Karnataka High Court
Mr. Vishwanath B vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 2699 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 2699 OF 2015 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. VISHWANATH B.,
S/O MR. T.H. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
O/O THE ELECTRONICS TEST AND
DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS &
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
STQC DIRECTORATE,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
RING ROAD, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
AND R/O 221/Y, 13TH MAIN,
III BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
Digitally signed BANGALOARE-10
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI V. SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
KARNATAKA SRI HARSHA GUPTA, SRI SOWMYAJIT AND
SRI N. LOMESH KIRAN, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
ELECTRONICS NIKETAN,
-2-
WP No. 2699 of 2015
6, CGO COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-110003.
2. STQC DIRECTORATE,
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS &
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
ELECTRONICS NIKETAN,
6, CGO COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-11003.
3. ELECTRONICS TEST & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,
REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR DIRECTOR,
100 FEET RING ROAD,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU-560058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.A. KAMATH, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL A/W
SMT. K.S. ANUSUYA DEVI, CGC)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2014 IN REVIEW APPLICATION
No.143/2014 IN O.A.No.375/2013 (ANNEXURE-A) READ WITH
THE ORDER DATED 22.4.2014 IN O.A.No.375/2013
(ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (BANGALORE BENCH).
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 04.09.2025, THIS DAY K. V. ARAVIND J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 2699 of 2015
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri V. Srinivas Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel for Sriyuths Harsha Gupta, Sowmyajit and N. Lomesh Kiran learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri K. Arvind Kamath, Additional Solicitor General of India along with Smt. K.S. Anusuya Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant in O.A. No.375/2013 has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 22.04.2014 and the subsequent order dated 30.06.2014 passed in Review Application No.143/2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "CAT").
3. Brief facts are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent Department as Laboratory Assistant and then as Scientific Assistant 'A' by order dated 13.10.2000. In the year 2004, the petitioner acquired an additional qualification of -4- WP No. 2699 of 2015 Engineering Degree in I Class. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.05.2004 requesting a special review promotion in terms of Personnel Policy and Practices for Scientific and Technical Officers and staff below Group-A level as per the Office Memorandum dated 18.07.1983. The Department of Information Technology sent a communication to Directors of all Labs/Centres for assessment of the S&T Offices below Group 'A' level on 01.10.2008 and 01.10.2009 based on the earlier policy issued as per the Office Memorandum dated 18.07.1983. A list of officers who have applied for special review on acquiring a higher qualification was prepared, in which the petitioner's name was reflected. Thereafter, no action was taken.
3.1 The petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.218/2009, wherein the Tribunal, by order dated 07.01.2011, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion as per policy dated 17.08.2009. The order of promotion was issued to the petitioner from the grade of Scientific Assistant Gr. 'B' to Scientific Officer 'SB' [SO 'SB'].
-5-WP No. 2699 of 2015 3.2 The petitioner, unsatisfied with the regular promotion, requested a special review promotion to the Scientist 'B post. As the representations were not considered, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under the impugned order rejecting the contention of the petitioner to give retrospective promotion from the date he acquired the additional qualification, gave directions to conduct a special review to consider his promotion with effect from 19.05.2010, the date on which the petitioner was recommended for promotion as SO 'SB'. The petitioner's prayer to consider for promotion to Junior Scientific Officer/Scientist 'B' came to be rejected as the policy was not applicable to Group 'A' posts. The petitioner preferred a Review Petition before the Tribunal, which came to be rejected under an order dated 30.06.2014. Both orders are the subject matter of this writ petition. Submissions :
4. Sri V. Srinivas Raghavan, learned Senior counsel for Sri Harsha Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a special review on acquiring a higher qualification while in service is required to be conducted, and the promotion is automatic from the date of acquiring a higher qualification. -6- WP No. 2699 of 2015 Learned counsel submits that the petitioner informed the respondents in 2005 of acquiring a higher qualification; hence, he is entitled to promotion at least from 2005. Learned counsel further submits that if special review promotion is not granted immediately after acquiring additional qualification, the very purpose to encourage the in-service employees would be defeated. Learned counsel further submits that when Office Memorandums dated 18.07.1983 and 27.10.1995 do not restrict promotion under the policy to the post of Scientist 'B', the Tribunal committed an error holding the petitioner eligible for the post of SO 'SB' only.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that promotion in the normal course in 2011 is not a bar to conduct the special review and grant promotion from the date of eligibility. Learned counsel submits that the delay in conducting the special review should not prejudice the petitioner and deprive him of his entitlement to promotion.
