- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 202239 OF 2021 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MANOJ KUMAR GADABALLI S/O SHARANAPPA GADABALLI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KBJNL, IBC DIVISION, NO.8, ZALAKI, INDI TALUK, VIJAYPURA DISTRICT – 586209. 2. SRI RAMESH GOPU RATHOD S/O GOPU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, R & R DIVISION, ATHANI – 416104. 3. SRI PRAMOD HADAGALLI S/O NIGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KBJNL QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, BHEEMARAYANAGUDI – 585287. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M S BHAGWAT, RAVI B. PATIL & KRUPASAGAR, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (SERVICES-A) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, GA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.07.2021 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, KALABURGI IN APPLICATION NO.20382 - 20384/ 2021 (ANNEXURE - A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.20382-20384/2021 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE - B). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Applications No.20382-20384/2021, wherein the applications of petitioners filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 were dismissed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 2. Sri. Sathish K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners seeking prayer for mandamus to the respondents to open the sealed cover and consider them under the Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCSRs’) to the cadre of Superintendent Engineers on par with their juniors. It is submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in holding that non-consideration of the petitioners for in-charge arrangement is entirely at the discretion of the respondent and no right of the petitioners is affected by posting the juniors to the petitioners in independent charge of a higher post which is purely temporary in nature. It is further submitted that as on the date of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPC meeting’), no Article of Charges were issued against the petitioners. Hence, following the sealed cover procedure and non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioners under Rule 32 of the KCSRs is contrary to the decision of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 this Court in the case of Smt. Jayashree vs. State of Karnataka and others1. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal by directing the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion. 3. Per contra, Sri. Mallikarjun Basareddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the Tribunal and submits that the appointment in question is not a regular promotion. The respondent has placed some candidates in an independent charge of the higher post, which is purely a temporary arrangement. Hence, the petitioners cannot seek the consideration of their candidature as a matter of right under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. The Tribunal considered the various aspects and dismissed the application and the same does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 1 W.P.No.102595/2023 Dated 05.10.2023 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record and we have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 5. The petitioners have filed an application before the Tribunal on the premise that the respondent department conducted DPC meeting on 29.05.2020 to consider eligible Executive Engineers for appointment to the cadre of Superintendent Engineer under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. The case of the petitioners were also considered in the said meeting and it was deferred on the ground that the office of the Karnataka Lokayuktha has sent a report under Section 12(3) and 13 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and thereafter, under Section 14A of the Act orders were passed, wherein departmental enquiry had been entrusted to the office of the Lokayuktha against the petitioners. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 6. It is trite law that the promotion can be deferred or over looked by keeping the candidature in a sealed cover, if the Article of Charges had been issued against a Government employee on the date of DPC meeting. The said view of ours gains support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jayashree supra has followed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.V. Janakiraman and held that there was no warrant for respondents to adopt sealed cover procedure and deny promotion to the petitioners in the meeting held particularly in the absence of the Article of Charges against the petitioners on the date of the meeting. In the instant case, admittedly the DPC meeting was held on 29.05.2020 and as on the said day, there were no Article of Charges issued against the petitioners. There is no dispute that the respondent-authorities have 2 (1991) 4 SCC 109 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 considered the cases of other candidates for in-charge/independent charge arrangement under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. Rule 32 of the KCSRs reads as under: "32. Instead of appointing a Government servant to officiate, it is also permissible to appoint him to be in charge of the current duties of a vacant post. In such a case a 'charge allowance' (additional pay) is payable as specified in Rule 68. Note 1- A Government servant can be appointed under this Rule to be in-charge of the current duties of a vacant post only if he is eligible to be promoted to officiate in that post according to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules applicable to that post or if he is holding a post in an equivalent or higher grade. Note 2 - The provisions of this Rule apply also to cases where a Government servant being relieved of his own appointment is appointed to be in independent charge of a higher appointment as a temporary measure." 7. The aforesaid rule permits the authority to make in-charge arrangement in the absence of regular posting. However, note-1 of the aforesaid rule indicates - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 that a Government Servant can be appointed under this rule to be in-charge of the current duties of a vacant post, only if he is eligible to be promoted to officiate in that post. In other words, the employee should be eligible for promotion to hold in-charge post under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. In the case on hand, as on the date of DPC meeting, the petitioners were not served with the Article of Charges and there was no warrant for the respondents to adopt sealed cover procedure and deny eligibility to consider their candidature under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. It is nobody’s case that the appointments are regular promotions. Hence, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in rejecting the applications of the petitioners. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the Rule 32 of the KCSRs and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court referred supra. 8. We are of the considered view that the respondent-authorities have committed an error in following sealed cover procedure in DPC meeting. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 Admittedly, as on the date of DPC, no Article of Charges were issued against the petitioners. The respondent authorities following the sealed cover procedure have made the petitioners ineligible to be considered under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. Such an exercise of the respondents is contrary to the applicable rule and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra. 9. For the aforementioned reasons we proceed to pass the following; ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi in Applications No.20382-20384/ 2021 is set aside. iii) Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the candidatures of the petitioners under Rule 32 of KCSRs to the cadre of Superintendent Engineer on par with - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2469-DB WP No. 202239 of 2021 their juniors who were considered and appointed on 28.08.2020 in accordance with law. The consideration shall be made within a period of three months from today. iv) No order as to costs. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT: PS