Karnataka High Court
Ms.Aishwaraya.R vs State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 4808 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 3417 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
IN W.P. NO. 4808 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. KAIKASHAN
D/O SRI. SADIQ VALI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS HQA TO COMMISSIONER
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
BENGALURU-560 001
2. MS. PARWATI
D/O SRI. RANGA REDDY
AGED ABUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO AND MIP
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
KALABURAGI-585 102
3. MR. DHARMAPAL S.
S/O K.G. SHANKRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO
TUMAKURU RAYADURGA RAILWAY LINE
TUMAKURU-572 102
4. MR. RAMACHANDRA GADADE
S/O SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, NHAI
YADAGIRI-585 201
-
2
5. MR. MOHAMMED NAEEM MOMIN
S/O SRI. ABDUL RAZAK MOMIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIDAR SUB-DIVISION
BIDAR-585 401
6. MR. NAGARAJ L.
S/O SRI. LACHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGARA SUB DIVISION
SAGARA-577 401
7. MS. VIDYASHREE CHANDARAGI
D/O SRI. VITTAL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED
BENGALURU-560 086
8. MR. CHANDRAIAH R.
S/O SRI. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA-577 501
9. MS. MAMATHA KUMARI
D/O SRI. KESRIMAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RECRUITMENT AND ENQUIRY
BBMP, BENGALURU-560 020
10. MS. GEETA HUDED
D/O SRI. GOOLAPPA HUDED
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY-4
-
3
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU-560 102
11. MR. SHIVANNA M.G.
S/O SRI. GOVINDAPPA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 010
12. DR. SAHANA S.H.
D/O SRI. S.Y. HADIMANI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, BDA
BENGALURU-560 102
13. MS. NIKITHA M. CHINNASWAMY
D/O SRI. K.P. CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, BDA
BENGALURU-560 102
14. MRS. KAMALA BAI B.
D/O SRI. BALA NAIK P.
AGED ABOAUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISION
MYSURU-570 001
15. MR. BINOY P.K.
S/O SRI. VIJAYAN P.V.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, KIADB
BYKAMPADY, MANGALORE-575 011
16. MR. SRIVINIVAS GOWDA V.
S/O SRI. N.H. VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS PERSONAL SECRETARY
TO MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
-
4
17. MR. GIRISH NANDAN M.
S/O SRI. M.B. MULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
HASSAN-573 201
18. MR. RAJU K.
S/O SRI. NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201
19. MR. S.B. DODAGOUDAR
S/O SRI. BASANNEPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(REVENUE), CITY CORPORATION
BELAGAVI-590 003
20. MR. SOMAPPA KADAKOL
S/O SRI. BHIMAPPA
AGEDA BOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132
21. MR. SIDDALINGAREDDY
S/O SRI. SHARANAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE SUBDIVISION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228
22. MS. SUREKHA
D/O SRI. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, NHAI
KALABURAGI-585 101
23. MR. G. SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O SRI. G. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-
5
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUBDIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101
24. MR. HOTEL SIVAPPA
S/O SRI. HOTEL GADILINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, RAMANAGAR-565 159
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. MR. BABU M.S.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS RENT CONTROLLER
BENGALURU SOUTH, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
4. MR. RAVI KUMAR M.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WAITING FOR POSTING, DPAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
-
6
5. MRS. MANGALA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 49 UEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MULTI STORIED BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
6. MR. LOKESH P.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
TAPOVANA, DODDA BAATI
DAVANAGERE-577 566
7. DR. ASHA S.
AGED ABOAUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
1ST FLOOR, DANVANTHRI ROAD
ANANDRAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
8. MRS. CHANDRAMMA Y.N.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ZONAL COMMISSIONER
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU-570 024
9. MRS. SUMA R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
10. MRS. KRISHNAVENI B.V.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
-
7
CURRENTLY WORKING AS AGM,
BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
11. MR. MOHAMED JUBAIR N.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LAW UNIVERSITY, SUTAGATTI ROAD
NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025
12. MRS. YASHODHA R.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
TUMAKURU-572 101
13. MRS. PRAMILA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM
STATION ROAD
KALABURAGI-585 102
14. MRS. USHARANI N.C.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
FINANCE CORPORATION, NAGARABHIVRIDDHI BHAVAN
22, 17TH 'F' CROSS, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ROAD
NEAR BMTC DEPOT, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 038
15. MRS. SAROJA B.B.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, HIRIYUR-572 143
16. MR. RENUKA PRASAD A.C.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ESTATES)
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE (RETIRED FROM SERVICE)
-
8
BENGALURU-560 002
17. MRS. THABSSUM ZAHERA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB
2ND FLOOR, ABOVE CANARA BANK
NEXT TO SIT
TUMAKARU-572 103
18. MRS. ARUNA PRABHA H.S.
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, BEHIND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
NEAR CLOCK TOWER, MANGALORE-575 001
19. MR. PRAVEEN K.N.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENAGALURU-560 020
20. MR. NATESH D.B.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA,
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005
21. MR. CHIDANANDA N.S.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NO.16/D, DEVRAJ URS BHAVAN
3RD FLOOR, MILLERS TANK BED AREA
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052
22. MR. AJEEJ DESAI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-
9
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR
HUBBALI-DHARWAD SMART CITY
SOFTWARE TECHONOLY PARKS OF INDIA
4TH FLOOR, 'E' BLOCK IT 030
OPPOSITE INDIRA GLASS HOUSE
HUBBALI-588 029
23. DR. NAGARAJ H.L.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMANGALUR SUB DIVISION
CHICKAMANGALUR-577 101
24. MR. SHIVANANDA MURTHY B.C.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION
PANDAVAPURA-571 434
25. MR. RAVINDRA KARALINGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION
BELAGAVI-590 001
26. MRS. MEGHANA R.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
27. MR. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH H.G.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING
AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION
HARAPANAHALLI-583 131
28. MRS. SAVITHA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ZONAL COMMISSIONER
-
10
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU-570 024
29. MR. RAJESH M.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KABINI RESERVIOR PROJECT
MYSURU-570 001
30. MR. VIJAYA KUMAR A.В.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
31. MR. SAJID AHMAD MULLA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, HONNAVAR-581 334
32. MRS. VEENA B.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRWIN ROAD
MYSURU-570 001
33. MRS. JAYASHRI SHINTHRI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
P.B. ROAD, NAVANGAR
HUBLI-588 001
34. MR. KUMARASWAMY Β.Τ.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE, 'B' BLOCK
-
11
DAVANAGERE-577 004
35. MRS. JAYA H.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
III AND IV FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
36. DR. AUDRAMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
AFZALPUR TAKKE, SAINIK SCHOOL POST
BIJAPUR-586 102
37. DR. SUDHA B.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER
TERRITORIAL DIVISION
NEAR ZOO COMPOUND, RADIO PARK
BELLARY-583 101
38. MR. MANJUNATH M.N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
YATTINAHOLE PROJECT, TUMAKURU-571 101
39. MR. RAVICHANDRA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
DR. C.L. RAMANNA ROAD, KOTE
SHIMOGA-577 202
40. MR. RANGASWAMY R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COUNCIL SECRETARY
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, SAYAJJI RAO ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA MYSURU-570 024
-
12
41. MR. ARUL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALIPURA SUB DIVISION
TUBAGERE, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
42. DR. VENAKATARAJU N.C.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SECRETARY
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA
CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005
43. DR. DAKSHAYINI K.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
44. DR. GEETHA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020
45. MR. PREETAM NASLAPURE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TEACHERS COLONY, HINDUNAGAR
TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006
46. MR. ABHIJIN B.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
HEAD QUARTER ASSISTANT
-
13
TO COMMISSIONER
TO HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARMENT
4TH FLOOR, MINTO, ANJENEYA BHAVAN
A.V. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
47. MR. RAJASHEKARA DAMBAL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
VIJAYAPURA-586 101
48. MR. RAMESH P KONAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY
ADMIN CHIEF MINISTERS OFFICE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
49. MR. JAGADISH B.Α.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION
OPPOSITE HASSAN INSITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES, RANGOLI HALLA
HASSAN-573 201
50. MRS. RESHMA HANGAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KOTTURU HARIHARA, NEW BG LINE
HARIHARA-577 601
51. MRS. GAYATHRI N NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE-575 001
52. DR. MAМАТНА В.К.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-
14
CURRENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
ADMIN, URBAN LAND TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE
BMTC TTMC 'B' BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR
SHANTINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560 027
53. MR. NAVEEN JOSEPHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY-2
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
54. MRS. SOWMYA N GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE,
FORT, K.R. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002
55. DR. BHASKAR N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KULOOR FERRY ROAD, URWA
MANGALORE-575 006
56. MRS. SYEDA AFREEN BANU S. BELLARY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BELAGAVI MEDICAL COLLEGE, AMBEDKAR ROAD
SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001
57. MR. SHIVAKUMAR C.L.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WAITING FOR POSTING, DPAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
58. MRS. RANJITHA M.P.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
UNDER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, NO.8
1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
-
15
VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052
59. DR. HARISH B.R.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
60. MR. VINYAKA PALANKAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHINTRI BUILDING
RAMNAGAR 1ST CROSS, OPPOSITE TO NTTF
DHARWAD-580 001
61. MRS. SOUJANYA BHARANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
62. MRS. SHAILAJA S.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DIRECTOR OF AYUSH
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DHANWANTRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
63. MRS. PRIYADARSHINI V.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, K.R.S. ROAD
METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
NEAR VIKRANT TYRE FACTORY
MYSURU 570 016
64. MR. UMESH CHANDRA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
-
16
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, NELAMANGAL KUNIGAL SECTION