5. Per contra, Sri K. Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for Smt. Anusuya Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents, submits that the policy of special review for promotion on -7- WP No. 2699 of 2015 acquiring a higher qualification while in service is applicable only to officers below Group 'A'. The learned ASG submits that promotion to Group 'A' officers is guided by another policy. 5.1 Learned ASG submits that the promotion on acquiring a higher qualification is not automatic and is subject to assessment. Acquiring an additional qualification would be eligible for consideration and not for promotion itself. Learned ASG further submits that the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.1995 has not been given effect to. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to retrospective promotion and the Scientist 'B post.
Reasoning :
6. On consideration of the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned ASG for the respondents and perusal of the papers placed before the Court, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the following reasons;
(i) The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant and then as Scientific Assistant 'A' by order dated 13.10.2000. The petitioner acquired an additional qualification of Engineering Degree in I Class in 2004. The petitioner -8- WP No. 2699 of 2015 requested a special review promotion. The Department of Information Technology accorded approval for assessment of Scientific and Technical Offices below Group 'A' level as per the Office Memorandum dated 18.07.1983. Later, a list of officers who have applied for special review on acquiring a higher qualification was prepared, wherein the petitioner's name finds a place. When things stood thus, regular promotion was granted to the petitioner on 05.09.2011 from the Grade of Scientific Assistant Gr. 'B' to SO 'SB'. The petitioner has agitated his right to a special review for the Scientist 'B' post.
(ii) We note that the petitioner has two grievances at this stage. Firstly, he is entitled to promotion from the date he acquired the additional qualification. Secondly, he is entitled to promotion to the Scientist 'B post. As contended, Scientist 'B' is a Group 'A' post. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner is entitled to special review for promotion under the policy; however, eligibility is held only to the post of SO-SB and not Scientist 'B'. Policy is governed by Office Memorandum dated 18.07.1983, Office Memorandum dated 01.10.1984, and Office Memorandum dated 27.10.1995.
-9-WP No. 2699 of 2015
(iii) On a combined reading of Office Memorandums, the scheme applies to all categories below the Group 'A' level. The promotion under the policy is up to the post of Scientist/Engineer Grade 'SC' or one grade below, i.e., SO 'SB', depending upon the option given by the Officers. Given the policy aimed at special review for promotion only up to SO 'SB' below Grade 'A' post, the petitioner under the policy is not entitled to the post of Scientist 'B', a Group 'A' Post.
7. Considering the above aspects and the benefits that can be extended under the policy, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the Scientist 'B post.
8. The other issue is the date from which the petitioner is entitled to special review for promotion. The petitioner's contention that he is entitled to promotion from the date he acquired an additional qualification is unfounded. Acquiring additional qualifications while in service would make an employee eligible for promotion as per the norms. The promotion is subject to various stipulated conditions and procedures. Acquiring 'eligibility' and 'legal right' to promotion are two different aspects.
- 10 -
WP No. 2699 of 2015
9. On acquiring a higher qualification, the petitioner would acquire the right to be considered for promotion and not for promotion itself. When promotion as per policy is subject to the suitability on assessment, the same cannot be claimed as automatic. If the employee is found unsuitable in special review, his eligibility for promotion will be considered during normal review for promotion when due.
10. The contention of the learned ASG that the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.1995 was not given effect to cannot be accepted. The list of candidates for special review promotion on acquiring a higher qualification, as per Annexure- AP, where the petitioner's name finds a place, is prepared per the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.1995. Based on Annexure-AP, a list of officers found for special review was prepared on 19.05.2010. The list as per Annexure-AP and the list dated 19.05.2010 have been prepared based on the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.1995. The respondent's contention that the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.1995 was not given effect to cannot be accepted.
11. Once it is held that the employee, on acquiring a higher qualification, is eligible for special review promotion subject to
- 11 -
WP No. 2699 of 2015assessment on parameters, the date from which he is to be promoted is questioned. The answer lies in the policy itself. The policy confers eligibility on acquiring higher qualification for special review promotion. The policy prescribes the period of special review and other aspects. Upon acquiring an additional qualification, the employee acquires the right to be considered for promotion. In the policy, there is no conferment of promotion from the date of acquiring a higher qualification, as is observed above; acquiring an additional higher qualification would make the employee eligible for consideration and not for promotion itself. The Tribunal, having considered the above aspects, rightly held that as the petitioner's name was found in the list of candidates for special review on 19.05.2010, he would be entitled to promotion from that date.
12. The Tribunal has further held that the promotion policy applies to posts below Group 'A' officers and the post of Scientist 'B', being a Group 'A' post, the petitioner is not eligible for the said post. It is further held that acquiring additional qualifications while in service is an eligibility for consideration for special review promotion. The petitioner is not eligible for promotion from the date of obtaining an additional qualification.
- 12 -
WP No. 2699 of 2015
13. The Tribunal's finding is in consonance with the promotion policy. There are no infirmities or illegalities in the order of the Tribunal. We find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV