- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3212 WP No. 27323 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 27323 OF 2017 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: SRI J SRINIVASAIAH S/O LATE JAGAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O NO.161(408) K SHETTY HALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJU G., ADV. FOR SRI V N MADHAVA REDDY, ADV.) AND: 1. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571401. 2. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BY REGISTRAR GENERAL BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE REGISTRAR(VIGILANCE) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI SURYANSH NAIDU, ADV. FOR SRI SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3212 WP No. 27323 of 2017 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE IN A.A.NO.5/2014 (LCA- I) DATED 5.1.2017 AT ANNEX-K AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO PROMOTE THE PETITIONER WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AS FDA AND FURTHER PROMOTE HIM FOR HIGHER CADRE FOR THE POST OF SIRASTEDAR WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO WHICH HE IS LEGITIMATELY ENTITLED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired First Division Assistant (‘FDA’ for short) of the first respondent-District and Sessions Court, Mandya is before this Court, praying to quash Annexure-K, order dated 05.01.2017 passed in Administrative Appeal No.5/2014 by 3rd respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s request for retrospective promotion as FDA. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner with retrospective effect as FDA and further promote him for higher cadre for the post of Sheristedar with all consequential benefits to which he is legitimately entitled. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3212 WP No. 27323 of 2017 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Nataraju G for Sri.V.N.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner; Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Suryansh Naidu for Sri.Santhosh S Nagarale, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Typist in the Principal District Court at Mysore on 14.01.1976. Thereafter, at the request of petitioner, he was transferred from Mysore to Mandya District as Typist on 02.04.1982. The petitioner was further promoted as FDA on 30.01.2012 thereafter the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2015. Subsequent to his retirement, the petitioner made a representation/appeal before respondent No.3 praying to consider his case for promotion as FDA with retrospective effect. Learned counsel would submit that the appeal/representation of the petitioner is rejected without any proper consideration. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3212 WP No. 27323 of 2017 Further, he submits that the reason assigned for rejection of petitioner’s request is that the petitioner had suffered penalty. It is submitted that penalty undergone is minor in nature and the same should not come in the way of respondents considering petitioner’s case for retrospective promotion. Learned counsel would submit that his juniors were promoted to the next higher cadre of FDA and petitioner has been denied promotion as FDA without there being valid reason. Further, learned counsel would also submit that when the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.31738/2011 and W.P.No.47252/2012, this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation for retrospective promotion, but the respondents have failed to consider petitioner’s representation in its proper perspective. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition and to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for retrospective promotion as FDA and consequential promotion. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3212 WP No. 27323 of 2017 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Suryansh Naidu appearing for Sri.Santhosh S Nagarale for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that there was enquiry against the petitioner in D.E.No.1/1988 and 2/2010. He submits that in D.E.1/1988, the petitioner was punished by imposing of withholding one increment. He submits that lenient view was taken in the second enquiry. Moreover, he submits that there was adverse remarks in the Service Records of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner would not be entitled for retrospective promotion as FDA. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Normally, a government servant or an employee has a right to seek for consideration of his case for promotion according to the relevant Rules. For consideration of one’s - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3212 WP No. 27323 of 2017 promotion, his Service Record shall be clean and there shall be no adverse remark or he should not have suffered any penalty or pending enquiry. If a person has suffered penalty, during the currency of the penalty, the said government servant would not be entitled for any promotion. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner was admittedly promoted as FDA on 30.01.2012. The petitioner has not made it clear in this petition, as to from which date he is entitled for retrospective promotion; when his juniors were promoted and as to whether as on the said date, whether enquiry was pending against the petitioner or whether the petitioner had suffered any penalty in the enquiry is not forthcoming. 8. A perusal of the appellate order which is impugned herein indicates that petitioner had suffered penalty in D.E.No.1/1988 and also in D.E.No.2/2010. Further the appellate order also indicates that promotion could not be granted to the petitioner as he had been punished and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3212 WP No. 27323 of 2017 also adverse remarks were contained in his Service Records. When adverse remarks are against the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled for promotion. The impugned appellate order also indicates that representation of the petitioner for expunging adverse remarks is rejected. 9. In the above said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned appellate order. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33