KUNIGAL-572 130
65. MR. ANIL KUMAR P.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
ETTINAHOLE PROJECT, DODDABALLAPURA
66. MR. BALAPPA HANDIGUNDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
TUNGA UPPER RIVER PROJECT
RANEBENNUR-581 115
67. MRS. NANDINI P.M.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W.
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR A/W.
SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE
SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE
SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADVOCATE FOR R26, R30, R34,
R38, R39, R40, R42, R43 & R44;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR A/W.
SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE
SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADVOCATE FOR R45, R62, R66 &
R67;
R4, R9, R16, R20, R22, R23, R25, R27, R29, R31, R32, R34 &
R36 - V/O DATED 11.04.2022 D/W;
SRI. RANGANATH JOIS FOR R48, R57 & R66;
R5-R8, R10-R15, R17 & R18, R24, R26, R28, R30, R33, R35,
R38-42, R50, R54, R60, R64 & R65 ARE SERVED;
SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
-
17
SRI. SATISH K., FOR R3, R45-R49, R51-R53, R55-R59, R61 &
R63;
DR. RAVINDRA V REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R37)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2021 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION Nos.6617 TO 6673 OF 2019 (ANNEXURE - C) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION Nos.6617 TO 6673 OF
2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 3417 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. MS. AISHWARAYA R.
D/O SRI. RAMARADHYA R.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION
MANDYA
2. MR. RAMESH KOLAR
S/O SRI. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS
REHABILITATION OFFICER
UPPER KRISHANA PROJECT
NARAYANAPURA
3. MR. SANTHOSH KAMAGOUDA
S/O SRI. SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR SUB DIVISION
RAICHUR-584 101
4. MR. MANJUNATH DOMBAR
S/O SRI. NAMADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-
18
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT OFFICER
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
BAGALKOTE
5. MR. RAYAPPA HUNASAGI
S/O SRI. ANANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GADAG SUB DIVISION
GADAG
6. DR. ISHWAR ULLAGADDI
S/O SRI. ALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
BELAGAVI
7. MR. YATHISH ULLAL
S/O SRI. KITTA U.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PUTTUR SUB DIVISION
DAKSHINA KANNADA
8. MR. NARAYANARADDI KANAKARADDI
S/O SRI. GOVINDARADDI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL SUB DIVISION
KOPPAL
9. MR. MADAN MOHAN C.
S/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H.E.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLYWORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE SUB DIVISION
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
-
19
10 . MR. KALPASHREE C.R.
D/O CHANDREGOWDA S.P.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
YETTINAHOLE PROJECT, HASSAN
11 . MS. ANNAPURNA NAGAPPA
MADUKAMMANAVAR
D/O SRI. NAGAPPA MUDUKAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAVANUR SUB DIVISION
HAVERI
12 . MR. SURAJ A.R.
S/O SRI. A. RAJEEV
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
PRIVATE SECRETARY TO
HON'BLE MINISTER FOR
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
AND MEDICAL EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
13 . MR. ABID GADYAL
S/O SRI. ISMAIL GADYAL
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLY WAITING FOR POSTING
DPAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU
14 . MR. ASHOK TELI
S/O SRI. SHREEMANT TELI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD SUB DIVISION
DHARWAD
15 . MR. MAMATA HOSAGOUDAR
S/O SRI. DYAMANNA HOSAGOUDAR
-
20
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE SUB DIVISION
DAVANAGERE
16 . MR. SIDDARAMESHWARA
S/O SRI. AMARAYYA KANTHI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING
AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HOSPET SUB DIVISION
HOSPET
17 . MR. AJAY V.
S/O SRI. K.S. VITTALAKSHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION
TUMAKURU
18 . MR. PRASANNA KUMARA V.K.
S/O SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA V.K.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO-BMRCL
KIADB, BENGALURU
19 . DR. MADHU N.N.
S/O SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA E.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
DEPUTY SECRETARY-1 BDA
BENGALURU
20 . MR. SHEKARA G.D.
S/O SRI. DODDACHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
KIADB
DAVANGERE
-
21
21 . MR. SOMASHEKARA V.
S/O SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, BENGALURU
22 . MS. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O SRI. PRABHULINGREDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
DEPUTY SECRETARY
RURAL DRINKING WATER AND
SANITATION DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU
23 . MR. PRASANT HANAGANDI
S/O SRI. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
YADGIR SUB DIVISION
YADGIR
24 . MS. ADA FATHIMA
D/O MOHAMED SANAULLA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KUIDFC
BENGALURU
25 . MR. AJITH M.
S/O SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA RAI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
BMRCL, KIADB
BENGALURU
26 . MR. RAGHUNANDAN A.N.
S/O SRI. NARAYANASWAMY A.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
-
22
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU
27 . MR. NATARAJA G.R.
S/O RAMEGOWDA G.D.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SLAO
NH-206, TUMAKURU
28 . MS. MAMATHA DEVI G.S.
D/O G. SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BHATKAL SUB DIVISION DISTRICT
UTTARA KANNADA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY L.K., ADVOCATE
SRI. K.S. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001
2. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. MR. BABU M.S.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS RENT CONTROLLER
BANGALORE SOUTH
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
-
23
4. MR. RAVI KUMAR M.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WAITING FOR POSTING
DPAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
5. MRS. MANGALA S.M.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MULTI STORIED BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
6. MR. LOKESH P.N.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINICIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
TAPOVANA, DODDA BAATI
DAVANAGERE-577 566
7. DR. ASHA S.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
1ST FLOOR, DANVANTHRI ROAD
ANANDRAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001
8. MRS. CHANDRAMMA Y.N.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ZONAL COMMISSIONER
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU-570 024
-
24
9. MRS. SUMA R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
10 . MRS. KRISHNAVENI B.V.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS AGM
BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
11 . MR. MOHAMED JUBAIR N.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LAW UNIVERSITY
SUTAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR
HUBLI-580 025
12 . MRS. YASHODHA R.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
TUMAKURU-572 101
13 . MRS. PRAMILA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
GESCOM, STATION ROAD
KALABURAGI-585 102
14 . MRS. USHARANI N.C.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
NAGARABHIVRIDDHI BHAVAN
-
25
22, 17TH 'F' CROSS
SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ROAD
NEAR BMTC DEPOT
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU
15 . MRS. SAROJA B.B.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, HIRIYUR-572 143
16 . MRS. THABSSUM ZAHERA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, 2ND FLOOR, ABOVE CANARA BANK
NEXT TO SIT, TUMAKURU-572 103
17 . MRS. ARUNA PRABHA H.S.
