties were asked to maintain status-quo. The KPSC challenged 24.09.2020 order in Writ Petition No.2855 of 2021 which is still pending before the Hon'ble High court wherein, the status quo order was issued on 08.03.2022 due to which initially the respondents said that they are unable to proceed in the present case of the applicants as they have to maintain the status quo, but later on pointing out they gave certain promotions to the displaced officers recently, they changed their stand that if the applicants fulfilled the conditions as per the provisions of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, their cases will be considered.
26. Further, the respondents state that the select list dated 30.01.2021 was challenged in O.A 855/2021 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 21/22-04-2022, which SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 35 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE was further challenged in Writ Petition No.8837/2022 and others and an interim order was passed for no reversion. In another case arising out of the same litigation, in Writ Petition No.9066/2022, a status quo order was passed. In another case, in Writ Petition No.10399/2022, it was ordered that if the officer is not relieved, he shall not be relieved until further orders of that court.
27. The respondents agree that they have made a special rule under the Karnataka Civil Services Act called Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch gazetted probationers) (declaration of probation and fixation of pay) (special) rules, 2021. Accordingly, vide circular dated 01.06.2021 seniority of the applicants and the respondents was revised and in furtherance of the special rules, provisional seniorities were given to the applicants. The provisional seniority list of KAS (junior scale) on 16.09.2021, for senior scale on 17.11.2021 and for KAS selection grade on 14.12.2021. But the main contention of the respondents is that Regulation 5(2) and 3rd proviso of Regulation 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 required certain conditions to be fulfilled. The first condition being on the relevant date of the select list year, the candidate must be in a substantive post in the State Civil Service which condition all the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 36 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE applicants fulfil, and the candidate should be less than 56 years of age as on first January of the selection year, which condition also the applicants fulfils, but the third and most important condition of 8 years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) is not fulfilled by the applicants. In the opinion of respondents, eight years of continuous service means eight years of actual service in any post in Karnataka Administrative Service in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government, under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 which the applicants had not held, as their service in Karnataka Administrative Service has been notified only in 2021. Hence, they contend that the past service rendered in non-KAS service cannot be considered as continuous service as in the Appointment by Promotion Regulations.
28. They further contend that the equivalence which has been given under Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 8(2) is very different from the equivalence to Deputy Collector as is defined in IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 8(1). Only cadre and ex-cadre posts notified under the Karnataka Administrative Service are treated as equal to Deputy Collector and, on SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 37 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE a case-to-case basis, an order of equivalence is given and for a person to be eligible for recommendation to the IAS, the person must continuously hold at least for 8 years actually in any of the posts notified as Deputy Collector or equivalent under the said rules. As the applicants have only been given a notional appointment in the State Civil Service since 2006, and they have not held the Karnataka Administrative Service--State Civil Service post of Deputy Collector and equivalent, for 8 years of continuous service. Hence, they are ineligible to be recommended for promotion to IAS. The provision of special rules under the Karnataka Civil Services Act made in 2021 enables them to promotion and notional seniority from 2006 in Karnataka administrative service and, accordingly, they have been given seniority in junior scale vide order dated 16.09.2021 and has been given senior scale from 17.11.2021 and KAS selection grade from 14.12.2021.
29. The state government has cited the case of Girish Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 6 SCC 647 in their favour as in their opinion, it supports their contention of continuous service being actual 8 years of service and that the apex court has made it amply clear that deemed date of seniority does not make a person eligible under recruitment rules SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 38 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE and the special probation rules called Karnataka Civil Service (1998 batch gazette probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 only will enable the applicants for promotion in KAS and will not be relevant for inter-cadre, inter service, eligibility under IAS (Appointment by promotion) Regulations 1955. So notional service from 2006 in Karnataka Administrative Service given to the applicants cannot be accounted as actual continuous service and their non-KAS/non- state civil service experience cannot qualify for continuous service under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955.
30. Respondent no.1, the Government of India, has also filed their reply statement. They also do not contest any facts or timeline or rules. But they also emphasised the 3rd proviso to regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, which states:
"Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case of 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 8 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."
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 39 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
31. In terms of the above provision, 8 years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector is a mandatory condition for an SCS officer to be eligible for consideration for promotion to IAS. They further contend that the reasons for considering only continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector are that the principle adopted in the appointment by promotion from State Civil Service (SCS) to the IAS is based upon merit-cum-seniority (Regulation 5(2) and 5(4)). It is imperative that, to ascertain/evaluate the concerned officer's actual merit (grading), his service records for the actual period rendered by him as Deputy Collector or equivalent have to be taken into account. Any presumption of evaluating the case of an officer based upon service records which are not relevant to the period and also not of the relevant post would tantamount to vitiating the entire selection committee proceedings and may deliver altogether different results. With regard to the relief sought by the applicants regarding quashing of the notification bearing F.No.14015/11/2022-AIS (1) B dated 08.08.2022 issued by this respondent to appoint the member of KAS to the IAS against the vacancy determined by the Government of India in consultation with the State Government for the select list of 2021. It is also submitted that the respondents, in accordance with, after following SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 40 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE the rules and procedures contained in IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955, contend that the application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
32. Respondent no.2 has also filed their reply statement. The respondent no.2 also does not contest any facts, timelines, or legal provisions of the case. But regarding the contention of the applicants, they submit that third proviso to regulation 5(2) of the promotion regulations, provided the committee shall not consider the case of 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 an equivalent post. They contend that the applicants were notionally appointed as SCS from 2006 as per the Court directions. However, they have worked in the post of Deputy Collector from 27.06.2019 onwards, and hence, they have not completed the mandatory 8 years of service in the said post as on the first day of January 2022 for the select list 2022 (i.e. the crucial date for determining the eligibility of SCS officers for select list for promotion to the IAS of Karnataka cadre). Hence, their cases have not been sent SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 41 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE by the State Government for consideration. They further contend that it is the policy of the government that eight years of continuous service, whether officiating or substantive, is mandatory for consideration of promotion to IAS. It is further submitted that the government of India, DoP&T O.M dated 08.08.2018 and 03.11.2020 have clarified the said provision with respect to eligibility for the purpose. In view of the provisions of promotion regulations and DoPT O.Ms clearly mentioned above, the applicants are not eligible for consideration for the select list of 2022 since they have not completed the mandatory eight years of continuous service as on January 1st, 2022. They further submitted that the promotion of State Civil Service officers from one service into another service, which is governed by a different set of rules, and one of them being 8 years of continuous service (whether substantive or officiating) as Deputy Collector or equivalent. They further contend that the interpretation and clarification of 1955 is the domain of the government of India, DoPT, and their opinion should be taken into account, and they prayed to dismiss the original application.
33. The respondents have relied on the decisions in the following cases:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 42 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 20.12.2024 in CCC No.506/2022, order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 15.10.2025 in W.P(Civil) No.202/1995, decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aneesh D Lawande v. State of Goa reported in (2014) 1 SCC 554, decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chhavi Mehrotra v. Direction General, Health Services reported in (1995) Supp (3) SCC 434 and the decision in Vidya bhushan Mishra v. State of M.P reported in (2023) SCC Online MP 7037 etc.
34. We have carefully examined the submissions and rival contentions. From the same, it is evident that the following questions are raised before us for consideration.
Q.1. Whether retrospective service benefits created for the applicants by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 count as continuous service under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955?
Q.2. Whether the State can deny de-facto equivalent experience to applicants for their actual service rendered under the Karnataka non-state civil services posts which SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 43 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE were formally declared equivalent to Deputy Collector under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 combined with their subsequent retrospective service benefits given by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 as a member of the State Civil Services Officers to count as continuous service under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955?
Q3. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases whether the State Government was justified in recording the 'following' in the impugned letter dated 19.04.2023 No.C- DPAR 44 SAS 2023?
"The mentioned officers were initially appointed to KAS on 15.06.2019 and 02.01.2020 respectively, and they have not rendered eight years of continuous service in the KAS scale. Hence, the above officers in the select list are not considered for the select list - 2022", (including all four applicants). Q.4. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases when will the four applicants be eligible for promotion to the IAS SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 44 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE cadre as per the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955?
5. If so what orders?
Examination of submissions : Discussions and conclusions:-
35. Appreciation of facts and rules placed before us:
To understand the context of this case in proper perspective, one has to see closely the introductory paragraph in the Hon'ble High Court order dated 21.06.2016 in Writ Petition No.27674/2012 and other related cases, which are referred by the name Khaleel Ahmed K.R and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and the State Government, which reads the following:
"ORDER A classic case of white collared, educated, highly placed men holding responsible posts in the administration, betraying the confidence reposed in them by the public of Karnataka is the subject matter of these proceedings. Behind the scene, how fraud, illegality, irregularity, deceit, is practiced to manipulate the results of the examination, and some of the selected candidates even before they are born in the cadre, are suffering from the vice of corruption, nepotism, casteism. The facts set out herein will unravel this sordid state of affairs in the Karnataka Public Service Commission, a premier, constitutional authority, constituted to recruit educated people to Civil Services, which is the subject matter of this public interest litigation."
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 45 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE A simple reading of the same shows the very unusual background setting of these cases - fraud, illegality, irregularity, deceit and manipulation of results of the examination of KPSC 1998, 1999, 2004 and consequent selection. It is pertinent to note that the applicants are some of the victims of this peculiar predicament. The operative portion of the order reads the following:
" ORDER (1) The procedure followed by the KPSC in preparing the list of candidates who are admitted to the written examination and the list of candidates who are called for the personality test in 1998, 1999 and 2004 for the post of Gazetted Probationers (Group A and B Posts) is unconstitutional, contrary to the Rules and the Government Orders.
However, on that ground, the entire selection of 1998, 1999 and 2004 batch selection cannot be set aside.
Segregation of tainted/ineligible candidates is possible. The KPSC shall undertake the following exercise to segregate the ineligible candidates:
(a) The KPSC shall prepare a separate list of candidates belonging to the reserved category. who took the written examination, showing the marks secured in the written examination in the order of merit.
(b) From out of the names in the said list prepared, prepare a list of candidates SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 46 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE eligible to be called for the personality test in the ratio of 1:5, i.e., five times the number of candidates as there are vacancies reserved for each of the category out of reserved posts belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes.
(c) If the names of the selected candidates belonging to the reserved category finds a place in this list, whether as General Merit candidates or Reserved candidates, then their appointment is valid and it shall not be disturbed.
(d) If the names of the selected candidates do not find a place in this list, then their appointment is void and the same is hereby set aside.
(e) The KPSC shall undertake this exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and forward the same to the Government for passing appropriate orders.
(2) The revised list prepared by the KPSC in terms of the order dated 11th October 2002 in W.P.No. 12548-589/2002 which is affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6172. 6222/2005 vide Order dated 6th October, 2005, which was submitted to the Court by the KPSC in a sealed cover, which was web-hosted by virtue of the order dated 11.11.2014 of this Court, is upheld. The KPSC and the State Government shall give effect to the said list.
(3) The KPSC shall take into consideration the 91 answer scripts which forms part of excess of 10% of the revalued paper and give effect to the order SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 47 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE of the High Court dated 11th October 2002 in W.P.No. 12548-589/2002 and the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6172-6222/2005 vide Order dated 6th October, 2005.
(4) The selection of candidates for the post of 1999 Gazetted Probationers (Group A and B posts) is not liable to be set aside on the ground of destruction of answer scripts.
(5) In respect of the matters which are adjudicated and decided in this writ petition, this Public Interest Litigation is maintainable. (6) All other issues/disputes which are personal in character are relegated to be decided by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, where the applications of the petitioners are pending consideration. It is open to the petitioners to amend the said application to include those issues which are not decided in this Public Interest Litigation.
Similarly, it is open to the respondents to agitate their rights/put forth their defence in the pending proceedings before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, if they are made parties. Otherwise, they can also initiate independent proceedings for protecting their rights or agitate their rights. (7) The KPSC and the State Government shall take steps to frame Rules or amend the existing Rules giving effect to the recommendations of Hota Committee, at the earliest. Till such Rules are framed or amended, the KPSC and the State Government shall follow the recommendations of the Hota Committee as set out in paragraphs 46, 47, 50. 51. 53, 54, 56, 58, 65 and 66 of the report, which are clearly set out in paragraph 287 of this Judgment.
(8) The High Court Registry is directed to keep the reports submitted by the members of the High SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 48 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Court Committee constituted by this Court in this proceedings, in safe custody. If and when any request is made from the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal to transmit the said records, the same shall be sent to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal."
36. It is to be noted that this case was challenged further in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by SLP 29294/2016 and others with the name Gopal K.H and others v. State of Karnataka and others and on 27.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered the following:
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER List the matters on 17.1.2018 for final disposal. Any promotion/appointment made in the meantime, shall be subject to the outcome of the present special leave petitions, and the same shall be intimated to the persons promoted/appointed, so that he/she cannot claim any kind of equity."
Simple reading of the above shows that all the parties concerned with the gazetted probationers' examination, which were challenged in these cases, were subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition and their promotions/appointments were to be accordingly conditional, and no one could have claimed any equity. It should be further noted that in these cases litigations have been continuing since the year early 2000s.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 49 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
37. Further, the said SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 11.04.2018. Further, review petitions were filed against the order dated 11.04.2018 in the SLP(C)-29245/16 as RPC No.606/19, etc., which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2019. Further, it was challenged in Curative Petition (C) /20, which also came to be dismissed with the observation that no case is made out within the parameters indicated, and the curative petition is dismissed vide Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 19.05.2020.
38. These facts are not denied, and pursuant to this order, corrective measures were taken by the KPSC. The KPSC after due process of curative measures as suggested in the earlier High Court orders which attained finality in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have finally resulted in a revised select list for 1998 batch of gazetted probationer examination conducted by the KPSC and wherein the first select list had come out on 28.02.2006 and the same was revised vide different select lists dated 25.01.2019, 28.08.2019 and 30/01/2021. The select lists of 25.01.19 and 28.08.2019 were challenged before the court by certain displaced persons, as in the revised select list, 9 officers were displaced from KAS, the State Civil Service, to non-state civil services and some others including the four applicants before us who were earlier in State non- SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 50 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE civil services initially (2006) got into the State civil Services subsequently (2019-21). The same was challenged in O.A 147- 152/2020 and vide order dated 29.04.2020, the same was allowed and both the second and third lists were quashed and then, through due process, the 4th list on 30.01.2021 was prepared as these orders show there was an earlier round of litigation and the Hon'ble High Court orders dated 11.02.2002 and 10.02.2003 where the KPSC had been asked for certain moderation and scaling etc. So this shows that there had been a chain of litigations in this case since the beginning of this recruitment process for the 1998 batch of gazetted probationers examination. KPSC had challenged the order of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 24.09.2020 in Writ petition 2855/2021, and the same is said to be still pending, and there was a status quo order in that. The select list dated 30.01.2021 is also challenged in O.A 855/2021 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in O.A Nos. 741-747 of 2021 in KAT and vide their order dated 21/22.04.2022, the K.A.T had dismissed those, against which W.P No. 8837/22 was filed, where an interim order of no reversion was passed with status quo. In a similar Writ Petition No.9066/2022, a status quo order was passed, and in Writ Petition No.10399/22, an interim order for not relieving, if the displaced officers were not relieved was also passed. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 51 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
39. Initially the applicants had made several private respondents whose names were there in the impugned Annexure A-27 communication bearing no. e-DPAR 44 SAS 2023 dated 19.04.2023 issued by the State Government wherein the proposal of certain KAS Group A Officer who had eligibility to be proposed for being considered under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 for the select list of 2021 were made parties, but later they have been removed and they had also filed their reply statement.
