- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 10987 OF 2013 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SMT R DEVAKI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O V. NAGARAJU, SENIOR STENOGRAPHER, ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560027. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560027. 3. SRI S.R. THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN PERSONAL ASSISTANT, B.M.T.C CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2, V/O/DT: 14.06.2023, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 1.3.11 AT ANNX-E ISSUED BY THE R2 AND AS WELL AS THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 3.9.11 AT ANNX-G ISSUED BY THE R2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is arising from the endorsement dated 01.03.2011 marked at Annexure-E as well as the endorsement dated 03.09.2011 marked at Annexure-G. In terms of the said endorsements the petitioner's claim to grant seniority ahead of respondent No.3 is rejected. 2. The petitioner has also questioned the order dated 09.07.2012 at Annexure J, insofar it relates to promotion of 3rd respondent to the post of Personal Assistant on the premise that 3rd respondent is not eligible for said promotion and writ of mandamus is also sought to restore the eligibility date of promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Junior Stenographer on 30.01.2004 and place the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 petitioner at an appropriate place by assigning proper ranking in the gradation list of Junior/Senior Stenographers and extend all other consequential benefits. 3. Certain admitted facts are as under :- Respondent No.3 was appointed as a Typist on 23.08.1982 in North Canara Division of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the KSRTC') as it was then. Later he was transferred to the Central Office of the KSRTC vide order dated 05.03.1983 on administrative grounds. On 29.11.1989 again on administrative grounds, he was transferred to Bangalore Transport Service (for short 'the BTS') from KSRTC. On 25.07.1990 he was transferred to KSRTC Central Office from BTS again on administrative grounds. 4. Petitioner contends that on 20.09.1990, 3rd respondent was promoted as Junior Stenographer (Class III Non Supervisory Post) and posted to North Canara Division, KSRTC, considering the seniority in North Canara - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 Division. On 15.03.1991, at the request of 3rd respondent, he was transferred from North Canara Division to Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short 'the BMTC'). On 05.02.1996, 3rd respondent was promoted as Senior Stenographer (Class III Supervisory Post). 5. On 26.03.2008, a provisional list of Junior Stenographers (State Level) of KSRTC as on 01.01.2007 was published and name of 3rd respondent was not reflected in the said list, as he was working as Senior Stenographer. On 03.08.2010, name of 3rd respondent was inserted at Serial No.1 in the (Division wise) Seniority List of Junior Stenographer, as per the list published on 01.01.2010 and petitioner was pushed down to Serial No.6 and date of petitioner's promotion was changed from 30.01.2004 to 01.04.2006. 6. Petitioner filed objection on 16.08.2010 to restore her date of promotion to 30.01.2004. On 01.03.2011, the endorsement was issued declining the request of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 petitioner. On 22.06.2011, the Provisional Seniority List of Junior Stenographer as on 01.01.2010 was published and name of 3rd respondent was mentioned at Serial No.22 and petitioner's name was mentioned at 47. On 03.09.2011, 2nd respondent issued endorsement justifying the Seniority List. On 09.07.2012, 3rd respondent is promoted as Personal Assistant (Class III Supervisory Post) and posted to BMTC. 7. The petition is filed on the premise that the petitioner being appointed as an employee in the North Canara Division of KSRTC is ineligible for being considered for promotion in Central Office of KSRTC. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the post of Junior Stenographer being the post, where the Seniority List has to be prepared Division wise, 3rd respondent being appointed in the North Canara Division is ineligible for consideration for promotion in the Central Office, which is a different Division. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that 3rd respondent never worked in the Central Office of the respondent/Corporation from 1990 till his retirement. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that though the petitioner was appointed in KSRTC, North Canara Division in the year 1982 as per the Rule prevailing then, if he was transferred either for administrative reason or on personal request, he would carry the seniority to the place of transferee Division and his seniority in the transferee Division has to be reckoned while preparing the seniority list among the employees in the transferee Division. Thus he is eligible for consideration for promotion in the transferee Division among the employees in the transferee Division. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the promotion given to 3rd respondent as a Junior Stenographer was erroneous promotion, as he had not yet acquired the eligibility in 1990, as such the same was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 recalled in the year 2011 and for all practical purposes, his date of eligibility was taken as 28.03.2001. 