AGED 59 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, BEHIND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
NEAR CLOCK TOWER
MANGALORE-575 001
18 . MR. PRAVEEN K.N.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
SHIVAARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
19 . MR. NATESH D.B.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA
CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA
-
26
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005
20 . MR. CHIDANANDA N.S.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NO.16/D, DEVRAJ URS BHAVAN
3RD FLOOR, MILLERS TANK BED AREA
VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052
21 . MR. AJEEJ DESAI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR
HUBBALI-DHARWAD SMART CITY
SOFTWARE TECHNOLOY PARKS OF INDIA
4TH FLOOR, E BLOCK IT 030
OPPOSITE INDIRA GLASS HOUSE
HUBBALI-588 029
22 . DR. NAGARAJ H.L.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMANGALUR SUB DIVISION
CHICKAMANGALUR-577 101
23 . MR. SHIVANANDA MURTHY B.C.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION
PANDAVAPURA-571 434
24 . MR. RAVINDRA KARALINGANNAVAR
AGED 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION
BELAGAVI-590 001
25 . MRS.MEGHANA R.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
-
27
CURRNETLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
26 . MR. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH H.G.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION
HARAPANAHALLI-583 131
27 . MRS. SAVITHA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ZONAL COMMISSIONER
MYSORE CITY CORPORATION
SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA
CHAMARAJPURA, MYSURU-570 024
28 . MR. RAJESH M.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KABINI RESERVIOR PROJECT
MYSURU-570 001
29 . MR. VIJAYA KUMAR A.B.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB, BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDE BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
30 . MR. SAJID AHMAD MULLA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NHAI, HONNAVAR-581 334
31 . MRS. VEENA B N
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
-
28
MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE
IRWIN ROAD, MYSURU 570 001
32 . MRS. JAYASHREI SHINTHRI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
P.B. ROAD, NAVANGAR
HUBLI-588 001
33 . MR. KUMARASWAMY B.T.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE 'B' BLOCK
DAVANAGERE-577 004
34 . MRS. JAYA H.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
III AND IV FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
35 . DR. AUDRAMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
AFZALPUR TAKKE
SAINIK SCHOOL POST
BIJAPUR-586 102
36 . DR. SUDHA B.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER
TERRITORIAL DIVISION
NEAR ZOO COMPOUND
RADIO PARK, BELLARY-583 101
-
29
37 . MR. MANJUNATH M.N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER
YATTINAHOLE PROJECT
TUMAKURU-571 101
38 . MR. RAVICHANDRA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE
DR. C.L. RAMANNA ROAD KOTE
SHIMOGA-577202
39 . MR. RANGASWAMY R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COUNCIL SECRETARY
MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
SAYAJJI RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURA
MYSURU-570 024
40 . MR. ARUL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
TUBAGERE-DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA -561 203
41 . DR. VENKATARAJU N.C.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS SECRETARY
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
CHAMARAJAPURA
CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 005
42 . DR. DAKSHAYINI K.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
-
30
KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
43 . DR. GEETHA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
44 . MR. PREETAM NASLAPURE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
BELGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TEACHERS COLONY, HINDUNAGAR
TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006
45 . MR. ABHIJIN B.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
HEADQUARTER ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER
TO HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, MINTO, ANJENEYA BHAVAN,
AV ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
46 . MR. RAJASHEKARA DAMBAL
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
VIJAYAPURA-586 101
47 . MR. RAMESH P KONAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY
ADMIN CHIEF MINISTERS OFFICE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
48 . MR. JAGADISH B.A.
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
-
31
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION
OPPOSITE HASSAN INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
RANGOLI HALLA, HASSAN-573 201
49 . MRS. RESHMA HANGAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KOTTURU HARIHARA, NEW B G LINE
HARIHARA-577 601
50 . MRS. GAYATHRI N NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA
MANGALORE-575 001
51 . DR. MAMATHA B.K.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
ADMIN, URBAN LAND TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE
BMTC, TTMC 'B' BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR
SHANTINAGAR, KH ROAD, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA-560 027
52 . MR. NAVEEN JOSEPH A.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY-2
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU 560020
53 . MRS. SOWMYA N GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLGE
FORT, K R ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002
-
32
54 . DR. BHASKAR N.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
MANGLAORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KULOOR FERRY ROAD, URWA
MANGALORE-575 006
55 . MRS. SYEDA AFREEN BANU S BELLARY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BELAGAVI MEDICAL COLLEGE
AMBEDKAR ROAD, SADASHIV NAGAR
BELAGAVI-590 001
56 . MR. SHIVAKUMAR C.L.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WAITING FOR POSTING
DPAR, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
57 . MRS. RANJITHA M.P.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO 8, 1ST FLOOR, CURNNINGHAM ROAD
VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052
58 . DR. HARISH B.R.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTH LAYOUT
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560020
59 . MR. VINAYAKA PALANKAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CHINTRI BUILDING, RAMANGAR 1ST CROSS
OPP TO NTTF, DHARWAD-580 001
-
33
60 . MRS. SOUJANYA BHARANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTH
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560001
61 . MRS. SHAILAJA S.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DIRECTOR OF AYUSH
MINISTR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DHANWATRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
62 . MRS. PRIYADARSHINI V.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRETNLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
KIADB, KRS ROAD
METAGALLI INDUSTIRAL ESTATE
NEAR VIKRANTH TYRE FACTORY
MYSURU-570 016
63 . MR. UMESH CHADNRA N.R.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
NHAI, NELAMANGALA
KUNIGAL SECTION, KUNIGAL-572 130
64 . MR. BALAPPA HANDIGUNDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CURRENTLY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
TUNGA UPPER RIVER PROJECT
RANEBENNUR-581 115
65 . MRS. NANDINI P.M.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
CURRENLTY WORKING AS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
SHIVARAMA KARANTHLAYOUT
-
34
BENGALUGU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUAMRA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 020
66 . MRS. KAIKASHAN
D/O SRI. SADIQ VALI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS HQA TO COMMISSIONER
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
BENGALURU
67 . MISS. PARWATI
D/O SRI. RANGA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO & MIP
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
KALABURAGI
68 . MR. DHARMAPAL S.
S/O K.G. SHANKRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO TUMAKURU
RAYADURGA RAILWAY LINE
TUMAKURU
69 . MR. RAMACHANDRA GADADE
S/O SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKINGA AS SLAO, NHAI
YADAGIR
70 . MR. MOHAMMED NAEEM MOMIN
S/O SRI. ABDUL RAZAK MOMIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIDAR SUB-DIVISION
BIDAR
71 . MR. NAGARAJ L.
S/O SRI. LACHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
-
35
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGARA SUB DIVISION
SAGARA
72 . MISS. VIDYASHREE CHANDARAGI
D/O SRI. VITTAL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED
BENGALURU
73 . MR. CHANDRAIAH R.
S/O SRI. RMAAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA
74 . MS. MAMATHA KUMARI
D/O SRI. KESRIMAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RECRUITMENT & ENQUIRY, BBMP
BENGALURU
75 . MS. GEETA HUDED
D/O SRI. GOOLAPPAHUDED
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY-4
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU
76 . MR. SHIVANNA M.G.
S/O SRI. GOVINDAPPA M.K.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU
77 . DR. SAHANA S.H.
D/O SRI. S.Y. HADIMANI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
-
36
WORKING AS SLAO, BDA
BENGALURU
78 . MS. NIKITHA M. CHINNASWAMY
D/O SRI. K.P. CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, BDA
BENGALURU
79 . MRS. KAMALA BAI B.
D/O SRI. BALA NAIK P.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKINGA AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISION
MYSURU
80 . MR. BINOY P.K.
S/O SRI. VIJAYAN P.V.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKINGA AS SLAO, KIADB
BYKAMPADY, MANGALORE
81 . MR. SRIVINIVAS GOWDA V.
S/O SRI. N.H. VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS PERSONAL SECRETARY
TO MINISTER FOR CO OPERATION
82 . MR. GIRISH NANDAN M.
S/O SRI. M.B. MULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
HASSAN
83 . MR. RAJU K.
S/O SRI. NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUNDAPURA
UDUPI DISTRICT
-
37
84 . MR. S.B. DODAGOUDAR
S/O SRI. BASANNEPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(REVENUE), CITY CORPORATION
BELAGAVI
85 . MR. SOMAPPAKADAKOL
S/O SRI. BHIMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
86 . MR. SIDDALINGAREDDY
S/O SRI. SHARANAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE SUB DIVISION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
87 . MS. SUREKHA
D/O SRI. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS SLAO, NHAI
KALABURAGI
88 . MR. G. SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O SRI. G. NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKINGA AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
89 . MR. HOTEL SIVAPPA
S/O SRI. HOTEL GADILINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGAR URBAN DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAMANAGAR
-
38
90 . MR. BALARAMLAMANI
S/O SRI. VACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS DISTRICT OFFICER
FOR BACKWARD WELFARE
BAGALKOTE
91 . DR. BASANTHI B.S.
D/O SRI. B.R. SARVAN SINGH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
DIRECTORATE IT AND BT
BENGALURU
92 . MR. GANGAPPA M.
S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOTE SUB DIVISION
BAGALKOTE
93 . MR. KRISHNAKUMAR M.P.
S/O SRI. M. PUTTASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS
RAMANAGAR
94 . MR. RAGHU A.E.
