Writ Petition No. 12636 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10067 WP No. 12636 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12636 OF 2013 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: JAGDISH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O KORAGA NAIK PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ARYAPU, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M K GIRISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DAKSHINA KANNADA ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALORE - 575 006. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. A K VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.12.12 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 15.03.10 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10067 WP No. 12636 of 2013 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court challenging an order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting his claim for promotion with retrospective effect i.e., from 15.03.2010. He has also sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to promote him with retrospective effect i.e., from 15.03.2010 and grant all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed to the post of Grade-I Gram Panchayath Secretary on 31.05.2003 and completed his period of probation successfully on 09.06.2005. He contends that the next promotional post was the post of Panchayath Development Officer (henceforth referred to as ‘PDO’). As per the Karnataka General Service (Development Section and Local Government Section) Recruitment Rules, 2009 notified on 04.03.2010, the post of PDO was to be filled through direct recruitment and by promotion from the post of Grade-I Gram Panchayath Secretary, who had completed 5 years of service in that post. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10067 WP No. 12636 of 2013 If sufficient number of Grade-I Gram Panchayath Secretaries(henceforth referred to as ‘G.P.Secretaries’) who had completed 5 years were not available, those who had completed 3 years could be considered. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the said Rules, the respondent No.1 promoted 36 Gram Panchayath Secretaries on 15.03.2010 although 67 promotional vacancies were available as on that date. He contends that he was eligible for promotion in all respect, but was ignored and left out from the process of promotion. Later, in order to cover up their illegalities in granting a promotion to the petitioner, he was suspended from service on 18.03.2010, which was later recalled on 28.04.2010. In a disciplinary proceedings held against him, he was exonerated from the charges alleged. The petitioner contends that he was promoted as a PDO on 30.07.2012. Since retrospective promotion was not granted to him from 15.03.2010 when he was eligible, he made many representations before the respondent No.1. The respondents rejected his claim by passing the impugned order dated 14.12.2012 stating that none of the juniors of the petitioner were promoted. The petitioner applied for the necessary - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10067 WP No. 12636 of 2013 details of the proceedings of the respondent No.1 and on obtaining them, he realized 67 promotional vacancies from the post of Panchayath Secretaries(Grade-I) to the post of PDO were available as on 15.03.2010 in Dakshina Kannada District and out of that, 8 posts of Panchayath Extension Office was merged with PDO posts and therefore 59 promotional vacancies were available. He contends that out of the 46 Gram Panchayath Secretaries who were enlisted for promotion, 9 Secretaries were facing disciplinary proceedings and one had not completed his probation. Therefore, he contended that only 36 persons were promoted to the post of PDO. He contends that out of the 9 G.P.Secretaries who were facing the disciplinary proceedings, his name was also included, though, as on 15.03.2010 no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him. He contends that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of PDO on 15.03.2010 itself. Nonetheless, the respondent No.1 announced the seniority list of PDO as on 01.01.2012 where the petitioner was placed at serial No.139 below 90 officers who were directly recruited. The petitioner filed his objections, questioning the seniority list, consequent to which respondent No.1 issued an endorsement dated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10067 WP No. 12636 of 2013 16.02.2013 reiterating the stand that they had taken in respect of his promotion to the post of PDO. The petitioner is therefore before this Court Challenging the said order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on 31.05.2003 and therefore, while granting promotion to the post of PDO, the date of his entry into service had to be considered. He contends that mere pendency of a departmental proceedings does not deprive the petitioner of his entitlement to be promoted. He contends that the procedure to be adopted is to place the promotion of the petitioner in a sealed cover, which has to be declared after the disciplinary proceedings are concluded. He contends that the non grant of promotion to the petitioner is therefore illegal and the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on 15.03.2010 when many of his juniors were promoted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 orally
Decision
opposed the writ petition and contended that the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of PDO in the year 2012. He contends that the petitioner raised an issue when the seniority list was prepared in the cadre of Panchayath Development - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10067 WP No. 12636 of 2013 Officer. He therefore contends that the petitioner, having once accepted the promotion to the post of PDO, cannot now turn around and claim that he must have been promoted to the post of PDO from 15.03.2010. He contends that the persons who may be affected by restoring the promotion of the petitioner with retrospective effect are not arrayed as parties in this petition and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. 5. I have considered this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The petitioner who claims that he was entitled to be promoted from 15.03.2010, on which day many of his juniors were promoted, ought to have challenged the order of promotion. The petitioner has laid low from the year 2010 till the year 2013, during which time he was granted a promotion to the post of PDO, which he accepted without demurr. The petitioner kicked up a row when the seniority list of PDO was published, by contending that his promotion must have been with effect from 15.03.2010. The said objection of the petition was rejected in terms of the order dated 16.02.2013. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10067 WP No. 12636 of 2013 claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion was though rejected vide order dated 14.12.2012, the petitioner ought to have arrayed the immediate juniors who would be affected by restoring the promotion of the petitioner from the date when they were promoted. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition as restoring the promotion from 15.03.2010 is likely to result in the petitioner being placed above nearly 90 PDOs who were placed below the petitioner, even without hearing them. 7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38