As we have noted while examining the record, the Hon'ble Apex Court order in Gopal K.H and Ors. V. State of Karnataka and Others decided on 27.11.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Court had mentioned any presumptions/appointment made in the meantime shall be subject to the outcome of the special leave petition and the same shall be communicated to the persons promoted/appointed so that he/she shall not claim any kind of equity. It is needless to say that since early 2000s, these cases, one after the other have been pending in various forums and at present certain other cases are pending before the Hon'ble High Court and depending on the final outcome of those cases as well as the eligibility of the applicants to be considered, as decided, everyone in relevant and subsequent select list batches would be affected and they SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 52 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE cannot claim any equity and exception to the same and they need not be necessary parties.
40. These cases are still pending, and any decision in this matter before us is subject to the outcome of these cases. Although initially the main respondents, the State Government, i.e., respondent nos.3 and 4 in O.A 339/2023, had pleaded that they cannot give any relief to the applicants as claimed in these Original Applications till the time these cases are disposed of, but later on 17.11.2025 across the bar, based on the conversation in the order sheet issued, following was recorded:
".....Learned Additional Advocate General submits that notwithstanding the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2016 Kar 5185/2016(4) AKR 449, confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court continuing the dislodged persons as IAS officers, by virtue of the status-quo order passed in subsequent matters pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the applicants would be considered for promotion to the IAS cadre subject to they satisfying continuous service of eight years in the State Civil Service. Accordingly, we direct the State Government to file an affidavit in this regard."
Based on that they have filed an affidavit on 17.11.2025 wherein inter-alia other things, the concluding paragraph mentions the following:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 53 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE "6. I state that notwithstanding the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2016 Kar 5185/2016(4) AKR 449, confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court continuing the dislodged persons as IAS officers, by virtue of the status-quo order passed in subsequent matters pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the applicants would be considered for promotion to the IAS cadre subject to they satisfying continuous service of eight years in the State Civil Service.
7. Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to take this affidavit on record, in the interest of justice and equity."
This clearly shows that now the respondents do not see any impediment of any pending proceeding being a roadblock for further promotion of the applicants to the IAS if the rule otherwise permits, and they satisfy all the conditions of the rules. Special Rules Validating Retrospective Seniority and Promotion etc. with reference to their juniors:
41. Although the main argument of the respondents remain that the applicants have not satisfied certain conditions of the relevant rules particularly the condition regarding 8 years of continuous service whether officiating or substantive in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other post or post declared equivalent thereto by the State Government as per the requirement of the 3rd proviso of Regulation 5(2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 54 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
42. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that pursuant to the Khaleel Ahmed order supra which attained finality in the Apex Court and pursuant to its implementation, 8 persons including the four applicants who were earlier in non-state civil service came into KAS-State Civil Services Group A and accordingly the KPSC after re-doing the select list as per the High Court of Karnataka order came out with a revised select list on 28.02.2019 for 1998 Gazetted probationers batch which was finally subsequently ratified vide their gazette notification No.Si.Su.e. 15 Aseva 2019 dated 15.06.2021.
The eight candidates who came under Group A (Junior Grade) cadre were appointed under Rule 3 of KPSC (Observation) Rules, 1977, including Shri.Shivakumar H.R, Dr.A. Channappa and Mrs.Susheelamma N and with the condition that they should pass all the departmental examinations conducted by the Karnataka State Group A (Junior Cadre) prescribed for the cadre and the appointment of these candidates were subject to the decisions of any of the Court where further litigations were continuing.
43. To implement the Khaleel Ahmed order supra the State Government came up with a special rule called - Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 55 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 (Annexure A-
15) which was gazetted on 24.03.2021 and it was effective from that day.
44. It is interesting to see the details of the said rule which reads the following:
"RULES
1. Title and Commencement: (1) These rules may be called the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021.
(2) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the official Gazette.
2. Definitions: (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) 1998 batch Gazetted Probationer" means an officer who is selected as per the Karnataka Public Service Commission selection list published on 28.02.2006 and also selected as per the final revised select list of 1998 batch, published by the Karnataka Public Service Commission on 22.08.2019, or subsequent selection lists published based on further orders of any Court or Tribunal as the case may be pertaining to 1998 batch (hereinafter referred to as final revised select list) in accordance with the Karnataka Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 in pursuance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 27674/2012 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 56 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE c/w 41366/2012, 27730/2012, 43718 and 43720-43732/2012, 4297/2013, 1733/2013 on 21-06-2016 and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme court in its order dated: 11.04.2018 upholding the order dated: 21.06.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka or any other Court or Tribunal as the case may be.
(b) "Fresh Candidate" means new candidates who are inducted into the service in accordance with the Karnataka Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 as per the order dated 21.06.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and find place in the final revised select list dated: 22.08.2019 or subsequent selection lists published based on further orders of any Court or Tribunal as the case may be pertaining to 1998 batch, Gazetted Probationers, but were not selected in the 2006 original select list.
(c) "New Service" means service or cadre allotted to the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationer as per the final revised select list.
(d) "Previous or earlier Service" means post held by the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationer as per 2006 original select list (hereinafter referred to as original select list) in accordance with the Karnataka Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997.
3. Application: (1) These rules shall be applicable to the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationer who has joined the service in pursuance to the 2006 original select list and who has undergone change in Service or Department or Cadre as per final revised selection list and have joined the new service and continued to serve as such, SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 57 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Provided that, these rules shall also apply to candidates who were selected and undergone change in cadre or post or service as per final revised selection list and are eligible to be appointed to the new service but continued in the old cadre on account of court orders. (2) These rules shall not be applicable to,-
(i) Fresh candidates;
(ii) 1998 batch Gazetted probationers,-
(a) who has not undergone any change in any Service or Department or Cadre or Post vis-a-vis the original select list of 2006 and final revised select list; and
(b) who were appointed in pursuance to the said original selection list of 2006 but had left the service or not reported or had died before the date of commencement of these rules.
4. Declaration of Probation: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 and the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 or any other rule governing their service conditions, the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationers who have been appointed in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble High court dated: 21.06.2016 or any subsequent order of any Court or Tribunal and successfully completed the probation period in the previous or earlier service of 1998 batch and joined the new service shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed their period of probation in the new service and deemed to be declared as such irrespective of passing in departmental examination, but found otherwise suitable:
Provided that, the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationers whose probation is declared as above shall complete SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 58 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE their respective departmental examination before they are considered for further promotion to the rank equal to that of his immediate junior, other than the benefits provided in rule 5.
5. Fixation of pay: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, the pay of the officers of the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationer after his entry into a new service in the relevant post and pay scale be fixed at the level he would have drawn had he been initially appointed to the said new post or service or department or cadre from the beginning at which his immediate junior in 1998 batch select list had normally drawn from time to time:
Provided that, in case if there is no junior in the list of the new service, the consequential benefits shall be regulated for pay as if others who are appointed normally from the date of appointment of the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationer would have drawn from time to time:
Provided further that, the monetary benefit on this account if any shall accrue prospectively from the date of their entry into the new service without any claim for payment for the previous or earlier service:
Provided also that, the benefit provided in this rule shall not be given to 1998 batch Gazetted Probationers whose promotion in earlier post was denied. due to action on disciplinary or criminal proceedings.
By Order and in the name of
the Governor of
Karnataka."
45. A closer look of these rules is very essential as it is a curative/clarificatory sub-legislation made under the Karnataka SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 59 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE State Civil Services Act 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990). This is still in force since 2021 and has not been challenged by any of the parties. Once it is in force, neither the applicants nor the respondents can go beyond the intent and purport of this sub-legislation. This is essentially a curative/clarificatory sub-legislation or a special law for governing general service right and conditions regarding seniority and promotions to give effect to the Khaleel Ahmed judgment which attains finality in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
46. A few aspect of this rule has to be critically re-visited particularly Rule 4 on declaration of probation which clearly say that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 and the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 or any other rule governing their service conditions, the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationers who have been appointed in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble High court dated: 21.06.2016 or any subsequent order of any Court or Tribunal and successfully completed the probation period in the previous or earlier service of 1998 batch and joined the new service shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed their period of probation in the new service and deemed to be declared as such SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 60 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE irrespective of passing in departmental examination, but found otherwise suitable.
Meaning thereby that the applicants who were earlier in non-state civil service cadres of either the Accounts department or in the commercial tax department, and if, there they had successfully completed their probations, their probation would have been deemed declared under these rules irrespective of passing departmental examination. Only there was one proviso, it is noted that, provided that, the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationers whose probation is declared as above shall complete their respective departmental examination before they are considered for further promotion to the rank equal to that of his immediate junior, other than the benefits provided in rule 5.
47. It is interesting to note that this rule is retrospective in nature and it provides retrospective declaration of probation and all promotional rights after they cleared their departmental examination in the state civil service equivalent to those who were their immediate juniors in the revised select list who were from the very beginning in the State Civil Service of 1998 batch and who got their regular promotions. So from the date their immediate juniors got such promotions, a special right SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 61 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE was created retrospectively for those who joined State Civil Service in 2021 in the revised select list, and who were in non-state civil services in the original select list of 2006. None of the parties contested the contents of the retrospective nature and purport of this curative/clarificatory sub-legislation. Neither it is challenged nor in any way it was ever assailed. Only exception to this retrospective effect within this sub-legislation is the provisions of Rule 5 which mentions about the fixation of pay and it says, notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, the pay of the officers of the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationer after his entry into a new service in the relevant post and pay scale be fixed at the level he would have drawn had he been initially appointed to the said new post or service or department or cadre from the beginning at which his immediate junior in 1998 batch select list had normally drawn from time to time. There are three provisions to this rule 5. The first reads that in case if there is no junior in the list of the new service, the consequential benefits shall be regulated for pay as if others who are appointed normally from the date of appointment of the 1998 batch Gazetted Probationer would have drawn from time to time. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 62 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
48. Further second provision reads that the monetary benefit on this account if any shall accrue prospectively from the date of their entry into the new service without any claim for payment for the previous or earlier service.
This clause is very interesting as it makes monetary benefit prospectively but notional fixation of pay for any State civil Service and other promotional grades retrospective from the date of their entry into the new service notionally from 2006. Now meaning of the new service here, one may argue, is it different levels that entering into the Karnataka Administrative Service Junior scale is a different new service KAS senior scale and KAS selection grade are these three different services? Are they to be considered as joining in different levels, and their salaries will be from prospective dates accordingly?
49. The second reading of this provision makes it amply clear that new service is only and only the State Civil Service i.e., the KAS Group A and different levels of promotion has to be automatic with reference to their respective juniors, and these cannot be considered to be different new services. Hence, the intent and purport of this rule is that from the day it is gazetted the individuals who had been suffering due to irregularities in the KPSC Gazetted Probationers batch Examination SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 63 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE in the year 1998 and results and consequent service allocation and who on the basis of Khaleel Ahmed judgment of the Hon'ble High Court which was confirmed finally in the Apex Court, an affirmative retrospective and curative right has been created for them to get their probation declared and to get their retrospective promotions with reference to the dates of promotion with respect to their juniors in 1998 batch of KAS (State Civil Service) from 2006 onwards.
50. A closer look will only show that declaration of probation was unconditional. But further promotions had only one condition that after declaration of probation, they should complete their respective departmental examination before they are considered for further promotions to the rank equal to that of their immediate junior. So from the date of passing of the departmental examination in the KAS Group A, a right is created for these candidates of compensatory retrospective promotions equal to their juniors. Now the question may be raised what this promotion means in this retrospective rule ? Is this promotion limited to promotion within the cadre of KAS in their own hierarchy only as argued by the respondents, or it shall apply to even appointment by promotion to the IAS cadre as argued by the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 64 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE applicants ? We will come to this point again when we are discussing about IAS (Appointment by promotion) regulation 1955 later.
51. It is not disputed that based on this curative/clarificatory sub- legislation, the respondents have already got provisional seniority list prepared in KAS Junior scale as on 0-1.01.2021 vide order dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure A-17) and further these officers have been promoted and given provisional seniority in KAS senior scale as on 01.01.2021 vide order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure A-18) and similarly they have been further considered and provisional seniority has been given for KAS selection grade with effect from 01.01.2021 vide order dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure A-19) and with reference to their juniors they have been retrospectively promoted vide order dated 12.01.2022 which is noted as Annexure A-20 wherein the notification reads like this :
"Notification The following officers are working on getting appointed to the K.A.S (Junior Scale) cadre as per the revised list dated:30.01.2021 without any change in the Department/Cadre/Post published by the Karnataka Public Service Commission which is prepared as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the selection list of Gazetted Probationers-1998 has been promoted and posted to the posts mentioned against their names with immediate effect until further order as per section 9 of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 65 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE the Karnataka Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973 to the KAS (Senior Scale/Selection Grade) Cadre and to Pay Scale of Rs.97,100-1,41,300 of KAS (Super time Scale) cadre with effect from the date of promotion given to the officers who are juniors to them in seniority to KAS (Senior Scale) cadre on 17.09.2011 and KAS (Selection Grade) Cadre on 20.09.2019 based on the provisional seniority lists of the KAS (Junior Scale/Senior Scale/Selection Grade) published as per the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 and Circular No. DPAR 09 SeLoSe 2019 (Part-3), dated: 01.06.2021 and Notification No. DPAR 409 AaSeE 2019, dated:
16.09.2021, Notification No. DPAR 01 SKG 2021, dated: 17.11.2021 and Notification No. DPAR 02 SKG 2021, dated: 14.12.2021 respectively.
Sl. Name of the officer and the present The post to which post posting has been Sri/Smt. given on officiating promotion 1 2 3 1 Shivakumar H.R. Director, Minorities -
Director, Minorities Welfare Welfare Department,
Department, Bengaluru Bengaluru -
continued in the
same post
2 VeerabhdraHanchinal Special Officer,
Special Officer, Kumar Krupa Guest Kumar Krupa Guest
House House, Bengaluru-
Bengaluru The post has been
temporarily upgraded
to the cadre of
K.A.S. (Super time
scale) and the said
officer has continued
in the upgraded post
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.16
17:05:40+05'30'
66
O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Roopashree K Additional
Additional Regional Commissioner Regional (Land
(Land Maintenance, Projects and Commissioner
Miscellaneous) Office of the Regional Maintenance,
Commissioner, Mysuru division, Projects
Mysuru and Miscellaneous)
Office of the
Regional
Commissioner,
Mysuru division -
continued in the post
in Mysuru itself
4 Manjunatha Swamy G.N Welfare Services,
Chief Administrative Officer, Health Bengaluru -the post
and Family Welfare Services, has been temporarily
Bengaluru upgraded to the
K.A.S (Super time
scale) cadre and the
said officer has
continued in the
upgraded post
5 Praveen P Bagewadi Managing Managing Director,
Director, Belagavi Smart City Belagavi Smart City
Limited, Belagavi Limited -continued
in the same post
6 Dr. A. Channappa Chief Chief Officer,
Administrative Officer, Vijayanagar Administrative
Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari -This post has been temporarily upgraded to the cadre of K.A.S. (Super time scale) and the said officer has SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 67 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE continued in the upgraded post 7 Susheelamma N Joint Managing Joint Managing Director, Bengaluru Smart City Director, Bengaluru Limited, Bengaluru Smart City Limited, Bengaluru- This post has been temporarily upgraded to the cadre of K.A.S (super time scale) and the said officer has continued in the upgraded post
8. Seema B Nayak Chief Administrative Chief Administrative Officer, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Officer, Oncology, Bengaluru Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology. Bengaluru
-This post has been temporarily upgraded to the cadre of K.A.S (super time scale) and the said officer has continued in the upgraded post Part-1 Sri Ramappa Hatti, retired K.A.S (J.S) Officer who had got retired on superannuation on 31.05.2020 on appointing to the K.A.S (J.S) Cadre without any change in the Department/Cadre/Post as per the revised list dated:
30.01.2021 published by the Karnataka Public Service Commission as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme Court passed with regard to the selection list of the Gazetted Probationers 1998, has been promoted to the K.A.S. (Senior Scale/Selection Grade) Cadre as per section 9 of the Karnataka Civil Services SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 68 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973 with effect from the date of giving promotion to the officers who are juniors to him in seniority to KAS cadre (Senior Scale) on 17.09.2011 and KAS (Selection Grade) Cadre on 20.09.2019 based on the provisional seniority lists of the KAS (Junior Scale/Senior Scale/Selection Grade) published as per the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 and Circular No.DPAR 09 SeLoSe 2019 (Part-3), dated 01.06.2021 and Notification No.DPAR 409 AASeE 2019, dated 16.09.2021, Notification No.DPAR 01 SKG 2021, dated: 17.11.2021 and Notification No.DPAR 02 SKG 2021, dated 14.12.2021 respectively."