S/O SRI. ESHWARACHAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS COMMISSIONER
KUDALASANGAMA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KUDALASANGAMA
BAGALAKOT
95 . MR. RENUKA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU
-
39
96 . MR. ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
ETTINAHOLE PROJECT
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHNAKAR A/W
SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE,
SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE,
SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADVOCATE FOR R21, R24 & R32,
R39 & R41;
SRI. D.R. RAVISHNAKAR A/W
SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M.J., ADVOCATE,
SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADVOCATE FOR R53, R61, R64 &
R65;
SRI. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R14;
SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R37, R42 & R43;
SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAGARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7, R11, R12, R13, R15
& R16;
R95 & R96 -V/O 11.04.2022 D/W;
R3, R8, R9, R14, R15, R17, R18, R20, R23, R25, R28, R29,
R33, R35 TO R38, R40, R42 TO R89 ARE SERVED;
SRI. RANGANATH R., ADVOCATE FOR R47, R56 & R64;
SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ANUSHA, ADVOCATE FOR R34 & R40;
SRI. RANGANATH JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.12.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION Nos.6617 TO
6673/2019 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITIONS AND
ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.09.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-
40
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These writ petitions are filed challenging the order
dated 16.12.2021, passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
“Tribunal” for short) dismissing Applications No.6617 to
6673 of 2019 filed by the petitioners.
2. We have heard Shri. Uday Holla, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Advocate, Shri. Vivek Holla, Shri.
P.S.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel as instructed by
Advocates Shri. Srinivasa Murthy L.K., and Shri.
K.S.Raghavendra, appearing for the petitioners, Shri.
Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along
with Shri. Vikas Rajipura, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the official respondents No.1 and 2,
Shri. M.S.Bhagwat, learned Senior counsel as instructed by
Advocate Shri. Satish K., and Shri. V.Lakshminarayana,
learned senior counsel as instructed by Advocate
Smt.Anusha, appearing for the private respondents, Shri.
–
41
D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel as instructed by
Advocates Shri.Abhishek Marla M.J., Shri.Kethan Kumar and
Shri.Naveen Gudikote S. Shri. Ranganath Jois, Dr.Ravindra
V. Reddy, Shri.Rajashekar, Shri.C.M.Nagabhushana,
Shri.Nagarjuna and Shri.Ranganath R., learned counsel
appearing for the private respondents.
3. The facts leading to the present writ petitions are
as follows:-
The petitioners, following the recruitment Notification
dated 22.01.2015, issued by Karnataka Public Service
Commission (KPSC), applied for the post of Gazetted
Probationers Group A and B. The petitioners were selected
in terms of the selection list dated 30.06.2017. The
appointment followed vide notification dated 16.09.2017. It
appears that after their appointments, a Preliminary
Gradation List was prepared, where the promotees to the
post of Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), Class-A
(Junior Scale) were shown as seniors to the petitioners
based on the Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016. The
petitioners having come to know about it filed objection to
–
42
the said list. The State on 31.08.2019 published a seniority
list by following the Official Memorandum dated
23.03.2016. In terms of the impugned official
memorandum, the State has finalized the seniority list
applying the quota provided in the Rules to the cadre
strength or number of posts deviating from the long
standing procedure of vacancy based quota. As a
consequence in terms of seniority, the petitioners were
placed below 64 promotees.
The petitioners have also stated that on 14.05.2016
State brought an amendment to Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment), Rules, 1977 prescribing post based
quota for State Civil Services and later the amendment was
repealed/withdrawn on 20.11.2015. Thus, it is contended
that the impugned Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016
is illegal.
The seniority list and the official memorandum dated
23.03.2016 are questioned before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal rejected the petitions. Thus, the petitioners who
–
43
were the applicants before the Tribunal are before this
Court.
4. Shri Uday Holla and Shri P.S. Rajagopal, learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the
following submissions and contentions:-
• That the determination of seniority between
Direct Recruits and Promotees within the
Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), Class-A
(Junior Scale) was initially governed by the
Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers,
Class I and II posts appointment by Competitive
Examinations Rules, 1966. The said Rules
provided that the provisions of the Mysore State
Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957
shall be applicable for the purpose of recruitment
of probationers under the Rules.
• That the Mysore Administrative Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1957 provided for methods
of recruitment, minimum qualification, period of
probation etc., as indicated in the Schedule. In
–
44
respect of Class I (Junior Scale) posts, 66 2/3rd
percent of vacancies are to be filled by promotion
by selection from Class II Officers and 33 1/3rd
percent shall have to be filled by direct
recruitment by competitive examination to be
held by Public Service Commission. This was
amended in the year 1977 by Karnataka
Administrative Service (Recruitment)
(Amendment) Rules 1977, whereunder, Schedule
to the 1957 Rules came to be amended and in
respect of Class I (Junior Scale) posts, 50% of
the vacancies were to be filled by promotion and
50% by direct recruitment.
• That the Apex Court in V.B. Badami & Ors. Vs.
State of Mysore reported in (1976) 2 SCC
901, held that the seniority of direct recruits and
promotees has to be reckoned on the basis of the
quota as applied to the arising vacancies and that
appointment in excess of quota cannot bestow
seniority on promotees.
–
45
• That following the said ruling, the respondent –
State issued an Official Memorandum on
05.07.1976, which inter alia provided as follows:-
“x x x x x
2. The general principles to be observed in
working out the quota rule prescribed in the Rules
of Recruitment are as follows:
(1) Where the Rules prescribe a quota
between direct recruits and promotees,
confirmation or substantive appointment can
only be in clear vacancies in the permanent
strength of the cadre.
(2) Confirmed persons are senior to those
who are officiating.
(3) As between persons appointed in a
officiating capacity, seniority is to be counted
on the length of continuous service.
(4) Direct recruitment is possible only by the
method and procedure prescribed under the
Rules of Recruitment. In promotional
vacancies, the promotion would be either by
selection or on the basis of seniority-cum-
merit. A promotion could be made in respect
of a temporary post or for a specified period
but a direct recruitment is, generally, to be
made only to clear permanent vacancy either
existing or anticipated to arise at or about
the period when probation is expected to be
completed or in a temporary vacancy likely
to continue for not less than 3 years.
(5) If promotes are made to vacancies in
excess of the promotional quota, the
promotions are not totally illegal but are
irregular. The promotees cannot claim any
right to hold the promotional posts, the
vacancies fall within their quota. If the
promotes occupy any vacancies which are
within the quota of direct recruits, when
–
46
direct recruitment takes place, the direct
recruits will occupy the vacancies within their
quota. Promotes who were occupying the
vacancies within the quota of direct recruits
will either be reverted or they will have to be
absorbed in the subsequent vacancies within
their quota if available.
(6) As long as the quota rule remains,
neither promotes can be allotted to any of
the substantive vacancies falling within the
quota of direct recruits nor can direct recruits
be allotted to promotional vacancies.
(7) Persons who were allotted to the new
State under States Re-organisation Act are
first to be accommodated within the
permanent cadre strength and if they are in
excess of the number, this excess has to be
accommodated in the promotional vacancies.
3. While applying the general principles indicated in
Para 2 to the State Service cadres other than the
KAS, the following steps have to be taken:
(a) All appointments made by Government or
under specific authority of Government either
by direct recruitment or by promotion on or
after 1st November 1956 but prior to the
commencement of rules regulating
recruitments to such cadres may be treated
as regular.
(b) On the date of commencement of the
Cadre and Recruitment Rules, all vacancies
which existed on that date and which arose
after that date will have to be classified
according to the proportion or quota
prescribed for direct recruitment and
promotion to a cadre in the Rules. If the
cadre strength Notification shows only
permanent posts, then this classification will
have to be done only for such permanent
posts but if the Notification shows both
permanent and temporary posts, the
classification will have to be done for both
the posts taken together, in view of the
–
47
provisions of Rule 14 of the General
Recruitment Rules.
(c) If there have been any amendment to the
cadre and Rules changing the quota of direct
recruits and promotes the quota for the two
sources will have calculated on the basis of
amended provisions from the amendment
came in to force.
(d) For purposes of classifying and
calculating the vacancies between direct
recruits and promotees on the basis of quota
fixed in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules,
the period which will from a block will be
from the date of commencement of the
carder and recruitment Rules to the dates on
which direct recruits were first appointed
unless in the meanwhile, there was any
amendment to the Rules, in which case the
block will be the period commencing from the
date of commencement of the rule to the
date of amendment and thereafter from the
date of amendment to the date of
recruitment of direct recruits and the
vacancies in both the blocks will have to be
taken into account.
(e) After classifying the vacancies as
indicated above, if on the date recruitment of
direct recruits, the number of promotes
actually occupying posts in a cadre is more
than the number of vacancies calculated for
promotes this excess number will have to be
shown below the direct recruits who will
occupy the posts classified for them
immediately below the promotes who will
occupy the posts meant for them. If the
number of direct recruits is more than the
number of direct recruitment vacancies
available, then, the number so in excess will
have to be accommodated in the next block
of direct recruitment vacancies.
(f) In the second block, the excess number of
promotes or direct recruits remaining from
the first block should first be accommodated
against the vacancies meant for them.
