Karnataka High Court
Irappa S/O. Doddabasappa Awati vs The Divisional Controller on 21 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
WP No. 85725 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 85725 OF 2013 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
IRAPPA S/O. DODDABASAPPA AWATI,
AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS,
OCC: PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT ARTISAN,
R/O. DIVISIONAL WORK SHOP,
BELLARY, BELLARY DIVISION,
N.E.K.R.T.C. BELLARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.E.K.R.T.C/,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY.
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.E.K.R.T.C.,
SARIGE SADAN,
CENTRAL OFFICE, GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. C. BHUTTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A) WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
18/02/2012 BEARING NO. EKARASA/ BAVI/ SIBBANDI/ P4/
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582
WP No. 85725 of 2013
3341/ 12 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D. B)
CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ABOVE ORDER ISSUE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION
FROM THE DATE ON WHICH I.B. SUNKAD HAS BEEN
PROMOTED TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ARTISAN FROM
24/10/1989 AND PAY THE DIFFERENCE OF SALARY. C) ISSUE
ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING
THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a) Writ of Certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 18/02/2012 bearing No. EKARASA/ BAVI/ SIBBANDI/ P4/ 3341/ 12 issued by 1st respondent vide Annexure-D.
b) Consequent upon quashing the above order issue writ of Mandamus Directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date on which I.B. Sunkad has been promoted to the post of Assistant Artisan from 24/10/1989 and pay the difference of salary.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013
c) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti appearing for respondents.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The petitioner is appointed as helper-B on 14.11.1981 and later was promoted as helper-A on 14.11.1987. In pursuant to the same recruitment process another person by name I.B. Sunkad was appointed as helper-B on 13.11.1981. But I.B.Sunkad was promoted as helper-A two years after the promotion of the petitioner.
The petitioner was further promoted as Assistant Artisan on 24.10.1989 and three years later I.B.Sunkad gets promotion to the post of Assistant Artisan on 20.03.1992. Till the said point the petitioner had no grievance. On 10.01.1997 I.B.Sunkad is promoted as Artisan and later to the post of head mechanic, which is Chief Artisan with effect from 04.03.2011. Here brings the problem. The -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013 petitioner retires from service as an Assistant Artisan not getting a promotion as an Artisan. The petitioner then knocks at the doors of the respondent contending that he is senior throughout the carrier and the said person I.B.Sunkad could not have been promoted ignoring the claims of the petitioner. Therefore, sought the same dates on which the promotion was granted to I.B.Sunkad. The said representation of the petitioner comes to be rejected and rejection of which is challenged in the case at hand.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was senior throughout and his claims has been ignored till the date of his retirement and therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the respondent.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti appearing for respondents would submit that I.B.Sunkad was the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. Pursuant to the 85TH amendment of grant of consequential of -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013 seniority the I.B.Sunkad was promoted on 10.01.1997 ahead of the petitioner, owing to the vacancy position than and the law that was prevalent at the relevant point in time. The petitioner chooses not to challenge the promotion granted to I.B.Sunkad for the post Artisan or Chief Artisan at a later point in time, but sought his promotion on par with I.B.Sunkad. That having been appropriately turned down, there is no warrant for interference in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates, link in the chain of events are as afore-narrated. The petitioner has been senior throughout, but I.B.Sunkad appears to have stolen a march over the petitioner in the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013 year 1997 that is 10.01.1997 by grant of consequential seniority to the petitioner. Consequential seniority as a concept has been tweaked or has been diluted to water down in subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, which are not available at the time when the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected.
8. Therefore the case of the petitioners requires reconsideration in the light of the law rendered by the Apex Court in the aftermath of the rejection of the representation. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned endorsement and direct reconsideration of the case of the petitioner strictly in consonance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
9. For the aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition allowed.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3582 WP No. 85725 of 2013
(ii) The endorsement dated 18.02.2012 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D stands quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6