52. Simple reading of the above shows that the applicants are at serial no.1 named Shri.Shivakumar H.R, serial no.6 Dr.A.Channappa, serial no.7 Susheelamma.N and at serial no.8 Seema.B.Nayak. Clearly all of them have been promoted with reference to their juniors in KAS to the senior scale with effect from 17.09.2011 and KAS selection grade with respect to their junior with effect from 20.09.2019.
53. These orders are also not challenged and these are curative in nature and essentially cures the earlier defect in the selection by KPSC and allotment of various services to the applicants who ultimately were displaced earlier and an injustice had happened to them as they were placed earlier in different Non-State Civil Services. Smt.Susheelamma and Dr.A.Channapa were Assistant Controllers of Accounts and SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 69 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Mrs.Seema.B.Nayak and Shri.Shivakumar H.R were Assistant Commissioners of Commercial Taxes in the original select list dated 28.02.2006.
54. At this juncture, it is important to see and examine the law position, as some doubt may remain that how come the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 Dated 24.03.2021 is enabling retrospective benefits and whether the government had such powers to make such rules enabling retrospective benefits? In this case by invoking Section 8, the State of Karnataka has exercised its plenary power to look backwards.
As these rules were framed under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990) Regulation 8 which reads the following:
"8. Power to make rules.-
(1) The State Government may, by notification make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any rule made under this Act may be made with retrospective effect and when such a rule is made, the reasons for making the rule shall be specified in a statement to be laid before both Houses of the State Legislature and subject to any modification made under subsection (3), every rule made under SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 70 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE this Act shall have effect as if it is enacted in this Act.
(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be, after it is made, before each House of the State Legislature while it is in session for a total period of thirty days, which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the sessions immediately following, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be ; so, however, that any modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule."
55. A simple reading of the above shows that paragraph 8(2) of the Act clearly empowered the Government to make rules under this Act which were having retrospective effect and only reasons have to be given for such retrospective benefits to be assigned. Clearly, the rule before us of 24.03.2021, the special rule records and gives a reason for why it came to be notified. The said rule came to give effect to the Hon'ble High Court's and Hon'ble Supreme Court's order. Special rule of 2021, Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 is not challenged, for three years and it enjoys the presumption of constitutionality as it is formulated under the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 71 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Karnataka Civil Services Act of 1978, rule 8, which gives such conferment of retrospective benefits power to the government and it is formulated to implement the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khaleel Ahmed and it creates a legal bridge by declaring probation and seniority of the sufferers of irregularity and corruption in the Karnataka Gazetted Probationers Exam and its results and the revised list gave the seniority to the all the displaced persons who come from non-state civil services to KAS in the revised list of 2021, effective from 2006 retrospectively with reference to their immediate juniors by this curative/clarificatory rule. The State has restored the substantive status of these officers in KAS (state civil services) retrospectively rom 2006 with reference to their immediate juniors.
56. This rule may appear to be a legal fiction, but it has behind it the force of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders, and it is basically righting a historic wrong through a legal fiction. It is the restorative State's special rules. It cannot be considered as a mere administrative tweak, it is a retrospective benefits sub-legislation on status that the KPSC examination irregularity legally denied to the applicants. When a rule says that an officer is deemed to have been SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 72 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE appointed from 2006, the law must take into account all the consequences of that appointment. We will come to this point at appropriate time again.
57. We have to keep in mind that we are dealing here with the seemingly set of unusual rule. The said rule which is retrospective in nature which is implementing the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court order in Khaleel Ahmed supra, and which is righting a historic wrong through a legal fiction.
Applicants meritorious service in the non-state civil services:-
58. It is interesting to note that all the four applicants were meritorious and when they were appointed to non-state civil service in 2006, in their own department after passing the departmental examination, their probations were duly declared through the order dated 05.12.2008. Then they all got first promotion in time. Two of them were promoted to Deputy Controller of accounts as on 1.3.2012 and another two as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax on 20.01.2015. In due course they all were further eligible to be promoted and got their second promotion or got their DPC cleared for their second promotion in their respective departments. Two of them have been promoted as Controller of accounts on 24.01.2017 and another SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 73 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE two were considered for second promotion by a DPC at the level of Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax where they qualified in DPC on 30.09.2019 but before giving effect to the same, they were brought to be State civil Service cadre of KAS by the revised KPSC 1998 batch select list of 2021. Hence, they did not get actual second promotion although they were eligible to. The details are given in the following table.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Name Mrs.Shusheelam Dr.A.Channappa Mrs.Seema Naik Dr.Shivakumar
ma.N H.R
O.A No. 98/23,339/23 98/23, 339/23 98/23,339/23 103/2025 dated
Applicant No.1, Applicant No.2, Applicant No.3, 07.12.25
dated dated dated
01.03.2023 01.03.2023 01.03.2023
Appointed Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant
on Controller of Controller of Commissioner Commissioner of
26.04.2006 Accounts Accounts of Commercial Commercial Tax
as Tax
After 05.12.2008 05.12.2008 05.12.2008 05.12.2008
passing
Departmen
tal Exams
-
Probation
declared
First Deputy Dy.Controller of Dy.Commission Dy.Commissioner
promotion Controller of Accounts er of Commercial Taxes
Accounts (Annexure A-5) Commercial Tax notification
(Annexure A-5) 01.03.2012 (Annexure A5) 20.01.2015 (Sl.23)
01.03.2012 20.01.2015
(Sl.8)
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.16
17:05:40+05'30'
74
O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
2nd Jt.Controller of Joint Controller DPC for Joint
Promotion Accounts of Accounts Commissioner
24.01.2017 24.01.2017 of Commercial
(Annexure A3) (Annexure A3) Tax cleared on
13.09.2019
(Annexure A-6)
meanwhile
shifted to KAS
as per Khaleel
Ahmed (High
Court order)
Simple reading of this table and seeing all the references show that these all four officers who are applicants before us were meritorious, which fact is not disputed.
59. At this juncture, it may be important to see the order dated 01.12.2000 in No.DPAR 330 SAS 1997 with subject the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997, declaration of equivalence of posts for the purpose of consideration order, which inter-alia other things in the operative part reads the following:
" In exercise of the powers conferred under sub regulation (iii) of Regulation (1) of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997 the Government are pleased to order that barring three services viz: (1) State Police Service (2) State Forest Service and (3) Judicial Service, all the Group 'A' posts, in all the departments under the Government of Karnataka, are declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector (Assistant Commissioner of Revenue SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 75 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Sub-Division) in the State Civil Service, for the limited purpose specified in Regulation ibid,"
Simple reading of the above shows that the State Government under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 has declared all equivalent posts under non-state civil service except the State judicial service, State Police Service and State Forest Service who are in Group A in any department as equivalent to the post Deputy Collector in the State Civil service for limited purpose specified in the said regulations. And a closer scrutiny of this rule particularly regulation 3(2) it may be clear that anyone who had completed not less than 8 years of continuous service under the State Government or in the case of joint cadre or any one of the State Government performing the duties comparable responsibility of that of the state civil service and who is holding that post in the substantive capacity, they become eligible to appointment by selection to IAS. And it is not disputed that by virtue of this provision the applicants are also indeed otherwise eligible to be selected to IAS through appointment by selection regulation 1997. Although the respondents have disputed that this equivalence cannot be used for claiming any benefit under IAS (Appointment by promotion) Regulation, which is different and distinct.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 76 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Facts and Law governing Appointment by Promotion to IAS:
60. Now let us see the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation in a more critical way.
For appointment to IAS there are several ways. One of them is direct recruitment through UPSC Civil Service Examination and another appointment is possible through the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. This specific provision pertains to the appointment by promotion to the IAS of the members of state civil service which are explained in definition clause 2(j)(ii) as follows::
"2.(j)(ii) in all other cases, any service or services, approved for purposes of the Recruitment Rules by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government, a member of which normally holds, for purposes of revenue and general administration, charge of a sub-division of a district or a post of higher responsibility."
61. Further Clause 5(2) of the same Regulation is an important provision about which there is difference of opinion and there are counter claims of the parties. The same provision reads the following:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 77 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE "5.PREPARATION OF A LIST OF SUITABLE OFFICERS :-
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 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 of 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.
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 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 78 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE post of Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government.
EXPLANATION:The powers of the State Government under the third proviso to the sub- regulation shall be exercised in relation to the members of the State Civil Service of constituent State, by the Government of that State."
Closer look at this shows that paragraph 5(2) makes it clear that the Committee Constituted for selecting persons for appointment by promotion to IAS make a list of the cases of members of the State Civil Services in the order of seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred in sub-regulation (1). Once those rules specifically mentions of that members of the State Civil Services in the order of their seniority to be considered, there is no possibility of considering any one out of seniority or excluding them if they are finding a place within the order of seniority at appropriate level.
62. In the instant case, when the applicants have been after the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court order and after due enactment of the curative/clarificatory sub-legislation for the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021and they have been SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 79 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE given retrospective seniority from 2006 in the State Civil Service, once the seniority is given and they are otherwise eligible, the pertinent question will be that it may look incongruous to interpret that they are even then ineligible.
63. There is no dispute that after the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, the curative steps taken by KPSC and revised list put all the applicants in the State Civil Services and they have been given retrospective appointments in KAS Group A with effect from 2006 in junior scale and accordingly their probations have been declared and they have been also given as per the curative/clarificatory rule Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 retrospective promotion to KAS Senior scale with effect from 17.09.2011 and KAS Selection Grade with effect from 20.09.2019 similar to their immediate juniors. So the argument of the applicants is that under these provisions the applicants being now in the State Civil Services with effect from 2006 are very much eligible to be considered under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 for appointment by promotion to IAS. Whereas the respondents interpret that state rule gives only notional seniority in the State cadre of KAS Group A and it will not fulfill the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 80 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE requirement of 8 years of actual service as envisaged in the Rule 5(2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
64. So the main divergence of interpretation between the parties is about the third proviso which reads that:
" Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case of 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."
65. A second reading of this proviso makes it clear that it has two parts, the first part is that on 1st January of the selection year, for example, if the person has to be considered for the IAS select list of 2015, the person should be borne on the State Civil Services on that day, i.e., on the first day of January. There is no dispute about that, with retrospective effect, the applicants have been given the status from 2006 onwards, and accordingly they have been promoted also to higher grades of senior scale and selection grade of KAS. However, the dispute is regarding the second condition, which states that they should not have less than 8 years of continuous service, whether (officiating or substantive), in the post of Deputy Collector or any post or posts SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 81 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE declared equivalent thereto by the State Government and then only they become eligible. The contention of the respondents is that continuous service in this clause means actual service and the applicants do not have such actual service in the State Civil Services prior to 2021.
Dictionary meaning of words "Continuous" and "Actual"
66. It may be pertinent at this point of time to see the meaning of "continuous" in a dictionary. According to the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, continuous is an adjective meaning something that happens or exists for a period of time without interruption, pause, or space. It describes an unbroken, constant process, such as "continuous improvement," or a physical, uninterrupted line or flow. Whereas the word "Actual" has entirely a different dictionary meaning. Actual is an adjective used to emphasize that something is real, existing in fact, or exact, rather than just possible, imagined, or estimated.
67. So the words "continuous" and "actual" are two different and distinct dictionary words. From any stretch of imagination, continuous service and actual service are not synonymous or identical. We will come to this point again.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 82 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Another relevant (law/rules) Facts: 4th Proviso: Actual Continuous Service:
68. The applicants have drawn our attention to the fourth proviso in the same IAS (Selection by Promotion)-Regulations, 1955, which mentions something further qualifying continuous service in the following way:
"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."
69. The proviso as such is not disputed. A simple reading of this shows that it mentions of a special case of Emergency Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned officers appointed to the State Civil Service and to give them special benefits that is mentioned as they have to be given a deemed date and their continuous service of 8 years have been further qualified that they should have completed not less than four years of actual continuous service, on the first day of January of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 83 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE 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.
70. This clause within the same proviso 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by promotion) Regulation 1955 itself expands and to some extent contradicts the respondents' restrictive interpretation and contention that continuous service means only actual service. A deemed service in this clause can very much be continuous. Continuous only means un-interrupted, that the person should have been un-interrupted to be a member of State Civil Services having eight years minimum service and not in any actual occupation of posts of Deputy Collector or post declared equivalent thereto by the state Government. We will further come to this point later.
Relevant Fact about nil order on Declaration of Equivalence under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955:
71. On asking, whether the State has declared any post equivalent to Deputy Collector under the IAS (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955, the respondents have categorically said that they have not given any general equivalence; and on a case-by-case basis, it was given. But the state has not placed any such order before us, where SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 84 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE case to case basis they had given equivalence under this particular provision. But the State Government asserts that they are equating all the posts encadred under the KAS or the posts held by a KAS officer as equivalent to the Deputy Collector. State has not placed before us any rule, notification or clarification from the Government of India or UPSC which could substantiate this contention, that there was a general presumption that KAS Group A encadred posts were equivalent to the Deputy Collector post as envisaged under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
Facts about Officers of KAS Group A holding Miscellaneous Posts not declared Equivalent:
72. The applicants have placed before us a table which shows that other KAS Officers who have already been promoted to IAS cadre, had been posted to various types of ex-cadre and non-cadre posts and some of them are posted to Public Enterprises, Training Institutions, Minister's Personal Establishments, Other Parastatals or even in the Secretariat posts which are not declared equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector or which from any stretch of imagination can have the same work contents and responsibility as that of a sub-divisional officer or Deputy Collector. A few of them have never sparingly worked in a Deputy Collector posts. This is filed as Annexure A-32. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 85 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE This table, when the State was confronted with the same, they were unable to explain the same. All the officers mentioned therein posted in various positions had not been holding equivalent posts which were legally declared as equivalent under the said proviso of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955. No such orders, could be placed before us. Government of India and UPSC who could not explain their equivalence.