–
48
Thereafter, if promotions have been made
before the second batch of direct recruits
were appointed, such promotes will be placed
against the promotional vacancies available
to them. If no such promotions have been
made, the direct recruits will be placed
against the vacancies available for them and
the promotes if they have been promoted
after the date of the second direct
recruitment will be placed below the direct
recruits, to the extent of the promotional
vacancies. This procedure should be followed
for each subsequent block.
(g) After fixing the position of direct recruits
and promotes in accordance with the above
instructions, persons who were allotted to
the new Stats and who are included in the
final ISS list of a cadre as on 1st November
1956 should be confirmed permanent
vacancies available on 1st November 1956
and in the promotional vacancies which
occurred thereafter or in all the vacancies
which occurred between 1st November 1956
and the date on which the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules came into force such on
formations may be made from an uniform
date subject to the condition that they are
liable to be reviewed if there are any changes
in the final ISS list. Thereafter both direct
recruits and promotes shall also be confirmed
from an uniform date which shall be
subsequent to the date of confirmation of
the persons in the final ISS 1st and which
confirmations shall also be subject to the
same condition mentioned above.
(h) Direct recruits can be confirmed only
from a date after the satisfactory completion
of their period of probation. Promotes who
were promoted after 17th January 1966 when
rule 18(2) of the General Recruitment Rules
came in to force, can be confirmed only after
the satisfactory completion of their period of
officiation of one year. Promotes who were
promoted prior to 17th January 1966, can,
however, be confirmed from the dates of
their promotion.
–
49
(i) Where review of promotions based on the
final ISS list has been completed under the
Regulation of Pay, Promotion and pension
Act, 1973, and the instructions issued there
under, the position of direct recruits and
promotes which has been fixed at present
with reference to the dates of their
appointment and promotion respectively,
should be re-fixed in accordance with the
above instructions. Where review of
promotions has not been so completed, this
review should be made after taking into
account, the above instructions and the
position of direct recruits and promotes fixed
accordingly after the review.
4. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of
Departments are requested to determine the
seniority of the direct recruits and promotes in the
various cadres following the above principles.”
• That subsequently, in Gonal Bihimappa v.
State of Karnataka and others (1987)
(Supp) SCC 207, the Apex Court held that quota
rules have to be strictly enforced and applied to
the vacancies which arise in the cadre and the
quota has to be observed by enforcing the carry
forward rule. The ratio of Col.Iyer case that
quota cannot be carried forward beyond three
years was found to be totally inapplicable and it
was reiterated that, the quota between direct
recruits and promotees in all Class I junior scale
–
50
posts is to be enforced as against vacancies
arising in the permanent cadre. Thereafter,
another memorandum was issued on 14.12.1987
withdrawing the instructions issued from
04.05.1982 to 08.02.1985, and reiterating that
seniority should be determined according to the
established quota based on arising vacancies in
the permanent cadre as provided in the Official
Memorandum dated 05.07.1976.
• That on the basis of these regulations, on
22.01.2015, the respondent-State sought to fill
452 Gazetted Probationers positions via
notification from the Karnataka Public Service
Commission (KPSC). The writ petitioners were
selected by direct recruitment as KAS Class I
(Junior Scale) Officers on 30.06.2017 and were
appointed on 16.09.2017.
• That on 23.03.2016, the respondent – State
revised the method for calculating quota for
Direct Recruits and Promotees specifically for KAS
–
51
(Junior Scale), shifting from a vacancy-based to a
post-based system. This change declared
previously identified vacancies as lapsed and
facilitated the promotion of 64 ‘Group-B’ officers
to KAS ‘Group-A’ (Junior Scale). Following their
selection on 30.06.2017, the petitioners
contested their seniority rights through objections
to a provisional gradation list. However, on
20.09.2019, the respondent – State promoted the
private respondents asserting that seniority
determination would be based on total cadre
strength rather than available clear vacancies.
The petitioners subsequently filed applications
before the Tribunal.
• That after considering the contentions advanced,
the Tribunal found that the Official Memorandum
was issued on 23.03.2016 i.e., on a date when
the petitioners were not borne on the service.
Further, it was found that the petitioners were
appointed by direct recruitment only on
–
52
16.09.2017. The private respondents already
stood promoted to KAS (Junior Scale) on
01.07.2017. The challenge to the Official
Memorandum and provisional seniority list dated
31.08.2019 was raised only in the year 2019.
The Tribunal therefore found that the challenge
against the Official Memorandum dated
23.03.2016 and the provisional seniority list
prepared on the basis of the same was
misconceived and dismissed the applications.
• That the applications had been filed with the
petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the
same. The delay in filing the applications was
condoned by the Tribunal. It is therefore
contended that the non-suiting of the petitioners
on the ground of delay was completely
unjustified. It is further contended that it was
only when a provisional seniority list was issued
by the respondents in 2019 that the petitioners
were adversely affected by the Official
–
53
Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 and it is only
then that they had a cause of action to challenge
the same. It is submitted that the petitioners had
submitted their objections to the provisional
seniority list dated 31.08.2019 disregarding which
the private respondents were placed in
independent charge of the higher posts under
Rule 32. It is in the said circumstances, that the
petitioners had approached the Tribunal on
16.11.2019, within less than three months of
issuance of the provisional seniority list. It is
further contended that in the light of the binding
judgments of the Apex Court, the contention that
the quota is to be applied to the cadre-strength
cannot be accepted.
• That for nearly four decades, the respondent –
State determined seniority between Direct
Recruits and Promotees based on vacancies in
respective cadres and not total cadre-strength. In
2016, the respondent – State’s shift to a total
–
54
cadre strength-based calculation, revision and
abolition of the vacancy-based quota rule was
illegal. The Tribunal has overlooked Hon’ble Apex
Court’s judgments in V.B. Badami’s (supra), and
Gonal Bihimappa’s (supra), which led to official
memorandums in 1976 and 1987 respectively,
stipulating that quotas for Direct Recruits and
Promotees should be based on clear vacancies in
the permanent cadre strength. The Promotees
occupying vacancies within the Direct Recruits
quota must be reverted or absorbed in
subsequent vacancies within their quota. The
State violated these Official Memoranda with a
memorandum dated 23.03.2016.
• That the official memoranda dated 05.07.1976
and 14.12.1987 remain in force and have not
been withdrawn, making it improper for the
respondent – State to issue a new memorandum
abolishing the quota system and altering seniority
determination to the detriment of Direct Recruits.
–
55
The Tribunal has overlooked that the KPSC called
for applications based on 2014 vacancies under
the earlier memoranda and the petitioners
participated in this recruitment. During this
process, the respondent – State issued
memorandum dated 23.03.2016, abolishing the
vacancy-based quota system and depriving the
petitioners of their entitled benefits. This action
was illegal. Since 1977, the State followed a
vacancy-based quota system in line with Hon’ble
Apex Court’s dicta and there was no need to
deviate from this procedure. The respondent –
State’s unilateral issuance of the memorandum
dated 23.03.2016, without considering the rights
of Direct Recruits, was contrary to law.
• That the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976
mandates direct recruitment only to clear
permanent vacancies, either existing or
anticipated which guided the notification issued
by the KPSC in 2014. The petitioners were
–
56
appointed to KAS Group-‘A’ (Junior Cadre) posts
on 16.09.2017, pursuant recruitment notification
issued on 22.01.2015 for 2014 vacancies.
Unaware of the Official Memorandum dated
23.03.2016, the petitioners only learned of it
upon their appointment and the issuance of a
provisional gradation list on 03.04.2017. They
filed objections for the same on 01.12.2017, but
the respondent – State published another
provisional gradation list on 31.08.2019 without
addressing these objections. The petitioners
approached the Tribunal after promotions were
given to promotees, occupying vacancies meant
for direct recruits, without delay or laches. The
Tribunal has failed to note that no final gradation
list was published before promotions were made,
rendering the respondent – State’s actions illegal.
Additionally, the Tribunal also erred in holding
that the petitioners had no rights as they were
–
57
not in the cadre when the 23.03.2016
memorandum was issued.
• That the application of the Official Memorandum
dated 23.03.2016 solely to KAS Group-‘A’ (Junior
Scale) discriminates against this cadre, violating
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the
same yardstick was not applied to other cadres or
departments. The Tribunal has also failed to
acknowledge that the petitioners, who applied for
2014 vacancies under existing Official
Memorandums, had a right to seek seniority from
the date those vacancies arose, despite their
appointments being subsequent. The Official
Memorandum dated 05.07.1976 stipulates that
promotees occupying vacancies within the direct
recruits’ quota must make a way for direct
recruits upon their appointment, indicating that
direct recruits are entitled to seniority from the
date, the vacancies arose. The Tribunal has
erroneously held that the petitioners had no right
–
58
to seniority as they were not in the cadre when
the 23.03.2016 memorandum was issued. In the
present case, the vacancies for which the
petitioners were appointed in the first place had
arisen in the year 2014. Even though the
petitioners were appointed in September 2017,
they are entitled to claim seniority as of the year
2014.
