- 1 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 24354 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI GOPI S A S/O LATE ASHWATHANARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE KSBCL DEPOT, BANGARPET KOLAR DISTRICT. 2. SRI. SOMASHEKAR M C S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION) MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU. 3. SRI GOVARDHAN S S/O LATE N.R. SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE BANASHANKARI RANGE BENGALURU. 4. SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O LATE BHEEMARAYA AGED AOBUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE KSBCL, KALABURGI. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 5. SRI ASHOK H BAJANTRI S/O HANUMANTHAPPA BAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, CHIKKODI SUB DIVISION, CHIKKODI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. 6. SRI PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA. 7. SRI WAHID SHARIF S/O DAWOOD SHARIF AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE M/S USL DISTILLERIES NANDHURA, KALABURGI. 8. SRI RAVI D K S/O S. KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU. 9. SRI HONNANNAVAR C N S/O C.H. HONNANAVAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H. M., ADV. FOR P4, P7-P9 (MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL FILED BY P4, P7-P6) SRI. T NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV. FOR SRI CHETAN DESAI, ADV. FOR P1 TO P3, P5 & P6) - 3 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, T.T.M.C., ‘A’ BLOCK BMTC SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU. 3. SRI. MONISH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, T.T.M.C., ‘A’ BLOCK BMTC SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU. 4. SRI BASAVARADHYA T M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE K.S.B.C.L DEPOT BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY. 5. SRI SUNIL N N AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, T.T.M.C. ‘A’ BLOCK BMTC SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU. 6. SRI BEEREGOWDA G S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT POOJA TOWERS, K.M. ROD, HOUSING BOARD CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577102. - 4 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 7. SRI PRASANNA N M S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 8. SRI Y J PAPHULLA CHANDRA S/O JAVARE GOWDA AGED MAJOR FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF EXCISE INSPECTOR KSBCL DEPOT, KNDUWALA. 9. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY H S/O HOOVAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS FIRST DIVISIONA ASSISTANT O/O DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE SAGAR SUB DIVISION SAGAR, JOG ROAD-577401 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 10. SRI BHUPATI MANAGER S/O HANUMANTHAPPA M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (BUD-06), KSBCL BUILDING BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU - 560 028. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI GURURAJ R, ADV. FOR R4 & R5 SRI H.N. ANANDA, ADV. FOR R3, R5, R6 & R7 SRI SATISH K, ADV. FOR R8 TO R10) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.05.2021 PASSED BY THE - 5 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7267-7276/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE SAME BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.7267-7276/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER (ANNEXURE - B) IN SO AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONER AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 08.07.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners are before this Court, questioning the order dated 21.05.2021 in Application Nos.7267- 7276/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) whereunder, the Tribunal refused to quash the final seniority list of the cadre of First Division Assistants (for short “FDAs”) published under O.M. dated 17.08.2019 insofar as it relates to the petitioners and respondents No.3 to 10 are concerned. - 6 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioners are promotees to the cadre of FDAs from the cadre of Second Division Assistants (for short “SDAs”). The petitioners were promoted as FDAs under O.M. dated 21.08.2009 (Annexure-A6). Respondents No.3 to 10 are directly recruited as FDAs, having been appointed on 12.10.2009 onwards till 12.01.2009. Subsequent to promotion of the petitioners as FDAs, it is stated that for the first time, seniority list of the cadre of FDAs was published on 25.08.2015 (Annexure-R2) wherein, respondents No.3 to 10 were placed above the petitioners and petitioners were placed below respondents No.3 to 10. Thereafter, one more seniority list of FDAs was updated on 25.01.2017 (Annexure-R3) and in the said updated list also, respondents No.3 to 10 were shown above the petitioners and petitioners were shown below respondents No.3 to 10. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that under O.M. dated 09.11.2015, the eligibility dates of the petitioners were revised and they were given eligibility dates for promotion to the cadre of FDAs as - 7 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 08.04.2013 and subsequent dates which order has not been challenged by the petitioners. Respondent No.2 published one more updated seniority list of cadre of FDAs under O.M. dated 17.08.2019 (Annexure-A11) wherein also, the petitioners were shown below the direct recruitees, Respondents No.3 to 10 and direct recruitees Respondents No.3 to 10 were placed above the petitioners-promotees. Questioning the said seniority list and their placement, the petitioners approached the Tribunal in the above stated applications. The Tribunal, under the impugned order dismissed petitioners’ challenge to the seniority list observing that as the petitioners have not challenged the earlier seniority list of the cadre of FDAs, they have acquiesced their right. Questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as the seniority list, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.T.Narayanaswamy for learned counsel Sri.Chethan Desai for petitioners; and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Harish for respondents No.1 and 2: Sri.Gururaj R, learned counsel for - 8 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 respondents No.4 and 5; Sri.H.N.Ananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 and Sri.K.Satish, learned counsel for respondents No.8 to 10. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. The dispute of the petitioners as well as respondents No.3 to 10 is with regard to their seniority in the cadre of FDAs. In other words, the dispute is with regard to seniority between the promotees and direct recruitees. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially promoted to the cadre of SDAs under O.M. dated 21.08.2009 and respondents No.3 to 10 were directly recruited from 12.10.2009 to 12.11.2009. It is also an admitted fact that under order dated 09.11.2015, the second respondent on the reason of non-availability of promotional vacancy as on the date of petitioners’ promotion to the cadre of FDAs, the date of eligibility for promotion to the cadre of FDAs of the petitioners were determined as postponed to 08.04.2013 and on subsequent dates. The said order of postponement of their date of eligibility for non-availability of vacancy for - 9 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 promotion was dated 09.11.2015 of second respondent is not questioned by the petitioners and they have accepted the said date of eligibility for promotion to the cadre of FDAs. Unless the petitioners question the said order of fixing the dates of eligibility for promotion, it is not open for the petitioners to only question the seniority assigned to them in the cadre of FDAs. By virtue of postponement or determination of eligibility dates of petitioners under order dated 09.11.2015 as 08.04.2013 onwards, it is to be considered that the petitioners are promoted on 08.04.2013 onwards, subsequent to direct recruitment of respondents No.3 to 10. Therefore, assigning of ranking to the petitioners below respondents No.3 to 10 direct recruitees is proper and correct. 5. Furthermore, the petitioners have not questioned the ranking assigned to them under the seniority list of FDAs dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure-R2) and 25.01.2017 (Annexure-R3). It is settled position of law that once the petitioners accept the ranking assigned to them and it is - 10 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 continued for long, it is not open for such persons to subsequently question the seniority. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.8 to 10 placed reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court dated 14.07.2025 in W.P.No.9037/2023 (SRI.K.G.KULKARNI AND ANOTHER v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) to contend that the stale claims cannot be gone into that too in the matter of seniority or promotion. It is also submitted that the SLP filed against the decision of the co-ordinate bench before the Hon'ble Apex Court is dismissed on merits. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said order reads as follows: “15. In service jurisprudence it is settled position of law that settled position cannot be unsettled. Challenge to ranking or seniority or promotion shall be within a reasonable time. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.S. SADASIVASWAMY V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 has held as under:- “2. ……………………… Not only Respondent 2 but also Respondents 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957, apparently on the - 11 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head. He could have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.R.MUDAGAL AND OTHERS V/S R.P.SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (1986) 4 SCC 531 has observed that satisfactory service conditions postulates that there should be no sense of - 12 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 uncertainty amongst the government servants created by writ petitions filed after several years. It is further observed that it is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by seniority assigned to him should approach the Court as early as possible, as otherwise in addition to the creation of sense of insecurity in the minds of the government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties.” 7. Learned counsel Sri.Narayanaswamy for petitioners also contended that the date of entry into the cadre determines the seniority and in the light of the fact that the petitioners entered the cadre of FDAs prior to the direct recruitees, he contends that they shall be placed above the direct recruitees. It is true that it is settled position of law that the date of entry shall determine the seniority of a person in a cadre. However, in the instant case, though the petitioners were promoted earlier to the direct recruitees respondents No.3 to 10, subsequently by O.M. dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure-R2) the date of eligibility for promotion to the petitioners has been postponed to the year of 2013, which is unchallenged, as - 13 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 such, the petitioners cannot contend that their promotion is earlier to direct recruitees. 8. Learned counsel Sri.Narayanaswamy also contended that the seniority list suffers from many errors and illegalities. He would submit that the quota rule as well as block periods are not properly taken note of and as the proper block periods are not drawn, seniority list itself is liable to be set aside. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of KULDEEP CHAND v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1995)5 SCC 680. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate how the block periods are wrong and what ought to have been the block periods. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate the vacancy position of direct recruitees and promotees. 9. In the above circumstances, the decision in KULDEEP CHAND would not assist the petitioners. Moreover, having failed to challenge the ranking assigned to them as well as to respondents No.3 to 10 in the earlier - 14 - WP No. 24354 of 2021 seniority list of FDAs published in the year 2015 and 2017, it is not open for the petitioners at this stage to contend that subsequent list is not proper. 10. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE mpk CT:bms