73. We can see in many cases that incumbents were waiting for a posting in between. One of them was continuously holding the post of Under Secretary at the Secretariat level which is not KAS encadred position. It is not made clear if waiting for posting means break in continuous service. And not holding a post declared equivalent is not satisfying these IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. And without following the rules, those persons were liberally certified as eligible and placed on the IAS select lists. It appears that in these cases the State has failed in its statutory duty, and the UPSC and Central Government have also been liberal and complicit in dealing with those cases and interpreting the same as qualifying for (actual) continuous service as Deputy Collector in these cases. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 86 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
74. Liberal interpretation of the provisions of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955, Rule 5(2) proviso (3) specifically its provision of continuous service in these cases are in stark contrast with the interpretation of the same rules with an iron hand in the case of applicants. Continuous service, it is again difficult to accept it, meant actual holding of any KAS encadred posts. Such liberal presumption of all KAS encadred posts is not supported by any rule, notification or supporting classifications. They should have held posts which are declared equivalent under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 as propounded by the respondents in the case of applicants with extra ordinary zeal and alacrity. If someone can hold Under Secretary post for long in their initial career in the KAS and be eligible under this provision to be promoted to IAS, certainly the applicants by deemed provision which is sanctified by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme court orders in Khaleel Ahmed case supra and which is further fortified by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 and the applicants being given deemed date of their appointment to KAS State Civil Service from their original appointment in 2006 and subsequently under the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 87 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021, their probation being retrospectively declared and they being retrospectively promoted to KAS senior scale from 17.09.2021 and super-time scale from 20.09.2019 makes a convincing case for the applicants for being considered under IAS(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955.
And that the unique strength of this case of present applicants is that they were not sitting idle from 2006 to 2021. They were all in Group A service of the State, either as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or they were in State Accounts Department where they were having their own respective meritorious services and they were promoted in time. They got two promotions in State Accounts Department and in commercial tax cleared the second promotion DPC, but they could not be promoted, as before that they were shifted to KAS. Further, their work in the accounts department and commercial tax department is considered meritorious and equivalent under IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 vide notification dated 01.12.2000. We find that they all have their similar levels of administrative experiences in administrative and quasi-judicial functions and other financial duties. Therefore, argument that they have lack of experience, appears strange.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 88 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
75. We have examined the post held by them at present as an officer of KAS selection grade. These posts are no anyway less responsible posts and on closer scrutiny if someone goes back, how some of these very posts in the State Civil Services are in due course would be encadred in the subsequent five yearly cadre review of IAS, hence one would come to a conclusion that these officers de-facto having actual Group A experience of KAS. And the special rules made for them Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 on 24.03.2021 supported by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court order and the legal label as a State civil service officers in KAS retrospectively from 2006 and their declaration of probation retrospectively and two promotions within KAS retrospectively and pay protection prospectively with reference to their juniors shows that they are very much qualifying the test of holding continuous service in substantive capacity, not just officiating in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent as envisaged in the third proviso of regulation 5(2) in IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. This is further supported by the case laws cited by the applicants of Soorya Panigraha v. Union of India and Others of C.A.T in O.A 521/2021 dated SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 89 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE 05.05.2022 where exactly identical issue was dealt by the court, which had ruled the following:-
"8. After giving thoughtful to the various arguments advances by the parties we have perused the pleadings and documents/rules/judgment relied on by respective parties. The issue in the instant case was exactly the issue before the Hyderabd Bench in the case of Sri Sri Ramanjaneyulu vs UPSC in OA No. 1826/2000 batch cases. Viz where there is a qualifying service for promotion the notional date of appointment or notional date of promotion was to be taken into consideration and after due discussions and deliberations the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal had held that that there can be no good reasons for taking into consideration the actual date of promotion in the feeder cadre for the purpose of making state service employee to be eligible for consideration for selection to IAS.
9. The relevant portion of the judgment of CAT, Hyderabad Bench in Sri Ramanjaneyulu (supra) is extracted below:
"18. The judgement of the Supreme Court in K.B.Rajoria's case (supra) also lends support to the view that regular service does not mean actual service only and the eligibility could be determined with reference to the notional promotion granted from a retrospective date. In that case, one officer was wrongly superseded in 1995 for promotion as Additional Director General. The wrong was set-right by the order dated 10.6.98 by granting him promotion retrospectively with effect from 22.2.95. In January 1999, he was considered for further promotion as Director General. The Recruitment Rules provide "two years regular service as eligibility condition for promotion as Director General. The Officer did not fulfil the condition of two years if his date of actual promotion was reckoned i.e, 10.6.98, but fulfilled this condition if the period was reckoned from the date of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 90 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE notional promotion i.e, 22.2.95. The Supreme Court held that the regular service in the grade did not mean actual physical service and that notional promotion could not be considered as irregular. By giving the officer notional promotion with effect from 22.2.95 the officer in fact was regularly appointed to that post, on that date. The Court also referred to the decision in M. Bhaskar's case (supra) and clarified that the eligibility criteria in that case was two years experience. and on that point, the case was distinguished. In the above cases viz., Sitaram Raghunath Kapse and K.B.Rajoria (supra), the learned judges have stressed the point that where a mistake initially committed having been set-
right and justice was done to the officers, it would amount to perpetuating the mistake committed/injustice done. If the corrected dates were not given effect for promotion.
19. In "S. Krishna Murthy Va. General Manager, Southern Railway AIR 1977 sc 1868", the appellant was not considered for absorption as Traffic Inspector along with other similarly situated employees and the Hallway Administration discovering the injustice. set-right the error subsequently. But by that time, others have been promoted as Traffic Inspectors and the appellant was not. in those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that.
"The appellant has a future and hopefully looks forward for promotion. It is, in our view, right and reasonable that for purposes of promotion, seniority will be reckoned from 20th December, 1967 but for qualifying period, if there is such a condition for promotion, his notional service from 1st January, 1959 will be considered."
Thus, we find that in all the above cases where there is a qualifying service for promotion, the notional date of appointment or the notional date of promotion was taken into consideration and the courts in all the cases uniformly held that failure of the same would only SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 91 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE perpetuate the injustice initially committed. No other judgements have been cited by the respondents in support of their contention.
20. In fact the actual dates of appointment of the applicants herein, as Deputy Collectors were invalid and unlawful. The correct dates of their appointment of promotion have been finally assigned by the Government and hence for all purposes, thereafter those dates have to be taken into consideration. There can be no good reason for taking into consideration the actual dates of their appointment for promotion to IAS. If that were to be done, we would be only undoing the right done to them by the Government. It should also be remembered that the respondents are not disputing the deemed date of appointment.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that all the applicants are eligible for inclusion in the select list of the site Civil Service Officers for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 to be considered by the Select Committee which met en 15.12.2000 and 16.12.2000 on they had completed 8 years of continuous service in the cadre of Deputy Collectors in terms of 3rd proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the Promotion Regulations. As it is now stated that in pursuance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court, all the applicants have been considered and their results have been withheld, the respondents are directed to declare the results within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. The OAs are accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, we do not order costs,"
10. It is not the case of the respondents that decision of the Hyderabad Bench has been reviewed or set aside by Tribunal or in any higher forum. We do not find any ground/new ground to differ/disagree with the view taken by the Hyderabad bench of the Tribunal. The doctrine of precedence has been well enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal & Others SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 92 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE v Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi [JT 1999 (9) SC 597] where H'n'ble Supreme Court had held:
"At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all OA 521 of 2021 concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same court observed thus:
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 93 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J., in Pinjare Karimbhai's case and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas 's case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J. observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr, v. Shri Ram Chand and Anr.
"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re- considered, lie should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship."
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 94 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
11. In view of the foregoing discussion made above, we are of the view that rejection of candidature of the applicant as he does not complete eight years of continuous service in terms of 3rd proviso to Regulation 5 (2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 does not hold good. Hence the impugned order is quashed. The respondents/UPSC are directed to convene the review DPC and consider the case of the applicant as against the select year 2020 strictly in terms of rules and law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. The OA is accordingly allowed to the extent above. No costs.
76. Further, in the case of Ms.Jahnavi v. State of Karnataka, the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in O.A 450/2021 vide order dated 12.12.2022 has ruled the following:
"10. The controversy herein rests on the interpretation of 3rd proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations which reads thus:
"5(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion to the said list, the cases of members of the State Police Service 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 file of consideration, the number of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 95 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE officers referred to in sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded:
Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case of a member of the State Police Service unless, on the first day of January of the year for which the select list is prepared he is substantive in the State Police Service and has completed not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government.
11. Rule-7 of Karnataka State Police Including Ministerial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 reads as under:
"I. Karnataka State Police Service
7 Superintendent 31 20 By 1.Must have
. of Police promotio put in a service
(Civil) (Non n from of not less than
Indian Police the eight years in
Service) Cadre of in the cadre of
(Rs.9580- Deputy Deputy Super-
14200) Superint- intendent of
endent of Police (Civil):
Police Provided that if
(Civil) Officers who
have put in a
service of not
less than five
years may be
considered for
promotion.
Provided that
a person shall
be deputed to
work in the
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.16
17:05:40+05'30'
96
O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected
matters/CAT/BANGALORE
post other than
the posts of
police sub-
divisions and
other than the
City Police
Sub-Division
on the basis of
seniority."
Considering the said rule, the applicant has been given promotion retrospectively with effect from 09.05.2018.
12. After a long legal battle as narrated above, the State Government issued order dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure A10) giving the seniority retrospectively with effect from 21.05.2008. In terms of the order dated 15.02.2022, (Annexure A27) issued by the State Government, the applicant has been promoted as Superintendent of Police (Civil) (Non- IPS) retrospectively with effect from 17.11.2014, the date on which her junior Ms.Sara Fathima was promoted.
13. In the case of K.B.Rajoria (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the effect of the word "service" qua "qualifying service" and held that the word "service" means. qualifying service. In case of supersession, actual service for the prescribed period is not required. Notional date of promotion was taken into consideration for the eligibility to be considered to the post of Director General in 1999, having regard to notes 1 and 2 to the Schedule, the relevant para reads thus:
18. The distinction drawn by the High Court between the word "service" used in the eligibility criterion in this case and the words "qualifying SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 97 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE service" in para 18.4.3 is specious. The notes to the eligibility criteria as set out in the said Schedule fortify this view. Notes 1 and 2 to the said Schedule clarify the position with regard to the calculation of "two years" regular service in the grade":
"(1) The eligibility list for promotion shall be prepared with reference to the date of completion by the officers of the prescribed qualifying service in the respective grades/posts.
(2) If a junior with the requisite years of service is considered, the senior will also be considered notwithstanding the fact that he does not possess the requisite years of service."
Further, it has been clearly held in paragraph-20 as under:
"20. In the context of the case, the High Court erred in equating the words "regular service" with "actual experience" relying on the decision in Union of India v. M.Bhaskar. In that case the eligibility criterion expressly was of "completion of 2 years experience in Grade II". The case is therefore entirely distinguishable.
14. In the case of Sadhana Kahanna (supra), after completion of 8 years of regular service, the respondent therein, was granted a short-term promotion to the grade of Section Officer on 24.07.1991. The respondent continued to work in that post till the date of the order i.e., 14.12.2007. In that context it has been observed that the respondent therein was offered appointment vide letter dated 05.07.1983 which is after 01.07.1983 from which the eligibility was to be counted. It is the department which is to be blamed for sending the letter offering appointment after 01.07.1983. In fact, some of the candidates who were junior to the respondent were issued letters offering SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 98 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE appointment prior to 01.07.1983. Hence it was the department which is to be blamed for this. In view of the office memorandums of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 18.03.1988 and 19.07.1989, the respondent was also to be considered, otherwise a very incongruous situation would arise, namely, that the junior will be considered for promotion but the senior will not.
15. In the case of C.Jayachandran (supra), the appellant therein though was entitled for appointment along with the three candidates, but because of the action of the Hon'ble High Court in adopting moderation of marks, he was excluded from appointment. The argument of respondent that the appellant was not appointed by the same appointment order, therefore the appellant cannot claim seniority was held to be untenable.
16. In the case of Surendra Narain Singh and others (supra) the arguments of the State that only such of the candidates who were selected under 15th Examination and whose appointments were delayed on account of medical examination and police verification of antecedents alone would be entitled to claim seniority on the basis of their rank in the merit list of the 15th Examination and any appointment made subsequent to 23.05.1975 must rank in the seniority according to the length of service from the date of actual appointment was considered and held thus:
20. ............... As far as the first part of the order is concerned, there does not seem to be any difficulty in following the same. On the second part, namely, anyone appointed subsequent to 23-
5-1975 on account of their being no vacancy will rank in the seniority according to the length of service from the date of actual appointment. What is the meaning of this second part of the order? We have already held that the respondent Nos.3 to 34 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 99 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE belonging to the batch of 15th Examination held under 1955 Rules and if the supplementary list nominating their names would have been sent along with the main list prepared in terms of Rule 19, then obviously there would have been no difficulty. These respondent Nos.3 to 34 would have been appointed along with the other 158 candidates between 18-3-1975 and 22-5-1975. The difficulty arose because the supplementary list nominating the respondent Nos.3 to 34 came to be forwarded after 23-7-1975. Should they suffer for no fault of theirs? The answer is obviously in the negative".
17. In Bimlesh Tanwar (supra), the Respondents 8 to 11 therein had suffered for no fault on their part and on approaching the High Court for ventilating their grievances, a direction was issued for their appointment. In such circumstances, whether they should lose their seniority was the question considered and the same has been answered in the negative. The case of Pilla Sitaram Patrudu v. Union of India-(1996) 8 SCC 637 has been followed.
18. In the case of G.Hanumantha Reddy (supra), the similar controversy being arisen le., the question whether the petitioner therein who has been granted notional seniority in the cadre of Deputy Collector from 16.09.1949 and who was confirmed in that cadre with effect from 01.11.1956 was entitled to have been considered for being appointed to the cadre of LA.S. in 1958, or in 1969 only in terms of the directions given by the learned single Judge, or was not entitled to be considered even in 1969 as contended for by the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission in their appeal on the ground that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.1981 and no review of the seniority or preparation of a new list for 1969 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 100 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE was possible. There was no dispute that the petitioner therein was confirmed from 01.11.1956, the petitioner satisfied the requirements for eligibility mentioned. The controversy was whether the petitioner therein satisfied the second condition in regard to the continuous service in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent to the period of 8 years and if so, what is the point of time at which that satisfaction has been reached. Interpreting the language employed in Rule-4(1) of Indian Administrative Service rules, it has been held thus:
"6. It is true that the rule is silent in regard to the effect of notional seniority granted to an officer in the post of Deputy Collector. The rule in terms refers only to continuous service (whether officiate or substantive). The learned single Judge thought, "A reading of the Rule suggests that what is contemplated is continuous service in the post of Deputy Collector whether officiating or substantive.
The words "completed not less than 8 years of continuous service in the post of a Deputy Collector occurring in the proviso to Regulation 5(2) (Sic)" means completion of actual service. Continuity of service which is contemplated in this Rule (sic) actual service.
A deemed promotion a notional date of seniority in the State Forest Service from a date earlier than that from which he actually officiated in the post cannot be considered to have officiated in the post during the period from the notional date to the date of commencement of officiating the service in that post. The seniority given by virtue of such notional date is not relevant for purpose of determining the eligibility for inclusion in the list of LA.S. officers to be prepared under the second proviso to sub regulation (2) of Regulation 5(sic)".
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 101 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
7. With due respect we are unable to agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge. It is admitted on all hands that the petitioner was entitled to have his seniority in the post of Deputy Collector reckoned from 16.09.1949. If the orders were passed in time, as the Government ought to have normally done, the petitioner, who had been confirmed in the rank of Deputy Collector with effect from 1.11.1956 by G.O.Ms.No.1125 dt 10.9.1979, would have been, in terms of clause (1) of Rule eligible for being considered for inclusion in panel for the year 1958, on his completing 8 years as on 15.9.1957. The belated recognition of and giving effect to the legitimate rights of the petitioner, that too as a result of the relentless fight he had to carry on, should not operate to his prejudice in the matter of consideration for promotion, as the petitioner was in no way responsible for the delay. Justice has been delayed to him but let it not be denied to him completely. Rules and Regulations, in our view, are intended to advance, not to frustrate the cause of justice. Merely on the ground that there is no positive direction in the rule to the selection committee to reckon notional seniority, in the absence of any prohibition in the rules against notional seniority being taken into account for the purpose of eligibility for being considered for inclusion in the panel, if the committee refuses to include the period covered by the notional seniority, restricting it to actual service in the post of Deputy Collector or its equivalent post, it would amount to perpetuation of injustice. It is to be also noticed that the rule also does not speak about the factual service, it speaks only about continuous service which could normally mean actual service, but in peculiar circumstances it could include notional service also. We must remember that the conferment of notional seniority on the Writ Petitioner was not a gratuitous act, but something done in recognition SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 102 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE of his legal right. Undisputedly the petitioner would have been considered for inclusion in the 1958 list had this recognition come in time. Because of the delay in according this recognition, to which petitioner made no contribution, the Writ Petitioner had suffered enough throughout the time he was in service: and it would be only a token of what he deserved if now he is treated to have been eligible for being considered for inclusion in the 1958 list on the basis of his notional seniority, which might result in his entitlement for some arrears of salary and pensionary benefit on notional promotions and refixation of scales of pay. Why should the Court lend its support to deny even that to the Writ Petitioner?"
19. Similarly, in the case of Narendra Singh supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the applicant cannot be punished, once it is found that there was no delay on his part,
20. A reading of these judgments would establish that when there was no lapse/delay on the part of the candidate, she cannot be punished for no fault of her, though she was found to be more meritorious candidate than the last candidate appointed. Third proviso to Regulations 5(2) of the Regulations has to be interpreted in the light of these judgments. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by KSAT and during the pendency of contempt proceedings, appointment order was issued to the applicant herein. Merely for the reason that the applicant was not entitled to arrears of salary prior to the date of actual appointment albeit she is entitled for seniority and fixation of pay on par with that of her juniors in the select list, in terms of the order of KSAT, it cannot be held that the applicant's service cannot be considered to be a continuous service from her initial date of appointment i.e., 21.05.2008. The stance of the State Government that the applicant SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 103 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE is not qualified for induction into the Indian Police Service by way of promotion is unjustifiable, being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Hence in my considered view the OA deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I concur with the decision of the Hon'ble Member(J) and respectfully disagree with the order of Hon'ble Member(A). Ordered accordingly.
No order as to costs."
Work content of Deputy Collectors:
77. It may be pertinent to note and examine as to what is special about the Deputy Collectors post or in any post or posts equivalent thereto by the State Government as mentioned in the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955.
The discussion emerged that the role of Deputy Collectors itself has changed from State to State at various points of time, particularly in Karnataka, after the introduction of the Panchayathiraj system through the old Zila Panchayath Act of the early eighties. The development administration was completely separated from the revenue administration and the role of Deputy Collectors was largely restricted, and their roles were limited to certain types of revenue administration exercising certain magisterial powers, public grievances, protocol, elections, land reforms and similar miscellaneous matters. Most of the aspects of general administration of a Sub- SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 104 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Divisional Officer, including food and civil supplies, rural development, urban development etc. become part of the specialized departments of rural development, urban development and food and civil supplies department. Within revenue administration also the registration work by Sub Registrar's and District Registrar's and survey and settlement work by ADLRS, JDLRS and DDLRS were separated from the core revenue work of record of rights maintenance, land records and crop-related operations, land reforms and land acquisition etc. only remained with the Assistant Commissioners in Karnataka. It certainly is a pertinent question if the Assistant Commissioners in Karnataka are discharging all the functions of the Deputy Collector as envisaged under the All India Services Rules, and they were indeed equivalent to Deputy Collectors. Further, we find that these descriptions of work content of Assistant Commissioners in Karnataka do not strictly comply with the provisions of Rule 2(j)(ii) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
78. In light of this discussion, the State was asked to furnish details regarding comparative work of Deputy Collectors from various States. They were asked how the work of Deputy Collectors was different in different States, and also how their work was different from the work SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 105 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE content of the posts of certain departments of non-state civil service where these applicants were placed in the original 2006 list.
79. The State could not collect that data, but it is a matter of general knowledge that great variation across States exists. In North Indian States, the Deputy Collectors are still called Sub Divisional Officers (Civil), and they exercise the power of assisting the Collector/Deputy Commissioner/ District Magistrate of the District in all their civil functions, i.e., regulatory, magisterial, developmental and emergency functions and those functions were much wider and distinct than what it exists in Karnataka.
Key irrefutable facts and aspects of rules which emerged from the rival submissions:
80.(i) This is the case of the 1998 KPSC Selection of Gazetted Probationers examination irregularities, which was in litigation since the very beginning and it attained finality on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka in Khaleel Ahmed and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (Writ Petition No.27674 of 2012) and connected matters which were finally confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to the said order, the KPSC and the Government of Karnataka took all corrective measures.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 106 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) Few among the victims were the applicants who were also allotted to the State non-civil services in the original 1998 select list which was published on 28.02.2006. Two among the four were allotted State Accounts service and the other two in Commercial Taxes Group A service and after corrective measures when the revised select lists were prepared on 25.01.2019, 28.08.2019 and finally on 30.01.2021, all the four applicants were finally selected in the State Civil Service, Karnataka Administrative Service, Group A post.
(iii) All four applicants were meritorious in their own right and even in the non-state civil services their services were outstanding. Hence, their probation was declared in time, followed by, two of them who were in the State Accounts Group A got two promotions each and the other two who were in the Commercial Tax Group A cadre got one promotion each, and they were also cleared for their second promotion, but in the meanwhile their cadre was changed from non-state civil service to the state civil service. Hence, their actual second promotion did not materialize.
(iv) It is a fact that under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997, the posts which were held by these officers in the non- state civil services, were declared equivalent to that of Deputy Collector SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 107 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE for the purpose of their appointment to IAS from non-state civil service through the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997. Further, it is a fact that because of their meritorious service in non-state civil service, all the four officers were eligible for promotion through the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997 as and when their turn would have come.
(v) To give effect to the Hon'ble High Court order in Khaleel Ahmed supra and the consequent Hon'ble Supreme Court order, the State promulgated a special rule called Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021. It is a fact that the State Government under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990) Regulation 8 had clear power for framing such retrospective benefit conferring rules. The said rule is neither challenged nor assailed. The retrospective benefit rule was clearly for righting a wrong.
(vi) By the retrospective benefit rule, all the four applicants were declared to be in KAS Group A, a State Civil Service retrospectively from the date of the original select list, i.e., 28.02.2006. As envisaged in the said rule, their probation was declared in time and as they cleared relevant departmental examinations, they were given right to SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 108 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE retrospective promotion with effect from the dates of promotion of their immediate juniors, hence, they also were given retrospective promotion to KAS Group A, Senior Scale and KAS Selection Grade with effect from the date of their juniors got those scales. The KAS Senior Scale was given to them with effect from 17.09.2011 and the KAS Selection Grade was given with effect from 20.09.2019. This retrospective declaration of their probation and the two promotions with reference to their juniors is neither challenged nor assailed by any of the parties.
(vii) It is also not disputed that these Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 gives the right to retrospective promotion subject to clearing departmental examination and all the four applicants have cleared their departmental examinations. The applicants assert that by virtue of these rules and their experience, they are eligible to get promotion not only within different KAS grades, but also have the right to promotion under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. Whereas the respondents have argued that the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 is a central regulation and not governed by the State rules, which two they have argued are very different and distinct.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 109 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
(viii) It is a fact that, in many cases of Karnataka Administrative Services Group A Officers, what type of post they have held during the early phase of their service career has been placed before us, and it is seen many of them have not held the Sub Divisional post of Assistant Commissioner/Sub Divisional Magisterial for long and many of them had held miscellaneous posts not declared equivalent to the Deputy Collector. In many cases those work cannot even remotely be considered comparable to that of the Deputy Collectors; which the State asserts to be equivalent to the Deputy Collector as mentioned in the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 by virtue of those post being held by a KAS Group A officer or because those posts are encadred posts of KAS Group A. And the State has not refuted that many of them have been posted to the Secretariat posts of Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary or in the Personal Establishment of Ministers or in various Companies of the Government or in certain parastatals like Municipal Corporations, Urban Development Authorities, and Special Land Acquisition Officers etc. The State categorically said that they have not issued any equivalence order under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 for any post, but as per their assertion it is to be understood that KAS cadre posts are to be SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 110 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE considered as equivalent to the posts of Deputy Collectors automatically. The State has not furnished any documents to support this claim. The Central Government and the UPSC also had no explanation why they had never examined what type of posts these KAS Group A officers have been holding before their cases were brought before the Committee constituted under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and were considered for promotion. It is learnt that these officers in the list are all in the IAS cadre now.
(ix) It is further a matter of fact that within the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, there is mention of two related terms;
"Continuous Service" and "Actual Continuous Service". In the disputed Rule 5, two consecutive provisos mentioned continuous service and actual continuous service and the main dispute between the parties is about the meaning and scope of "Continuous Service" in the third proviso.
(x) The work content of the Assistant Commissioners of Karnataka, who headed sub-divisional the revenue administration and exercised certain magisterial power and residuary general administration roles like public grievances, census, election, protocol etc., which the State asserted to equate with Deputy Collectors, were examined. The State SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 111 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE could not clearly substantiate if there is any standard by which conclusively it can be said that the Assistant Commissioner is only the Deputy Collector - Counterpart in the State of Karnataka. Although they are the heads of revenue administration in the Sub-Division, to that extent, similarities are there. But generally, it is understood that the Deputy Collector of a Sub-Division has many more roles of general administration, which includes administration of rural development, urban development, food and civil supplies etc. as it is in other states.
However those functions have been taken away consciously by various enactments and administrative arrangements in Karnataka from the purview of Assistant Commissioners of Sub Division and those functions are discharged by either Panchayathiraj officers or Urban Municipalities or Urban Development Authorities or the Department of Food and Civil Supplies headed by the Deputy Directors in the District, independent of the Assistant Commissioner of a sub-division. This role differentiation and restriction in their functions may substantiate a case to call the Karnataka Administrative Service as the Karnataka land Revenue Service, with associated magisterial functions. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 112 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Discussion of the case laws cited by the parties:
81. The respondents have cited the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 20.12.2024 in CCC No.506/2022. As this is an order under contempt of Court and in paragraph 19 of the said order, the Hon'ble High Court itself has clarified that, this being a contempt petition, this Court cannot extend and exceed the scope of contempt beyond the direction/order passed by the learned Single Judge. On meticulous examination of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State Government has comprehensively complied with the order by creating a supernumerary post for the complainant; also, by giving notional promotion and benefits, including seniority from the earliest point available in the Recruitment Notification dated 15.12.1999. The other grievance of the complainant cannot be dealt within this contempt petition owing to the limited scope as stipulated under Sections 2(b), 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. In our considered opinion, this should not have been cited as any ruling or precedent, although in the Contempt case, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidya Buhsan Mishara v. State of M.P., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine MP 7037, is cited in the context of continuous service requirement. This being a contempt proceedings, it was not a full interpretative judgment SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 113 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE of regulation 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 and its legal implication is limited to enforce the earlier judgment, and it cannot be considered that any comments therein are a binding interpretation of the statutory provision. Therefore, its precedential force on interpretative questions is limited.
Further, the respondents have cited the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 15.10.2025 in W.P(Civil) No.202/1995 in the case of T.N. Govardhan Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others. But on a closer look at the case shows that it does not interpret any relevant service law, and it has not dealt with the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and its provisions. It does not examine regulation 5(2) or the distinction between "continuous service" and "actual continuous service" as mentioned in the two provisos of regulation 5(2). Therefore, this order has little relevance in the case at hand, although it appears to be a case of continuing mandamus, which appears to be a specific administrative direction rather than any broad statutory interpretation. No precedent could be derived that is relevant to the present case, as this case arose in a completely different statutory context and does not interpret the applicants' promotion regulations or the meaning of continuous service, which is the main point of contention between the parties. Therefore, it cannot govern the issue SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 114 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE arising in the present service dispute, and the citation is clearly misplaced in the context of interpreting Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955.
Further, the respondents have quoted the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aneesh D Lawande v. State of Goa reported in (2014) 1 SCC 554, which essentially lays a principle that eligibility conditions must be fulfilled in reality and notional promotion cannot be confirmed as eligibility for further promotion. The citation is relevant to the case in hand before us, but certain distinguishable features are present between the case in hand and this case. The case in Aneesh involved ordinary service law without having any statutory curative/clarificatory sub-legislation correcting recruitment injustices, as in the applicants' case, as it was done through the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021. Also, the court was not seized with the complete interpretation of regulation 5(2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, particularly the mention therein of two similar but distinct terms, "continuous service" and "actual continuous service", in two different provisos of the same rule. Further, in the said case, there was no federal interplay between the State and federal laws and rules framed therein as in the present case, where the respondents have asserted that SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 115 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE any curative/clarificatory action taken under the Karnataka Civil Services Act 1978 i.e., Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021, which gives retrospective sub legislation benefits to the applicants is only limited in its scope for giving benefits within the Karnataka Administrative Services and as the regulation 5(2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 is a federal rule under All India Services Act, may not be amenable to those benefits conferred by the State Act and Rules. As these issues are not dealt with in this case, the mere enunciation of certain general rules, the citation has limited applicability to the case of the applicants.
Further, the respondents have cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chhavi Mehrotra v. Direction General, Health Services reported in (1995) Supp (3) SCC 434 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court basically deals with general discipline and conflicting jurisdiction, whether the Hon'ble High Court could pass orders when the matter is already pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, etc. It does not interpret the continuous service and actual continuous service or matters related to the eligibility of applicants for being promoted under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, although it may allude to some related matters pending in the High Court. But the respondents SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 116 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE themselves gave a written affidavit before us when it was pointed out that, in spite of status quo orders, they had promoted some of the displaced persons so they (The State Government) came up with a submission that the applicants, if found eligible under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, their cases will be considered. Hence, this case law does not put any doctrinal relevance or impediment to the present case in hand.
Further, the respondents have cited the decision in Vidya Bhushan Mishra v. State of M.P., reported in (2023) SCC Online MP 7037, etc. Careful examination of this shows that here continuous services have been examined to some extent with the meaning of uninterrupted service in the feeder cadre, and the conclusion is that notional seniority cannot substitute actual performance of duties for eligibility. The basic premise of the respondents is that the petitioners had not actually worked in the relevant cadre of KAS Group A since 2006, but they were only appointed therein by an order of 2021 and through legal fiction by a sub-legislation Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021, they have been given a retrospective date of seniority from 2006 and a declaration of their probation and retrospective promotions rights within KAS with SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 117 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE reference to the promotions of their respective juniors. We are of the opinion that, this case is not at all relevant to the case before us, as it is certainly distinguishable as the case dealt with promotion within the same service and not promotion from the State Service to an All India Service. There was no curative/clarificatory legislation granting retrospective service status and there was no interpretation of Rule 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and the Hon'ble Court was not confronted with the mention of two different but similar terms "Continuous Service" and "Actual Continuous Service"
within the provision 5(2) of the said regulation in two different consecutive provisos. Essentially, the Court simply applied the plain dictionary meaning of continuous service therein, and beyond that, its applicability to the peculiar circumstances of the case before us is limited.