• That the Tribunal has failed to recognize that the
petitioners were aggrieved by the respondent –
State’s action of placing them below the
promotees in the seniority list. According to the
Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976, the
promotees occupying vacancies meant for direct
recruits must give way once direct recruitment
occurs and cannot claim rights to those posts.
The petitioners were concerned with the
determination of seniority, which placed them
below private respondents despite occupying
clear vacancies meant for direct recruits. The
–
59
Tribunal erred in holding that the objections
raised by the petitioners were unsustainable
under guideline No.5 of the Official Memorandum
dated 23.03.2016 and in asserting that the 50-50
quota was maintained without scope for
overriding the direct recruits’ quota.
• That the documents, such as note sheets and file
noting, produced by the petitioners, which
demonstrated that the State’s shift from a
vacancy-based quota to a post-based quota was
illegal, contrary to law to earlier executive orders
and Hon’ble Apex Court’s rulings. The Official
Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 was issued at
the behest of the Promotees and based on
representations from the KAS Officers
Association, without hearing the Direct
Recruitees, making the decision illegal and is
liable to be quashed. Additionally, an amendment
to the Rules, prescribing a post-based quota, was
repealed on 20.11.2015, restoring the vacancy-
–
60
based classification. Thus, the issuance of the
Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 was
contrary to the Service Rules in force, subverting
the State’s own rules to achieve indirectly what it
could not do directly.
• That on issuance of the Official Memorandum
dated 23.03.2016; the KAS Junior Scale cadre
strength was 315, with 33 officers in the direct
recruitment quota and 93 in the promotional
quota, leaving 189 vacancies in the direct
recruitment quota. The respondent – State erred
in declaring these vacancies as lapsed and
promoting promotees to the direct recruitment
quota without filling them. The Tribunal has also
overlooked that the last direct recruitment
occurred in June 2012 and according to the
Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in V.B. Badami’s
case (supra), the next block period should have
been from 19.06.2012 to 16.09.2017, during
–
61
which 153 promotees and 56 direct recruits were
appointed, violating the 50:50 quota rule.
5. In support of the above contentions, reliance was
placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners on the following decisions:
• V.B. Badami and others v. State of Mysore
reported in (1967) 2 SCC 901;
• Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka and
others reported in (1987) (Supp) SCC 207;
• R. K Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab
reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745;
• M.S.L Patil v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(1997) 1 SCC 766;
• K. Shekar v. Indiramma reported in (2002) 3
SCC 586;
• Coal India Ltd v. Ananta Saha reported in (2011)
5 SCC 142;
• Ajay Kumar Shukla and Others v. Arvind Rai
and others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC
1195;
• State of Punjab v. R.N. Bhatnagar (Dr) reported
in (1999) 2 SCC 330;
–
62
• State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa reported in
(1974) 1 SCC 19;
• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405;
• M.R Vasuki v. Karnataka Electricity Board
reported in ILR 1992 KAR 690;
• BahadursinhLakhubhaigohil v. Jagdishbhai M
Kamalia reported in (2004) 2 SCC 65;
• E.V Chinnaih v. State of AP and others reported
in (2005) 1 SCC 394;
• M V Dixit v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR
2004 KAR 3802;
• Dr.Rajendra Singh v. State of Punjab reported in
(2001) 5 SCC 330;
• C Krishna Gowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
& Ors. reported in (1988)2 SCC 615;
• State Of Karnataka v. Chikkabasavaih & Ors.
reported in ILR 1981 KAR 518;
• R.K Sabharwal & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors.
reported in(1995) 2 SCC 745;
• All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union
of India & Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 384;
• Satyadhyan Goshal & Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi
and Anr. reported in AIR 1960 SC 941;
–
63
• UPSRTC v. State Of U.P., reported in (2005) 1
SCC 444;
• Rajashree Cement v. State Of Karnataka
reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1356;
• M.G Maheswara Rao & Ors. v. State Of
Karnataka & Ors. reported in ILR 2002 KAR
3848;
• M.V Dixit v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR
2004 Kar 3802;
• Vinod Verma v. Union of India reported in
(2019) 20 SCC 576;
• Syed T.A. Naqshbandi v. State Of J&K, reported
in (2003) 9 SCC 592;
• State Of Haryana, Etc.v. Shamsher Jang
Bahadur, Etc., reported in (1972) 2 SCC 188;
• C. I Verma v. State Of Madhya Pradesh reported
in 1989 Supp (2) 437;
• Ajaya Kumar Das v. State of Orissa & Ors.
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 136;
• K Kuppusamy v. State Of T.N reported in
(1998)8 SCC 469 and
• Anil Ratan Sarkar v. State of W.B. & Ors.
reported in (2001) 5 SCC 327.
–
64
6. Shri. Reuben Jacaob, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Shri. Vikas Rajipura, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents
No.1 and 2 elucidated the sequence of events leading to
issuance of the Official Memorandum (O.M.) dated
23.03.2016. The KPSC’s Notification for Gazetted
Probationers Group ‘A’ & ‘B’ was issued on 22.01.2015
followed by the Official Memorandum on 23.03.2016, the
final selection list on 30.06.2017 and appointment orders
on 16.09.2017. He further submitted that the Official
Memorandum was not issued hastily, but rather as a
necessary response to delays in recruitment. He
emphasized the distinction between direct recruitment and
promotional vacancies as governed by the Cadre &
Recruitment Rules, asserting that the impugned Official
Memorandum aligns with the Hon’ble Apex Court’s
judgment in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
( AIR 1995 SC 1371), which acknowledges that only 30%
of promotee officers were appointed due to delays, thus
necessitating the Official Memorandum to rectify
–
65
administrative anomalies. Furthermore, the learned
Additional Advocate General argued that the applicants
lacked locus standi, as they were not appointed to the
cadre at the time the Official Memorandum was issued and
therefore, had no legal grounds to contest it. He noted that
the applicants failed to challenge the promotion orders of
private respondents, which also warranted the dismissal of
their applications. He reinforced that the Official
Memorandum was grounded in legal precedent and
maintained that Article 14 of the Constitution ensures
equality and does not extend to claims of equality arising
from illegality. Thus, the principles of lawful administration
necessitate that any irregularities should not lead to claims
of unjustified equal treatment.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that the relevant Recruitment Rules with regard
to Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), Class-A (Junior
Scale), are as follows:-
• The Mysore Administrative Service Recruitment
Rules, 1957 – the relevant entry in the schedule
is (b) All Class-I (Junior Scale posts) were the
–
66
method of appointment provided is that 66 and
2/3rd per cent of the vacancies to be filled by
promotion by selection from Class II Officers and
33 and 1/3rd per cent were direct recruitment by
competitive examination to be held by the Public
Service Commission.
• The Rule was amended in the year 1977 by the
Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment)
(Amendment) Rules, 1977, where under the
ratio was amended as 50% of the vacancies to
be filled up by promotion and 50% by direct
recruitment.
• Thereafter, the said Rules were amended by the
Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment)
(Amendment) Rules, 1994. The Schedule was
amended and the relevant entry at Sl.No.(b) of
the Schedule was substituted as Sl.No.(c) – KAS
Group-A (Junior Scale).
• Thereafter, the said Rule was amended as per
Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment)
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2001, wherein a
proviso was inserted in Column (2) of Sl.No.(c)
of the Schedule relating to KAS Group-A (Junior
Scale).
–
67
• Thereafter, the said Rule was amended as per
Karnataka Administrative Services (Recruitment)
(Amendment) Rules, 2018, wherein existing
Table-1 and Table-2 inserted vide 1994
amendment were omitted and new cadre
strength table and entries in the Schedule were
inserted. The relevant entry relates to Sl.No.(b)
of the Schedule KAS Group-A (Junior Scale).
8. Shri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel
appearing for the private respondents contended that the
applicants, who were appointed as KAS Group-‘A’ (Junior
Scale) on 16.09.2017, had no standing to claim rights
under policies established prior to their induction into the
cadre. The learned senior counsel referenced the judgments
in P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General reported in
(2003)2 SCC 632 and Union of India vs. Pushparani
reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, to assert that individuals
not yet part of a cadre cannot claim rights based on policies
enacted before their entry. Further addressing the second
prayer concerning seniority, it is submitted that seniority
should be determined based on the actual entry date into
the cadre rather than the date of vacancy creation. The
–
68
learned senior counsel by referring the judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. N.R.
Paramar reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340 and K.
Megchander Singh & Ors. vs. Nigam Siro & Ors.,
reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689, argued that established
jurisprudence supports the principle that seniority is linked
to the date of service entry.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents contended by referring to the ruling in S.S.
Balu vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479,
of Hon’ble Apex Court, asserting that delay defeats equity
and precludes relief for those who are indecisive. He
contended that the respondent – State promoted individuals
from KAS (Junior Scale) to KAS (Senior Scale) on
19.08.2021.
10. Shri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned senior counsel
appearing for some of the party respondents brought to our
notice an amendment brought about to the Karnataka
Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules on 20.04.1995
by Karnataka Administrative Services Amendment Rules,
–
69
1994. The amendment provided that the appointment to
KAS Group-A Junior Scale shall be 50% by direct
recruitment in accordance with Karnataka Recruitment of
Gazetted Probationers appointment by Competitive
Examination Rules, 1966 and 50% by promotion from the
cadre of Tahasildar Grade-1. It is contended that the
finding of the Apex Court in V.B. Badami’s case (supra),
and Gonal Bihimappa’s case (supra), was specifically with
reference to the rule position that existed at the relevant
time i.e., that the quota was to be applied as against
arising vacancies. It is contended that with the Amendment
Rules, 1994, the concept of applying the quota in respect of
KAS Class-1 Junior Scale to arising vacancies stood
specifically omitted and therefore, the quota could be
applied as against the fixed cadre strength or the arising
vacancies as the State found fit. It is submitted that after
1995, the practice of applying the quota to the arising
vacancies was being followed only on the strength of the
Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1976 and 14.12.1987
and not on the basis of the Rules as contended by the
–
70
petitioners. It is therefore urged that the Government had
the absolute power and the jurisdiction to issue another
executive order amending the method of applying the quota
since there was no prescription contained in the Rules.
Therefore, the contentions urged by the petitioners that the
prescription of Official Memorandum dated 10.03.2016 that
the quota has to be applied as against the fixed cadre
strength is against the provisions in the Rules is completely
fallacious and all that has been done is to change the mode
of application of the quota fixed by executive orders by
another executive order, which is perfectly permissible.
11. It is further argued that the applications are not
maintainable both factually and legally by relying on the
Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in The State of Kerala v.
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties reported in (2009) 8
SCC 46. It is also contended that the Official Memorandum
(O.M.) dated 23.03.2016 is based on precedents set up by
V.B. Badami’s (supra) and Gonal Bihimappa’s (supra),
clarifying that Clause (4) of the Official Memorandum does
not violate seniority rules but addresses unfilled vacancies
–
71
within quotas, treating them as a shortfall. The Official
Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 resolved the longstanding
seniority dispute between promotees and direct recruits by
establishing a strict 50% quota for each category, thereby
preventing any future transgressions.
12. It is contended that promotions granted to certain
private respondents remained unchallenged until 2021,
reinforcing the notion that the applicants lack standing to
contest the quota rule or the Official Memorandum dated
23.03.2016 as they were not part of the institution at that
time. It is highlighted that the applicants have no right to
question Cabinet proceedings or communications between
the Law Department and Cabinet members regarding the
issuance of the Official Memorandum which was thoroughly
deliberated and approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on
17.03.2016. It is also contended that there is no legal
infirmity in issuing this Official Memorandum, countering
claims that the impugned order is arbitrary or illegal and
asserting that the Government possesses the authority to
–
72
issue such memoranda in accordance with established
guidelines and the Hon’ble Apex Court rulings.
13. In support of their contentions, they relied on the
following decisions:
• R. K. Sabharwaland Others v. The State of
Punjab and Others reported in (1995) 2 SCC
745;
• V. Lakshmikanthan and Others v. Union of India
and Others reported in 2018 (12) SCC 43;
• K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others
reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395;
• Dr Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and
Haryana and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC
103;
• B. S. Murthy and Others v. Α. Ravinder Singh
and Others reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC
317;
• Suraj Prakash Gupta and Others v. The State of
J&K and Others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 561;
• Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board and Others v. T. T. Murali Babu
reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108;
–
73
• Rai Sahib Ram Jawariya Kapur and Others v.
The State of Punjab reported in 1955 SCC
OnLine SC 14;
• Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others reported in (1974) 4 SCC
788;
• D. P. Das v. Union of India and Others reported
in (2011) 8 SCC 115;
• R. S. Raghunath v. The State of Karnataka and
Another reported in (1992) 1 SCC 335;
• Smt. Gouramma v. The Deputy Commissioner
and Others in Writ Petition No. 100101/2024
Decided on 29.07.2024;
• Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC
715;
• S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (1977) 3 SCC 399;
• G.K. Dudani v. S.D. Sharma, reported in (1986)
(Supp) SCC 239;
• Narender Chadha v. Union of India, reported in
(1986) 2 SCC 157;
• State of Uttarakhand v. S.K. Singh, reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 49;
–
74
• K. Jagadeesan v. Union of India, reported in
(1990) 2 SCC 228;
• Sitaram Jivyabhai Gavali v. Ramjibhai P.
Mahala, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 262;
• Dharangadhra Chemical Works v.
Dharangadhra Municipality, reported in (1985)
4 SCC 92;
• Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India, reported
in (1987) 1 SCC 631;
• State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.,
reported in (2003) 7 SCC 389;
• Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., reported in
(2011) 6 SCC 725;
• N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, reported in
(1977) 1 SCC 308;
• G.S. Lamba v. Union of India, reported in
(1985) 2 SCC 604 and
• A. Janardhana v. Union of India, reported in
(1983) 3 SCC 601.
14. On being confronted with the amendment of the
year 1994, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners contends that the Official Memorandum dated
23.03.2016 does not refer to Rules and does not state that
–
75
because the word ‘vacancy’ has been removed, there is a
lapsing of the unfilled quota of direct recruitment. Further,
the Official Memorandum specifies that lapsing occurs only
up to that date and the annexure specifies that “the
vacancies arising in future should be filled in accordance
with the quota from which it occurred viz. if a direct recruit
in this cadre is promoted or he/she retires then that vacancy
shall be filled by direct recruitment. If a promotee in this
cadre is promoted or he/she retires then that vacancy shall
be filled by promotion”. The implication of this is that the
Official Memorandum is a one-time measure. Government
does not have such power to issue such as Official
Memorandum as a one-time measure. Therefore, the
contention that there has been lapse of the unfilled quota of
direct recruitment is wholly untenable.
Government has issued a Government Order dated
06.09.2007 as per which action should be taken to fill up
direct recruitment vacancies through direct recruitment. The
preamble to this Government Order indicates the reason
why direct recruitment vacancies should continue to be filled
–
76
up by direct recruits and states that this is to attract and get
young generation employees with higher qualifications
(direct recruits) along with experienced employees
(promotees). It was to be a blend of youth and experience.
The Government Order has not been superseded. Further, it
is contended that Government Order shall stand on a higher
pedestal than an Official Memorandum.
It is further contended that Karnataka Civil Service
(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 applies to all
recruitments to all State services and to all posts in
connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and to
members of all State Civil Services and to holders of posts,
whether temporary or permanent. Rule 17 of the said Rules
provides for appointment by direct recruitment and by
promotion and stipulates that notwithstanding anything
contained in these Rules or in the Rules of recruitment
specifically made in respect of any service or posts, the
appointing authority may: (a) fill up direct recruitment
vacancy be filled by promotion when it is specified that
persons eligible to be considered for promotion are not fit to
–
77
be so promoted and (b) fill by promotion a vacancy required
to be filled by direct recruitment when such vacancy is not
likely to last more than one year. Further, the note to this
rule specifies that save as provided in clause (b), no
promotion shall be made against a direct recruitment
vacancy.
In the light of the note to Rule 17, it is contended that
no promotion can be made against the direct recruitment
vacancy and therefore there is no question of quota for
direct recruitment lapsing. It is further urged that the State
Civil Service must attract younger generation and there
must be an amalgam of youth (with newer ideas) and
experience. That is possible only when 50% vacancies for
direct recruitment is maintained and is not permitted to be
lapsed.”
15. We have considered the contentions raised at the
bar and perused the records. We have also noticed the ratio
in the judgments cited. We notice that the Apex Court in
V.B. Badami’s case (supra), has specifically considered the
Rule position that existed at the relevant time and held that
–
78
where rules prescribed quota between direct recruits and
promotees, confirmation and substantive appointment can
only be in respect of clear vacancies in the permanent
strength of the cadre. It was also held that the promotees
cannot claim any right to hold the promotional posts unless
vacancies fall within their quota. It was also found that in
the light of the Mysore Administrative Service (Recruitment)
Rules, 1957 and the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted
Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by
Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966 the quota is to be
applied as against the existing or arising vacancies in the
permanent cadre strength. The said decision was in the
year 1976. Though an attempt was made to differ from the
position as settled in V.B. Badami’s case (supra), by this
Court in the case of M.G. Kadali v. State of Karnataka,
reported in ILR 1982 KAR 1413, the Apex Court in Gonal
Bihimappa’s case (supra), again held that a deviation from
the quota rule, by itself cannot lead to any inference of
breaking down of the quota and that the quota has to be
applied as against vacancies arising in the permanent cadre.