82. Furthermore, we have carefully examined all the citations by the applicants. Although in general, none of the citations deals directly with interpreting the main contention between the parties regarding the meaning and scope of the words "Continuous Service" and "Actual Continuous Service" in Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 particularly with reference to "deemed SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 118 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE service"' fortified by a retrospective sub-legislation which remained un-challenged and was duly enacted under the retrospective sub- legislation powers given to the state government under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, and the applicants having de facto experience in equivalent post which were duly declared equivalent in the year 2000 under the same central law but a different sister rule called IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997.
In the case of Union of India v. K.B.Rajoria reported in 2000 3 SCC 562, it is very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a service jurisprudence, has accepted the validity of "deemed service", if it is curative and retrospective in nature due to a Court order, to correct injustice and has ruled that recognition of "deemed service" can be considered for eligibility, seniority or promotions and this general principle is very relevant for the case before us. The Hon'ble Apex Court has recognized that once service is regularized with retrospective validation of service under respective service rule, the officer cannot be deprived of consequential benefits, including seniority and promotion. This case certainly supported the case of the applicants, although it was in a different context and the case does not examine the rules, specifically the meaning of "continuous service" and "actual continuous service" in two consecutive provisos of IAS (Appointment SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 119 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE by Promotion) Regulations 1955, but it is clear that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that legal fiction must be carried to its logical conclusion.
Further, in the case of Soorya Madhaba Panigrahi v. Union of India and Others, wherein our co-ordinate bench of C.A.T Cuttack in O.A No.521/2021 vide their order dated 05.05.2022 had dealt a similar or almost identical case, and they had considered retrospective benefits to the applicant therein and the same was accepted by the State Government, and he was given promotion into IAS and the Government of India and the UPSC have also not objected to it, although the respondents have taken a stand that the said order is accepted and implemented in personam, and it cannot be taken as a precedence but being identical one cannot ignore the precedent altogether. We are of the considered opinion that once the same has been accepted by the Government of India and UPSC, to give him a promotion to IAS, the applicants are in a similar but much stronger predicament as they are having de-facto equivalent experience and protection of retrospective service by curative/clarificatory sub-legislation to give effect to the order of Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court, and hence having a very good case made out regarding violation of their fundamental right to equality and equal opportunity for public employment under SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 120 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India if being in similar circumstances they are treated differently. The Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack bench recognized that eligibility lists for IAS promotion depend primarily on State determination of service status. And as the applicant had state validated service, UPSC and Government of India had accepted it. Hence, this provides support to the applicant's case, and it cannot be said that a validation by the State for the purpose of the State-Civil Services Cadre can only be limited to state civil services hierarchies and will be irrelevant for the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, and it is wrong to assert that order was in personam, as it was identical in facts as the case of the present applicants. Furthermore this case strongly substantiates the retrospective service cases brought before the UPSC committee for consideration under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 and related case-conduct of all the three actors, the State Government, the Central Government and the UPSC who together decide to promote such candidates accepting the facts of the case as such, once the State has certified the eligibility conditions.
In the case of Ms.Jahnavi v. State of Karnataka, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in O.A 450/2021 has ordered on 12.12.2022 a SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 121 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE similar issue of all-India service and the benefit has been given, although the said case is challenged and pending before the Hon'ble High Court, it supported the case of the applicant. The case examined KAS seniority and eligibility issues arising from recruitment disputes where the state itself corrects recruitment defects, affected officers cannot be denied consequential service benefits. It is very much a relevant contextual precedent.
In another case, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar and Others ((1996) 4 SCC 416)), the principle enunciated by the Apex Court is that where delay in regular appointment is not attributable to the employee, retrospective benefits may be granted. This is very pertinent to the case in hand as the applicants are the victims of Karnataka State Public Service Commission Gazetted Probationer's examination 1998 irregularities and the delay happened due to prolonged litigation in their corrective appointments.
In the case of Dharampal v. State of Haryana ((1999) 9 SCC
310), the general principle enunciated is that if regularization is granted retrospectively, service must be counted from that date. This certainly helps rebut the argument that actual service alone counts, and it supports the case of the applicants although it does not define the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 122 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE conditions laid down in a federal regulation like the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and its relationship with the State laws and rules, particularly a curative/clarificatory retrospective rule, like in the case of the applicants, in this present O.A. Hence, this case also supports strongly the case of the applicants.
In the case of P.N.Pramachandran v. State of Kerala ((2004) 1 SCC 245)), the ratio is that administrative delay cannot prejudice the employee's seniority or promotional rights. This is also quite pertinent as in the case of the applicants, injustice arose due to KPSC examination irregularities and delays at the government level. Hence, the case is strongly supportive in nature.
In Ramanjaneyalu v. UPSC ((1985) 2 SCC 723), the Court held that the State Government determines the pool of eligible officers, while UPSC only assesses merit. This also supports the case of the applicants, and it is surprising why, in this case before us, the State Government has not sent the proposal while the State Government itself was the author of curative/clarificatory sub-legislation. Although retrospective, such curative validation was based on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court. So they should have sent a suitable proposal. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 123 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE In the case of Dr. Pankaj Lalit v. UPSC, (O.A No.855/2021 of Chandigarh Bench decided on September 2023) a recent Central Administrative Tribunal order which recognizes that service recognition decisions of the State influence IAS promotion eligibility, and it supports the State Government competence in determining service status as important and that supported the case of the applicants.
In Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana ((2003) 5 SCC 604)), the principle enunciated is that seniority or eligibility cannot be claimed before entry into the service according to rules and that retrospective seniority cannot precede lawful appointment. It further deals with inter se seniority disputes, not statutory retrospective validation, as well as it does not deal with the use of two distinct terms in the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. The meaning of continuous service and actual continuous service is not defined in this case. Hence, it may not negate in any way the case of the applicants. It is very different and distinct, the applicants before us are having both retrospective validation and having de-facto experience in equivalent posts which were certified equivalent under a related but distinct regulation called IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 so the four applicants before us have certainly a much better case. . SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 124 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE In the case of C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala ((2020) 5 SCC
230)), it is emphasized that eligibility conditions in promotion regulations must be strictly satisfied and that actual continuous service may be argued to as the meaning of continuous service. But these cases do not deal with the nuances in IAS (Appointment by Promotion) which has two consecutive provisos which mentioned "continuous service"
and "actual continuous service". And "actual continuous service" is envisaged as an exception given to ex-service officers where "continuous service" can also be "deemed service" of four years. Once an ex-service officer is having deeming provision by regulation, it should generally be applied in other cases of equally potent rules which was empowered by laws duly enacted that were retrospectively promulgated. Such valid rules if not specifically negated by any federal regulation should be equally honoured. It is difficult to distinguish the case of the applicants once they have a retrospective state enacted rule in their favour, which is supported by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders, as well as supported by actual de-facto experience in an equivalent post, although the equivalence certified was under different rules but under a very closely related one, i.e., IAS (appointment by selection) Regulations 1997. And the State's conduct SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 125 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE and the conduct of the UPSC as well as Government of India in dealing with other cases of appointment by promotion from State services to IAS without verifying if they were holding any equivalent post so declared under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and all the three actors, the Federal Government, UPSC and the State Government blindly following and arguing that any encadred post for KAS Group A post, or even any post held by a KAS Group A Officer is to be considered equivalent and just relying on general, vague and unsubstantiated presumptive certification they have gone ahead and given promotions to such officers. In such circumstances in our considered opinion, there cannot be a case where the state, federal government or the UPSC can make a distinction and implement the same state provision vis-à-vis a central regulation any differently for the applicants when compared to the others. Hence, the applicants have a strong case from this perspective also.
In the case of G. Hanumanthaiah Reddy v. Union of India (1986) 1 SLR 169 (AP HC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted continuous service strictly for IAS promotion eligibility. Further, it dealt with actual service gaps, not service deemed continuous by statute. The case of the applicants is very distinguishable and is SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 126 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE supported by a number of case laws as discussed earlier. As it emerges that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the three Actors, State Government, Central Government and the UPSC, have time and again accepted retrospective validation of services if the applicants were not at fault, and they suffered due to the respondents' omissions and commissions as evident from the precedence in K.B.Rajoria and Panigrahi cases discussed earlier, it is immaterial to assert that those were implemented in personam.
Also in general, what emerges is that retrospective validation by statute or rule is legally permissible. Once service is deemed continuous, consequences generally follow unless the statute specifically restricts them. The State determines the eligibility pool for IAS promotions, subject to Regulations. Generally, we see that in no case, once the state has itself presented the cases of their State Civil Service Members like in the case of Panigrahi, the UPSC and the Government of India have never further questioned or scrutinised or taken any exception to it. Hence, generally, their past conduct in such cases is now relevant, as it substantiated UPSC and Government of India's acceptance of the statutes of state civil service in relation to the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 being harmonious SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 127 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE and complementary. It shows that the Government of India, UPSC and the State Government collectively agree that when the state has certified the services of any State Civil Service Officer like in all other cases cited by the applicants, there is no further scrutiny by the Committee sitting at UPSC Office to consider their cases under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 to question the State who held equivalent post and if they all held continuously equivalent posts for not less than 8 years. We are particularly surprised that even if there was no equivalence formally declared under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, all three of the respondent Actors collectively presumed that any encadred post with the state civil services (KAS Group A) is equivalent for the purpose of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. Once, they themselves affirm that there is invisible and automatic complementarity between the federal regulations and the State Civil Services Law and there is no contradiction between them, in that case in our considered opinion, the State actors are estopped from pointing out any contradiction and disharmony between a state and a federal law for a particular case, like that of applicants. Such varying interpretations of the same set of rules are impermissible; such acts would be inequitable, SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 128 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE unjust, perverse and illegal and a clear violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Final discussions and conclusions:
83. As we have discussed above regarding the important facts of the case and pointed out certain legal dimensions of the relevant rules and regulations, and we have discussed the relevance of the citations placed before us it may be pertinent to revisit the structural reading of regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, which is the main issue of contention between the parties. The provision in general gives about the eligibility of any candidate to be considered for appointment for promotion to IAS from the State Civil Services. The provision mentions that the committee shall consider any inclusion in the said list, the cases of members of the state civil services, in the order of seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred in sub-regulation (1). In the proviso, it mentions that the Committee shall not consider the case of 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 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 129 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government.
84. In the case of the applicants, although factually in 2006 all of them were appointed to non-state civil services Group A, but by the revised order in 2021, pursuant to the Hon'ble High Court /Supreme Court orders, they were finally allotted KAS Group A, a State Civil Services. And with the curative/clarificatory sub-legislation Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021, they were given retrospective seniority in State Civil Service from 2006. The curative/clarificatory rule was empowered by the Karnataka Civil Service Act 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990), Regulation 8, which clearly provided a provision for retrospective benefits sub-legislation. Further this rule was notified to give effect to the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court orders in the Khaleel Ahmed (supra).
85. The content of the sub-rule also clearly shows that the applicants were getting seniority with reference to their juniors as in the revised select list from 2006 and a right to automatic declaration of their probation in KAS Group A if they had satisfactorily earlier passed SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 130 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE their respective departmental examination in the non-state civil services. And after that if they passed KAS Group A Departmental Examination they would have had the right to further promotions with reference to their immediate juniors. One of the main disputes between the parties is that this particular state rule governing KAS Group A, which undisputedly envisaged a right to be promoted retrospectively with reference to their immediate junior, is only a right to be promoted within KAS's various levels of the said cadre within its own hierarchy; and was not a right to promotion in a wider sense which also included right to promotion/appointment to IAS with reference to their juniors under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955.
86. The main contention of the respondents is that the Karnataka State laws and federal laws are distinct and different, and one must satisfy the requirements of both. By virtue of the State law, the applicants become a member of the State Civil Service and within that State Civil Service, they get the benefit of promotion retrospectively with reference to their junior which they have been provided, but automatically no one can claim to get a right to be promoted to IAS, which strictly was not a promotion but was a hybrid between a new SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 131 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE appointment and a promotion as per rule IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955.
87. Further it is pointed out that in the same provision, it mentions that on first day of January of the selection year, such substantive incumbent in State Civil Service should have not less than 8 years of "continuous service" (whether officiating or substantive) in a post of Deputy Collector or any other post or posts equivalent thereto by the State Government.
88. The respondents contend that "continuous service" means "actual service" in the KAS and the posts which are declared equivalent under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. The same is more vividly described by the Government of India by submitting that the reason for considering only continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector is that the principle adopted in the appointment by promotion from the State Civil Service to the Indian Administrative Service based upon merit cum seniority (Regulation 5(2) and 5(4)). They assert that it is imperative that, to ascertain/evaluate the concerned officer's actual merit (grading), his service records for the actual period rendered by him as Deputy Collector or equivalent have to be taken into account.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 132 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Any presumption of evaluating the case of an officer based upon the service records, which are not relevant to the period and also not of the relevant post, would tantamount to vitiating the entire selection committee proceedings and may deliver altogether different results.
89. To which the applicants have contended that "continuous service" is a very broad terminology which only speaks of something uninterrupted, and they point out that within Clause 5(2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, in two different consecutive provisos, two different words are mentioned. In the third proviso, "continuous service" is mentioned and eight years of continuous service requirement is there for eligibility, whereas in the next fourth proviso, the word used is "actual continuous service" with reference to the released Emergency Commissioned or other Short Service Commissioned Officers appointed to the State Civil Service in whose service, 8 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 4 years of "actual continuous service". Meaning thereby that this regulation itself envisaged two distinct clauses, "continuous service"
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 133 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE and "actual continuous service". When actual continuous service for Emergency Commissioned candidates can be only four years and remaining four years can be deemed service the pertinent equity point will be, as to why not their legally backed deemed service by sub- legislation duly empowered by the laws and supported by the Hon'ble High Court order in Khaleel Ahmed supra and the Hon'ble Apex Court orders will not in the cases of applicants suffice for them to be considered as deemed eligible from the date of their deeming for the purpose not only for KAS promotions but also for being considered under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
90. Let us have a closer look at the structural reading of Regulation 5(2), which governs IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, having within the same provision, the rule using two distinct expressions of continuous service and actual continuous service and the rule itself making a case for due deeming for a particular sub-category of state civil service cadre individuals (Ex-service men). This distinction is very significant, and we do not find that this has been dealt with extensively in any of the preceding citations or the judgments of the Apex Court or High Court.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 134 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
91. The general interpretative presumption recognised by the Hon'ble Apex Court in India is that different words in the same statutory provisions are intended to convey different meaning. Thus, the rule itself suggests that "continuous service" is a much broader expression in the third proviso, while "actual continuous service" is a narrower expression only for a particular clause and for a sub-set of employees. This is an internal evidence within the relevant regulation that partly contradicts the respondent's contention and interpretation, and we cannot deny that "continuous service" need not always be actual. The dictionary meaning of "continuous service" is uninterrupted service. Continuous service and "actual continuous service" are not synonyms in the strict sense of those two words in the dictionary have different meanings. The fourth proviso dealing with the ex-servicemen officers clearly recognises the deemed date of appointment and four years of minimum actual service, and they can deem another four years from their experience in the Armed Forces. This certainly adds important intuitive consequences if the rule continues with two distinct expressions in the service law it always means two different sets of possible continuous service (one being actual and the other being deemed), interpreting it any differently the "actual continuous service" would be a redundant expression. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 135 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Interpretative logic of this can be derived and supported from the Hon'ble Apex court judgment in Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. ((2003) 4 SCC 305), Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose (AIR 1952 369:1953 SCR 1.