–
79
16. The application of quota as against the arising
vacancies was on the basis of the Rules enumerated as
items (a) and (b) hereinabove. The Rules have admittedly
undergone an amendment in the year 1995. Though it
appears that the amendment of 1995 and it’s effect were
not brought to the notice of the Tribunal by any of the
parties, it is now not disputed before us that such an
amendment did occur in the Rules.
17. The text of the amendment as far as it is relevant
is as follows:-
“3. Amendment of Schedule.- In the Schedule to the Karnataka
Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1957 for the entries
relating to the category of posts of,-
(i) All Class-I (Senior Scale) Posts at serial number (a), the
following shall be deemed to have been substituted, with effect from
30th July, 1992, namely:-
(a) Κ.A.S. By promotion from the For promotion:- Must
(Selection cadre For of K.A.S. have put in a service of
Grade) not less than Thirteen
Group-A (Senior Scale) years in the cadre of
K.A.S. Group-A (SeniorScale) and K.A.S.
(Group-A) (JuniorScale)”
(b) K.A.S. By promotion from the For promotion:- Must
Group-A cadre of KAS Group-A have put in not less than
(Senior (Junior Scale) five years of service in
Scale) the cadre of KAS Group-A
(Junior Scale)”.
–
80
OR
By posting of an IAS
Officer,
OR
By posting of an Officer
from any other State
Civil Services.
(ii) All Class-I (Junior Scale) posts at serial number (b), the following
shall be substituted, namely:-
“(c) KAS (i) 50 percent by direct For promotion:- Must
Group-A recruitment in accordance have put in a service of
(Junior with the Karnataka not less than Eight years
Scale) Recruitment of Gazetted in the cadre of Tahsildar
Probationers (Appointment Grade-I and Tahsildar
by Competitive Examination) Grade-II of which not
Rules, 1966 and, less than one year shall
in the cadre of Tahsildar
(ii) 50 percent by promotion Grade-I”.
from the cadre of Tahsildar
Grade-I
18. The amendment of the year 1995 has introduced
a change as indicated above. On a reading of the amended
provision, it is clear that the concept of applying the ratio as
against arising vacancies as far as the post of KAS Class-I
Junior Scale is concerned has been omitted by the
amendment of 1995. If that be so, the application of the
ratio as against the arising vacancies after 1995 was based
on the Official Memorandum issued by the Government in
1976 and 1987, respectively. Having noticed this, the State
–
81
appears to have given effect to the amended Rules as
amended in 1995 by issuing the Official Memorandum on
23.03.2026. There is therefore, no question of amendment
of the Rules by an executive order or Office Memorandum.
All that has been done by the Official Memorandum dated
23.03.2016 is to provide that the ratio would be applicable
to the fixed cadre strength in future. The said Official
Memorandum dated 23.03.2016, (though not specifically
referring to 1995 amendment) prescribes the mode of
operation of the quota, which syncs with the 1995
amendment. At best, it amends the mode of operation of
the quota as has been fixed by the earlier Official
Memoranda of 1976 and 1987, respectively. As long as the
official memorandum dated 23.03.2016 does not violate the
1995 amendment, it cannot be said that the State has no
power to issue the said Official memorandum as it does not
violate any other law. The judgments in Badami and Gonal
Bhimappa supra, are rendered before the 1995 amendment.
The scope and effect of the 1995 amendment never came
–
82
up for discussion in any of the judgments cited on behalf of
the petitioners.
19. The prescription of qualifications, methods of
appointment by framing Cadre and Recruitment Rules,
amending the Rules and by issuance of executive
instructions are matters which come within the purview of
the Legislature, or the Executive Authority of the State
Government, whenever same is authorized under law. The
Constitutional Courts have no role in the matter of
prescription of such conditions of service of State
Government employees. The question of discrimination also
does not arise in the matter since the power to prescribe
qualifications and methods of appointment, taking note of
the needs of the service is absolute and is vested in the
State. We are therefore unable to accept the contention that
there was any illegality in the issuance of the Original
Memorandum dated 23.03.2016, as contended.
20. In the instant case, the Government in exercise of
its admitted power had attempted an amendment to the
Rules in 1997 and thereafter withdrawn it. However, in view
–
83
of the settled position that it is perfectly within the power of
the State to amend existing rules relating to method of
appointment to different posts taking note of ground
realities and policy decisions, the fact that a general
amendment to the Rules was proposed in 1997 but was later
withdrawn also will not be a reason to hold that the
prescription by an executive order that the quota is to be
applied to the cadre strength is invalid.
21. We further notice that the Notification was
published in the year 2015 to fill up vacancies, which
according to the petitioners were available from 2014
onwards. The existence of the vacancies on their notification
cannot give any vested right to persons participating in a
selection process to contend that the quota as was being
operated as on the date of the notification must be
continued in the matter of fixation of their seniority as well.
22. The Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016 reads
as follows:-
“GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 557 SRR 2015 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
–
84
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, dated:23.03.2016
Official MemorandumSub:Filling up of the K.A.S. (Junior Scale) posts by post based
classification instead of vacancy based classification- reg’
—–
The State Government has issued guidelines in O.M.No.DPAR
48 SSR 75, dated: 5.7.76 and O.M.No. DPAR 43 SSR 87, dated:
14.12.1987 for calculating the quota to be filled by direct
recruitment and promotion as prescribed in the respective Cadre and
Recruitment rules based on vacancies.
The Government has decided to revise the method of
calculating the quota for Direct Recruitment and Promotion in K.A.S
junior scale. Accordingly, the following guidelines are issued:
(1) The number of posts to be filled by direct recruitment and
by promotion shall be determined and appointment shall be made,
based on the total cadre strength of K.A.S. Junior Scale depending
upon the quota prescribed in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules.
(2) The appointments, either by direct recruitment or by
promotion shall be made against the percentage or number of posts
determined for the respective quota.
(3) Direct recruits shall be appointed against the number of
posts determined for the direct recruitment quota and the promotees
shall be appointed against the number of posts determined for the
promotional quota. As long as the quota rule remains, neither direct
recruits can be appointed against posts in promotional quota nor
promotees can be appointed against posts in direct recruitment
quota.
(4) The unfilled quota calculated and treated as shortfall,
either in favour of direct recruits or in favour of promotees,
according to the rules of recruitment in force prior to this date shall
lapse. The posts which may be filled after commencement of the said
amendment rules shall be so filled after determining the share of the
quota strictly according to these rules from the source against which
they are reckoned.
Provided that, unfilled backlog of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, if any, in direct
recruitment and for Schedule Caste /Schedule Tribes in promotion
shall not lapse and shall be filled within the quota earmarked for
direct recruitment and promotion respectively.
–
85
(5) When a direct recruit vacates the post in direct recruitment
quota, it shall be filled by direct recruitment only. Similarly, when a
promotee vacates the post in promotional quota, it shall be filled by
promotee only.
(6) In exceptional circumstances, due to exigencies of
administration and for reasons to be recorded in writing,
independent charge arrangements may be made against direct
recruitment posts. As soon as the direct recruitment is done the
independent charge arrangement shall be withdrawn. The service
rendered against such independent charge arrangements neither
counts for seniority nor gives any right for promotion to the
incumbent against the post in which he is placed in independent
charge.
(7) The provisions of this Official Memorandum shall apply
prospectively to the direct recruitments and promotions made on
and after this date and shall not apply to the seniority determined
and the seniority lists finalized prior to this date and therefore they
shall not be altered.
23. It is trite law that where there is no specific
prescription in the Rules, the Government, exercising its
power under Article 164 of the Constitution of India is
empowered to issue Government Orders, Executive
Directions or Official Memoranda which are not in conflict
with Statutes or the Rules in force. If the mode of applying
the ratio either against the arising vacancies or the fixed
cadre strength is not provided either by the general rules or
the cadre and recruitment rules for the posts in question,
then, there is no embargo as against the State Government
–
86
issuing Official Memorandum clarifying as to how the quota
is to be applied.
24. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that there was no illegality in the exercise of
issuance of Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016. In the
light of the amendment effected to the Rules, the State has
the power to issue the Official Memorandum in the manner
in which it is issued. The 1995 amendment not being
challenged, petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as
sought for by them. The writ petitions therefore fail and are
accordingly dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, in both the petitions stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
cp*