92. The second aspect to be kept in mind is the context of operation and the rule of State Civil Service rules vis-à-vis federal rules. The promotion to IAS under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 is only from the pool of officers belonging to the State Civil Service, and none other. All India services eligibility by appointment by promotion regulation itself presupposes the pre- existing legal framework governing any state civil service. Thus, its cadre, membership, seniority, probation, promotion within the service, which are all determined by the State service Acts and rules, cannot be said to be completely irrelevant or in any was incongruent or repugnant for the purpose of federal regulations governing IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955.
93. In Karnataka these rules derived authority from the Karnataka Civil Services Act 1978 and under the Karnataka Act 14 of 1990. The restorative rules have been framed for the applicants with special rules called Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 136 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 which gives the right to retrospective promotion subject to qualifying the departmental examination to the applicants. If the legislature recognises retrospective promotion, those legal consequences form part of the service status of the officers in the Karnataka State Civil Services is significant and has to be recognised by a central rule which is in tandem and is situated in a complementary harmony to each other. Ignoring the provisions of state rules and the status conferred by them on any of the members of the State Civil Service entirely or even partly while considering such individuals under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 in our considered opinion would effectively negate the statutory scheme governing the State service.
94. One must keep in mind that these rules, which are curative in nature, the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021, have a clear curative objective; they seek to remedy the injustice resulting from the irregularities in the recruitment process carried out by the KPSC. And such curation was mandated by the Hon'ble High Court and the Apex Court orders. Hence, such curative SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 137 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE state acts have full consequences for the inter-connected complementary federal Regulations.
95. Further if we rely on the authority of B.S.Yadav v. State of Haryana ((1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 524, we have to be sympathetic towards such curative/clarificatory legislations wherein the Court held that retrospective service rules may legitimately restore losses due to administrative injustice, which in this case has actually happened.
96. If we examine it from equality considerations and from the point of view of individuals' rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it appears logically strong that if the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 itself accepts deemed service for one class (Ex-service Officers), then denying recognition of statutorily recognized deemed service supported by the Hon'ble High Court/Supreme Court orders and a curative/clarificatory legislation for another class of officials may raise a serious constitutional issue. The equality principle articulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India requires that similarly situated persons should not be treated differently without rational justification. This preposition is derived strongly from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 138 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Tamil Nadu ((1974) AIR 555) wherein it was ruled that a rule is interpreted in a manner that perpetuates an injustice already corrected by legislation, Courts must prefer the interpretation that advances equality. Statutory curative deeming in the case of the applicants to give them the fruits of Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders if interpreted adversely against them will completely defeat the end of justice, and negate the preceding orders and purports of the sub- legislation.
97. We have to look at the State laws and the federal laws in a harmonious tandem, sitting side by side in harmony, discharging complementary functions. Unless there was something expressly mentioned contrary to it in the federal Regulations, singalling out any small set of sufferers and not recognising their validly sub-legislation supported retrospective deemed service status without any rational justification will be patently perverse, discriminatory, unjust and liable to be set aside. A valid state service rule which is curative in nature and supported by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court ruling (Khaleel Ahmed v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and ors.), the only meritorious object would be to avoid conflict between the two laws. If we see from any angle, state laws determine service status and SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 139 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE seniority. The state service and its functionalities are governed by the state rules and only a member of the state civil service has a right to appointment by promotion under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 and the complementary IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation determines selection procedure and the eligibility threshold for promotion to IAS, and hence where the state rule create deemed service to cure injustice, that status may legitimately inform the meaning of continuous service as envisaged in the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation.
98. In our considered opinion, as continuous service within proviso 5(2) of the said regulation itself has an aspect of deeming, as it mentions continuous service and actual continuous service being two different words, any other interpretation will break the harmony between the two closely related state laws and the central laws.
99. Even if we go with this broader interpretation, the regulations themselves set certain rational limits, as the officer must still belong to the state civil service cadre to be considered under the Central regulations. Further, the whole selection committee process remains intact. Notional service may count for eligibility, but not necessarily affect inter-se merit assessment.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 140 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
100. Hence, in our considered opinion, where valid statutory rules governing the state civil service, create retrospective seniority or deemed service to cure administrative injustice, such deemed service cannot be ignored while interpreting the expression "continuous service" in Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, particularly when the regulation itself distinguishes between "continuous service" and "actual continuous service". This is essential for respecting both the State and the Central legislation and to avoid inequitable outcomes.
101. Further, we must examine the role of the State in determining the eligibility under Regulation 5 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. The State Government prepares a list of eligible officers. That list is forwarded to the selection committee constituted by UPSC. On participation, the committee evaluates the merits and suitability. Thus, the initial determination of eligibility is statutorily entrusted to the State Government.
102. It is unusual to see that in an identical case of Soorya Madhaba Panigrahi v. Union of India and others, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal at Cuttack in O.A No.521/2021 on 05.05.2022 had ruled but SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 141 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE how subsequently that order was implemented, when the state proposed with deemed date experience of the Soorya Madhaba Panigrahi, the government of India and the UPSC did not disagree or dissent. But it was strange in the instant case before us, where, on the one hand, the same State Government which brought the sub-legislation and gave retrospective promotional rights to the applicants under the State rules, but under the central rule was trying to interpret their own beneficial rules duly supported by law, and Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders in a contrary manner, and were arguing against the applicants and trying to deny them justice and fruits of their deemed service and the purport of the Apex Court orders ?
103. Although strictly estoppel arguments against the state are not doctrinally supported for any interpretation of rules or regulations. But it may look strange that the same State framing the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 and which granted retrospective service benefits to the applicants and two retrospective promotions in the KAS, and the same State Government before us is arguing that retrospective service cannot be recognised for IAS eligibility? We will come to this inconsistency further subsequently, to SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 142 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE examine if it amounts to a conduct constituting the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. Can parties accept the same and reject the same instrument simultaneously? Promissory/administrative estoppel may also operate in certain situations, although estoppel within the ambit of service law may be limited, Administrative estoppel in a service matter of uneven enforcement of rules may likely operate. We will come to this point further subsequently.
104. We are of the opinion that the state authorities cannot take contradictory stands, causing prejudice to a set of employees. If the officers were given retrospective probation, two retrospective promotions and retrospective seniority, the state implicitly represented that their service position stands regularised from that date. And thus, if interpreted in the light of two distinct words used in the same regulation 5(2), continuous service and actual continuous service, that means that continuous service is not conclusively defined in this specific context in a very limited sense of always being an actual service in nature. Hence it may look incongruous if the State contradicts its own statutory scheme, the best State should have sent the suitable proposal and left it to the other two actors to object. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 143 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
105. Any action from the State has to adhere to the general constitutional principle of consistency of state action. It cannot create retrospective service rights by service law and denies the consequences of those rights in another statutory process. It was not open for the State Government to deny the right of the applicants completely. It should be pertinent to examine how a proposal like Soorya Madhaba Panigrahi v. Union of India and others once forwarded by the State Government is handled by the federal government and the UPSC, we find that in such cases the Federal actions have never dissented and have brought and considered such proposals under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, thus opening another angle of discrimination between similarly placed individuals having deemed service, which is impermissible under the Article 14 and 16.
106. We are of the opinion, the state should adhere to equality. If deemed service is recognised for one class under the Regulation (Ex- service Officer), refusing recognition for another class without a rational basis may certainly raise an issue under Articles 14 and
16. Further, if it was validly used for Panigrahi (supra) there cannot be any reason to interpret same rules differently for the applicants. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 144 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
107. Further, the State must be alive of curative justice. Their retrospective rules were enacted not as an ornament or as charity but to remedy injustice caused by recruitment irregularities for no fault of the applicants. Interpreting the central regulations in a way that continuously perpetuated the same injustice and would defeat the legislative purpose of curative/clarificatory rule may not look just. In our considered opinion, the State rules validly confer retrospective service status. Such status cannot be ignored in determining continuous service for eligibility. However, final promotion to IAS still depends on the selection committee's assessment of the officers.
108. The state must sympathetically consider the remedial interpretation principles when rules are framed to cure injustice (like recruitment scams) and could significantly strengthen the trust of public in the recruitment process, when the sub-legislation was to cure injustice, administrative irregularities and systemic defects, we must handle such cases with caution to advance the remedy rather than defeat it. In the case of classical Heydon's rule of statutory interpretation from the leading authority Workers of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management (AIR 1986 SC 458), the court held that beneficial and remedial provisions must receive a liberal SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 145 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE construction so that the relief intended by the legislature is not frustrated. In the case of B.S.Yadav v. State of Haryana (1998 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 524), the court recognised that retrospective service rules may legitimately restore rights lost due to earlier administrative injustice. Where the legislature or rule-making authority enacts such rules, we must generally interpret them to make the remedy effective.
109. Essentially, the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021, in our considered opinion, is designed to cure the consequences of irregularities in recruitment by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. The objective of such a rule is essentially to place affected officers in the position they would have occupied otherwise. If the retrospective service granted by those rules is ignored while interpreting the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, the curative/clarificatory object of the rules would be substantially defeated.
110. In Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1957 SCC Online SC 138 Supreme Court), the Hon'ble Court observed that statutory provisions should be interpreted so that both sets of rules SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 146 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE operate without destroying each other and as the state rules determine service status and seniority within the State Civil Service and the IAS promotion regulations determine selection procedure and eligibility and both the state and federal rules sit side by side, complementing each other, they have to be harmoniously interpreted to recognise the service status created by valid state rules, while applying the central promotion framework, without losing sight of it. An ex-service men officer probationer cannot be treated as a mere narrow exception for counting their deemed - service, and it may be wrong to think that the same deeming cannot be extended by analogy to other set of persons equally deserving, supported by valid rules, and Apex Court order.
111. Now, let us see some other related evidence which has an important bearing on this case. One relates to the structural requirement in the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 is very significant. In Regulation 5(2), one of the eligibility conditions required is 8 years' service in the post of Deputy Collector or equivalent. The determination of equivalent post is normally done by the State Government in consultation with UPSC. Therefore, the State carries the primary responsibility for declaring equivalence. As when this issue came up for discussion, the state has categorically said they have not SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 147 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE issued any post as equivalent to that of Deputy Collector under these provisions, although the equivalence has been notified under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997. The State further asserted that all the posts encadred to the KAS and occupied by KAS Group A are considered equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector. The state further asserted that the equivalence declared under the 'selection' regulation cannot be counted under the 'Promotion' regulation.
112. It is a very interesting and self-contradictory situation where the present applicants have been in the non-state Civil Service since 2006. When they were in the non-state Civil Service, they held various posts which were declared equivalent to Deputy Collectors under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 vide notification dated 01.12.2000. All these officers had meritorious service; their probation was declared in time after they passed departmental examinations and two of them, who were in the accounts department, got two promotions each and another two got one promotion and were found eligible in the second DPC which promotion could not be given to them as they were shifted to the state civil services in the meanwhile due to the Court orders and subsequent revision of select list of 1998 batch gazette SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 148 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE probationers examination by the KPSC. It is further pertinent to note that these officers are eligible to be considered under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 for induction into IAS, as they have completed more than 8 years of meritorious service in non-state civil services and have held posts which are declared formally equivalent to Deputy Collectors.
113. Contra-distinctly, for the state civil service KAS Group A, no equivalence has been ever declared for any post in Karnataka. Before us, a table was furnished for 34 officers who had been promoted to IAS and for them in the service, they have held frequently different posts other than the post of a Deputy Collector or Assistant Commissioner of a subdivision.
114. In serial no.25, Honnamba S had continuously held the post of Under Secretary and then Deputy Secretary. Some of them have held posts in municipal bodies and urban development authorities and posts of special land acquisition officers, Project Director DUDC, Project Manager of Kar Slum Clearance Board, Commissioner CMC, SLAO, BDA, CAO-NRHM, DDTMA, Personal Secretariat of Ministers of minority welfare, etc. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 149 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
115. The State failed to show any equivalence declaration for these posts under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955. They only argued that the posts recognised as cadre posts for the KAS Group A are all considered equivalent and make them eligible. This type of lackadaisical and lose interpretation of equivalence for KAS Officer/State civil Service Officers for eligibility for being considered under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 appears in stark contrast and patently discriminatory when it is considered in the light of non-consideration of applicants' validly determining provisions under the State retrospective sub- legislation under the Karnataka Civil Services Act of their retrospective service under State Civil Service for consideration under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations or their considering the de- facto service on equivalent post declared equivalent under a sister Regulation, IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997. These instances of not notifying equivalence to Deputy Collector post in the State of Karnataka under the IAS (Appointment by Promotions) Regulations 1955 are glaring administrative failures on the part of the state for bringing equivalence. And their acts of putting forward an argument that under KAS encadrement rules, whatever posts are encadred for KAS Group A has to be automatically considered as SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 150 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE equivalent under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 may look strange. In the case of applicants they said the federal laws under which the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 under which the induction into IAS is considered cannot automatically recognize and reckon a remedial sub-legislation under KAS Civil Service Act, 1978 as it was a complex interplay of a federal regulation and a State rule which were distinct without seeing them each other complementarily, whereas in the case of all other regular State Civil Service Officers (KAS Group A) the same State Government now wants to canvass before us that the same central law (Appointment by Promotion Regulations) presumed their state civil services encadrement rules without due scrutiny of equivalence declaration, and considered everyone equivalent having satisfactory equivalent experience.
116. Earlier as we had discussed estoppel of laws which may not operate but this is a case of not just a law but "actual practice of law"
which is purely administrative matter and the State has to "practice law"
with "equanimity" and "even hand". The State must dispense operation of laws and justice to every employee equitably. The State cannot blow hot and cold at the same time and try to brow beat a small set of disfavoured employees like the applicants by telling that their "curative SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 151 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE fictional deeming" by State law cannot be recognised by central law because how can a central law see eye to eye a State law, as the State and the Committee were in the case of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 dealing with an exalted set of "federal regulations".
117. It is interesting to note that one KAS Officer who had mostly served in the Secretariat as Under Secretary, which is asserted to be not a cadre post of KAS is now promoted to IAS. The State has not made available before us even list of encadred post, but under the law as placed before us no presumption can be there for equivalence unless there was any such equivalence notification issued under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, as the State has itself further argued that IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 cannot even recognise equivalence notified under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997.
118. We are seeing here a patent recurrent mis-interpretation of laws and rules or their uneven enforcement specifically in the cases of the applicants vis-à-vis other KAS Group A officers of not one but multiple legal instruments, i.e., (1). The curative/clarificatory sub-legislation for the applicants called Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 152 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021under the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978, which is to give effect to the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme court orders. (2). Relation of a validly legislated curative/clarificatory state sub- legislation vis-à-vis the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, (3). Equivalence declared under IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1955 for the posts held by the applicants under the non- state civil services and its relevance vis-à-vis de-facto continuous equivalent service under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, when compared to the liberal interpretation of equivalent 8 year of service for others who never or seldom held posts declared formally equivalent; or stating loosely that any post held by a KAS Group A Officer as a cadre post/ex-cadre post was automatically recognised as equivalent post by the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations (nothing can be more unjustified and irrational than this statement). It all together gives a feeling of a pre-meditated and hostile design against a set of employees (the applicants) attracting heavy costs and other consequences in favour of the applicants.
119. Strangely, the State failed to declare such equivalence for the KAS Group A posts to Deputy Collector, and we are of the considered SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 153 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE opinion that it is clearly an uneven enforcement of laws for others, vis- à-vis the applicants, which very much amounts to a conduct of approbate and reprobate by the State. In our considered opinion if federal regulations can by themselves take cognisance of encadred post of KAS without any declaration of equivalence or any post held by a KAS Group A officer as equivalent, it shall be bound to take cognisance of remedial sub-legislation under the Karnataka Civil Service Act supported by Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders for giving full meaning to the deeming fiction necessitated by contingencies of mal-administration and irregular selection to which the respondents are very much parties.
120. In our considered opinion, full acceptance of the State encadrement of KAS Group A posts as presumed equivalence certification under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and unexplained rejection of deeming state sub-legislation does not show the State in a good light. Further, these tables, which are there before us for 34 officers, speaks volumes about the committee where the UPSC, as well as the Government of India, were parties to consider the candidature of those members under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 in various select lists at different point of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 154 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE time, and they are also equally answerable to explain such anomaly and uneven application of rules for different officers. What were they doing then, and how diligent they were in enforcing clauses of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 in those cases? Did they once question, scrutinised and check whether equivalence was declared, and whether those posts in work content were really equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector? Did the Under Secretary in Secretariat or a Personal Secretary to Minister's personal establishment provide the same type of experience and exposure as that of a sub- divisional post of an Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional magistrate or Deputy Collector? In this light, if we revisit the Central Government's submissions that will be quite illustrative and relevant. Wherein they stressed and asserted that the reason for considering only continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector is that the principle adopted in the appointment by promotion from State Civil Service (SCS) to the IAS is based upon merit-cum-seniority (Regulation 5(2) and 5(4)). It is imperative that, to ascertain/evaluate the concerned officer's actual merit/grading), his service records for the actual period rendered by him as Deputy Collector or equivalent have to be taken into account. Any presumption of evaluating the case of an officer based upon service SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 155 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE records which are not relevant to the period and also not of the relevant post would tantamount to vitiating the entire selection committee proceedings and may deliver altogether different results. In light of the facts placed before us, all these appear to be hollow and meritless submission as it will by that very exacting and strict standards consideration of the other cases will make promotions and appointment to IAS of all the listed candidates in the Annexure A- 32 (in O.A 103/2025) who have not served continuously on posts of Deputy Collector or a post declared equivalent fail the test of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.
121. Here is a case before us of four officers who have not been sitting at home since 2006. They were very much discharging duties under non-state civil services in the post which were duly declared equivalent to that of Deputy Collector under IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997 and who have been the victims of irregularities in the KPSC gazette probationers exam 1998 selection process and unfortunately initially were allotted to in 2006 to the non-state civil service and were having meritorious service, they had regular promotions and they have equivalent experience for IAS (Appointment by Selection ) Regulations, 1997, and after the Hon'ble High Court and SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 156 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Apex Court order in Khaleel Ahmed supra, through revised select list of 1998 issued in 2021 they came to occupy the positions in state civil services KAS Group A. And for them based on the apex court orders curative/clarificatory sub-legislation Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 was enacted, which gave them right to retrospective seniority and to get their probation declared; and after getting departmental examination passed, right to promotion retrospectively from the date when their juniors got the same promotion.
122. The very same State gave them two promotions in KAS retrospectively and now the argument that this curative/clarificatory rule only limits to give them benefit under the KAS hierarchy and deny them the deeming service benefit to be counted for eligibility under Regulation 5(2) of IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 does not look convincing, equitable, just, speaking, rational, and it appears to be perverse and bad and motivated illogical, irrational and artificial hurdles put in their natural upward journey, requiring to be set aside. The States persistent unjust denial of the rights of the applicants by putting artificial and refutable legal hurdles looks so iniquitous and SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 157 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE their explanations against them are so self-contradictory, biased, laboured, motivated and injudicious that in our considered opinion it attracted heavy costs and other corrective consequences.
123. In our considered opinion, here is a case where all four officers have de facto experience of equivalent meritorious service under the Central law (a related regulation) also, and their deeming provision cannot be limited to their promotion into KAS hierarchy only, it shall even make them eligible to IAS (Appointment by Promotion) consideration as essentially a consideration and promotion by IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955 is an inherent and indivisible right of an officer borne on the State Civil Service only and none others. The two laws of the State and the Central Governments have to be harmoniously read, and they are complementary in nature, and as per the State's own acceptance that KAS encadrement is automatically taken as satisfying the requirement of equivalence, (although we are not convinced for claiming such equivalence), and denying the same equivalence for the applicants defacto experience under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation, we find the applicants having a much better case to be considered under, the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 than any of the regular SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 158 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE incumbents who have not continuously held equivalent posts declared by law formally as such. All those other 34 officers listed may fail the strict eligibility test for appointment by promotion if we apply the same strict parameters which without adequate and convincing justifications the respondents are collectively trying to apply to the applicants cases before us. Application of law so differently for the applicants is so perverse that it seems acts of malafide. This inconsistency in the State's stand in the operation of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 by all the respondents does not show them in a good light, and attracted costs and other consequences.
124. No one can go beyond the doctrine of even-applicability of service rules or for that matter any rule. Any rule has to be applied uniformly. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 1 SCC 248), the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that the State must be fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary. We find that, based on these inconsistent submissions and application of same laws in the case of the applicants the respondents have been far from fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary. The states inconsistent application of same laws for different sets of employees so differently creates a deeper concern if the state was impelled by any partisan intent to protect and promote the interest of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 159 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE any particularly favoured constituency? States unexplained inconsistent application of rules to eliminate the essentially wronged, hapless and helpless applicants for being considered under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, and reaping the fruits of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders and the curative/clarificatory sub- legislation along with their de-facto experience legally declared equivalent is perplexing.
125. It is strange that how the respondents in same breath ignore the equivalence requirement of some other officers but tried to enforce it so strictly and high-handedly against others like the four applicants that it looks malicious and perverse. Such iniquitous act of the respondents almost nullifies the purport of a curative/clarificatory sub-legislation. We find this arbitrary action is very iniquitous, unjustified, unreasonable, and against articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside.
126. We find from the facts that the applicants had de facto equivalent experience of the Deputy Collector post. They are all meritorious. They have served in the posts formally declared equivalent under a sister federal Regulation called the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, and had been performing equivalent administrative SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 160 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE functions since 2006. They have a stronger functional equivalence actually sanctified by a notification of the year 2000, and we find "persuasive equity" in their favour to count those experience for the 8 years of continuous service experience for the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations 1997, for appointment from KAS Group A to IAS under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Hence, we completely reject the arguments of the Government of India, the UPSC and the State Government that they don't have 8 years of actual Deputy Collector equivalent experience and so they are not eligible for being considered under IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1997.
127. Further, there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on functional equivalence. In the case of Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman ((1991) 4 SCC 109), the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that service rights cannot be denied merely because of administrative technicalities when the officer has actually performed equivalent duties. Similarly, in the case of D.S.Nakara v. Union of India ((1983) 1 SCC 305) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ruled that classification that treats similarly situated employees differently without rational basis violates Article 14, and hence in our opinion there SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 161 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE will be administrative estoppel for the State which never declared equivalence for many posts and considered officers without them as eligible but denies eligibility of applicants despite they having recognized duties as equivalent under a sister Regulation and having support of curative/clarificatory sub-legislation empowered by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The State cannot enforce strict compliance in some case and be non-strict in others. In "administrative fairness" the State is estopped from doing that. The State must apply equivalent requirements consistently for "continuous service" in all cases uniformly without distinction. The State cannot deny consideration to applicants by applying the laws subjectively; the retrospective service of the applicants has to be counted, as it is sanctified by sub-legislation formally promulgated, and they have actual de-facto experience of the post notified equivalent fulfilling requirement of 8 years of ACRs.
128. So here is an unusual case where the State itself created retrospective service continuity through valid rules (empowering the applicants de jure). Further the Applicants have continuously served in equivalent administrative posts since 2006, empowering the applicants de facto. The state never declared equivalence for many posts held by SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 162 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE other officers who were promoted to IAS, hence in our considered opinion the state is estopped from implementing the central and IAS regulations unevenly. When this generic rule of even application of law is considered, denying the applicants consideration would therefore be arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16. Functional equivalence doctrine is further strengthened by Union of India v. P.K.Roy (1968 AIR 850) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down four criteria for determining equivalence in nature and duties of the post, powers and responsibilities, minimum qualifications required and pay scale and status in administrative hierarchy. And that equivalence is determined by the substance of the post, not merely by its title. We find the applicants have a much better case with de-facto as well as de-jure compliance to equivalence and consequently all four of them have perfect qualification of 8 years of continuous service. The applicants before us exercised administrative powers similar to Deputy Collectors, held posts with a similar pay scale/status and discharged equivalent responsible functions.
129. We find the case of the applicants is on a stronger footing than that of other ordinary occupants of State Civil Services who had no experience in posts declared equivalent under the federal regulations. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 163 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE Now, if we see the combined effect of the above discussion, there are multiple distinguishing principles running convergently through the entire case; the "legal fiction doctrine" must ensure that retrospective service must be given full effect. The retrospective service created by Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 rule fully recognised that continuous service has to be counted under the promotion regulations. The state cannot deny the applicants the full fruits of deeming for the applicants when it never formally declared equivalence for the regular KAS officers and presumed it based on mere unsubstantiated equal value by encadrement of the posts.
130. The second is the "fundamental equivalence doctrine", where duties matter more than designation. We find that the applicants have been performing the duties "de facto", and which were declared equivalent "de-jure" which both together cannot be ignored. They have been appointed according to the rules and continue to discharge their duties meritoriously. Hence, their entire period of duties must be counted. The unusual and peculiar facts of these cases put them into their own category, and the case has to be taken as sui generis, and their slight non-fitment into the procedural regularities cannot be over SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 164 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE magnified to deny them benefits. Applicants' case being armoured with "de-facto" and "de-jure" continuous service is illuminated by its own light, and it may not require the support of any further citations. Meritorious service rendered in an equivalent post and their appointment regularised in the state civil service retrospectively by an empowered/curative/ retrospective rule backed by the Apex Court order has to be given full credence to. The State cannot take advantage of its own administrative failure in both the conduct of public service examination as well as the non-declaration of equivalence, etc., which we find the government fails to explain satisfactorily its own wrongs and or administrative lapses and variable standards used by them in these cases.
131. Further, most importantly we find an inherent current of "administrative fairness doctrine" and "pursuasive equity doctrine" that must be applied uniformly and as per the constitutional equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 should be fully adhered to. Hence, we consider that the applicants have continuous service as mentioned in the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, since 2006, and they are entitled to promotion to IAS also. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 165 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE
132. Further the "Legal fiction" of "deeming" must be carried to its logical conclusion. These are supported by the cases of State of Bombay v. Pandurag Vinayak Chaphalkar ( 1953 AIR 244), CIT v. Taja Singh (1959 35 ITR 408), State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha vilas Cashew Nut Factory (AIR 1953 SC 333), East End Dwellings Co.Ltd v. Finsbury Borough Council etc. Their claim of retrospective regularisation and consequential benefit is supported by Union of India v. K.B.Rajoria ((200) 3 SCC 562), Union of India v. M.Bhaskar((1964) 4 SCC 416)), Dharampal v. State of Haryana ((1999) 9 SCC 310) and P.N.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala ((2004) 1 SCC 245) and their continuous service/actual continuous service and promotion eligibility are supported by Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana ((2003) 5 SCC 604), C.Jayachandran v. State of Kerala ((2020) 5 SCC 230) and G.Hanumanthaiah Reddy v. Union of India (1986) 1 SLR 169 (AP HC).
133. The ordeal of the four applicants had been continuing for last two and half decades in the maize of court cases and tortuous administrative proceeding without seeing the lights and reaping the fruits of even the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court orders. Hence, in our SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 166 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE considered opinion, there is a strong case for the applicants and accordingly we arrive at following answers to the questions framed:
Ans. to Q.1. We are of the considered opinion that retrospective service benefits created for the applicants by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 shall count as continuous service under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 as there is no contradiction between the State rules governing the State Civil Services and the federal rules governing the Indian Administrative Services appointments. They sit, side by side, and they are to be harmoniously read. In the case of the applicants, they have enough experience of an equivalent post, which cannot be ignored and the concept of continuous service under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation has a much wider meaning, as the regulation itself qualifies it with deemed service for ex-servicemen. The central rules cannot be applied unevenly, more strictly for the applicants and much more liberally for others who have not been subjected to ensuring that they have held 8 years of SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 167 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE continuous experience in an equivalent post under the same provision.
Ans.to Q.2. The State cannot deny de-facto equivalent experience to applicants for their actual service rendered under the Karnataka Non-State Civil Service posts which were formally declared equivalent to Deputy Collector under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 combined with their subsequent retrospective service benefits given by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 as a member of the State Civil Services Officers to count as continuous service under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. We are of the considered opinion that the meaning of continuous service in regulation 5(2) is broader as it is qualified by actual continuous service in the same provision and as we find in operation the federal rules and State rules sit, side by side, in tandem complementing each other in harmony. So in our considered opinion what is recognized as length of continuous service as actual service through a statutory SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 168 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE provision like in the case of applicants by validly enacted rules, in furtherance of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court orders under the State laws, and their valid deeming provisions cannot be ignored for the purpose of complementary central regulations for all or any purposes. Ans.to Q.3. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases the State Government was not justified in recording the 'following' in the impugned letter dated 19.04.2023 No.C- DPAR 44 SAS 2023.
"The mentioned officers were initially appointed to KAS on 15.06.2019 and 02.01.2020 respectively, and they have not rendered eight years of continuous service in the KAS scale.
Hence, the above officers in the select list are not considered for the select list - 2022", (including all four applicants) Ans.to Q.4. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, all these four applicants will be eligible for being considered for promotion to the IAS cadre as per the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, from the date their juniors have been promoted to the IAS, if they are otherwise found eligible by the Committee. If their juniors were promoted for SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 169 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE the 2015 select list, these applicants will also be eligible for Consideration of their promotion for the same select list and will be eligible to be placed above their immediate juniors.
Ans.to Q.5. Considering the above, we pass the following orders:
The Original Applications are allowed by quashing communication No. e-DPAR 44 SAS 2023 dated 19.04.2023 issued by the State Government to the extent it mentions the applicants as ineligible as answered in answer to question no.3 above. As some cases related are pending before the Hon'ble High Court, these orders are subject to the final outcome of those cases. As at present no one can be replaced, and considering that promotions at different levels, and as non-consideration of promotions immediately have a cascading effect on the future prospects of the applicant, we direct the respondents to consider the cases of the four applicants if they are otherwise eligible from the date of consideration and promotion of their juniors as per IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 and create and accommodate them in supernumerary posts till the pending cases are disposed and there was no impediment to redoing the complete select list from their date of eligibility and later. Their services have to be SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 170 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE counted as regular and for further promotions and other service benefits shall accrue to them as if they have been given all benefits equal to their immediate juniors retrospectively, without disturbing anyone for now.
In case they are selected to the IAS within the IAS hierarchy, they should also be further consider for further promotion from time to time from the date as and when their juniors have got any further promotion.
As we find that these applicants were eligible from the date they fulfilled the conditions as given in the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and fixation of pay) (Special) Rules 2021 for these promotions, which is already delayed from the date they had passed their departmental examination in the State Civil Service, from that day, in our considered opinion, they should also get their actual consequential benefits including monitory benefit with GPF rate of interest, if they are otherwise eligible.
The above order shall be implemented in ten weeks time, failing which, 12 percent interest shall also be payable to the applicants. State Government is directed to make a necessary proposal under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955 in three weeks time, and Government of India and UPSC shall complete the process within 7 weeks thereafter.
The Original Applications are allowed as above. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.16 17:05:40+05'30' 171 O.A.No.170/00339/23 & connected matters/CAT/BANGALORE All associated M.As, if any pending, are disposed of accordingly. A cost of Rs.2 lakhs is payable by the third respondent to each of the four applicants individually.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.16
17:05:40+05'30'