12. When the date of promotion of the respondent No.3 was reckoned w.e.f. 28.03.2001, 3rd respondent would stand at Sl.No.1 in terms of seniority and the petitioner would stand at Sl.No.6. Admittedly there were only five vacant posts, which were available to be filled by promotion and for this reason, the petitioner is not promoted in the year 2001, when 3rd respondent and remaining four employees were promoted. 13 This Court has considered the contention raised at the Bar and perused the records. The following points would arise for consideration:- a) Whether the notification recalling the promotion of 3rd respondent and placing 3rd respondent to the post of Typist as held by him in the year 2001 is erroneous? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 b) Whether the petitioner establishes that 3rd respondent being appointed in North Canara Division is ineligible for promotion in Bengaluru Division ? c) Whether the petitioner establishes that she is senior to 3rd respondent ? On Points No (a) and (b): 14. It is relevant to note that 3rd respondent was promoted as Junior Stenographer in the year 1990. At that point he was working in Bengaluru Division and he was transferred from North Canara Division for administrative reasons. There is no dispute that under the relevant Rules/Circulars applicable to the respondent/Corporation, whenever a person is transferred from one Division to another Division, on such transfer the employee would carry seniority to the transferred place. Only in the year 1991 the provision is amended, wherein the transfer on request would have a consequence of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 losing the seniority of the transferred employee, who is transferred on request. 15. The respondent/Corporation though promoted 3rd respondent to the post of Junior Stenographer and later to the post of Senior Stenographer in the year 2012, noticed that he was ineligible for promotion as a Junior Stenographer in the year 1990 as he did not possess the necessary qualification to be promoted. Having noticed the erroneous promotion granted to him, the same was recalled, and for all practical purposes, he was considered for promotion in the year 2001 to the post of Junior Stenographer. This in fact is an order, which would affect the interest of 3rd respondent as his promotion was recalled after 10 years. Admittedly the said order is not called in question by 3rd respondent, on the other hand, he has accepted the order which said that he was ineligible for promotion in the year 1990. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 16. Since 3rd respondent was promoted to the post of Junior Stenographer in the year 1990, he was not amongst the Typists in the said Division. Since his name was not found in the list of Typists, probably that gave an expectation to the petitioner to be considered for the post of Junior Stenographer when the posts fell vacant. However, when the exercise of filling the post of Junior Stenographer by way of promotion was taken up, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.6 and 3rd respondent was placed at Sl.No.1. 17. Thus petitioner claims that she is aggrieved as her seniority is ignored. When petitioner filed objection to the said seniority list, respondent No.2 issued endorsements impugned in present petition stating that promotion given to 3rd respondent, on an earlier occasion was an erroneous promotion and the same was recalled and after recalling the same, he was required to be considered for promotion w.e.f. 2001 and in the year 2001, 3rd respondent stood first in the seniority list. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 18. Now the question before this Court is whether the promotion which is said to be given to 3rd respondent in the year 1990 and which was later recalled in the year 2012 was an erroneous promotion. Respondent No.3, who is affected by an order recalling promotion, has accepted it. No materials are placed by the petitioner to show that 3rd respondent was eligible for promotion in the year 1990. 19. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the order recalling promotion of 3rd respondent cannot be said to be illegal. Unless petitioner is able to establish that 3rd respondent was eligible for promotion in 1990, the petitioner cannot claim to be senior to 3rd respondent, because of earlier promotion given to 3rd respondent. 20. Admittedly 3rd respondent was appointed earlier to the petitioner. Merely because the erroneous promotion of 3rd respondent resulted in some sort of expectation on the part of petitioner in terms of seniority and consequential - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 promotion, that by itself is not a ground to claim promotion, if the promotion of 3rd respondent is otherwise illegal. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order promoting 3rd respondent even if it is held to be an erroneous order should be recalled by an order and such an order is not passed, as such, the impugned endorsements are erroneous. 22. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that before finalising the seniority list, the notification was issued on 03.08.2010 wherein a detailed discussion is made as to why eligibility date, for promoting 3rd respondent has to be revisited and objections were called for. The petitioner filed objection to the said notification on 16.08.2010. The objection filed by the petitioner was considered and impugned endorsement was issued on 01.03.2011. In the said endorsement, the respondent/Corporation has taken a view as to why the seniority of 3rd respondent is reconsidered in the Central - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 Office and they have assigned reasons as to why the petitioner is shown at serial No.6. 23. It is to be noticed that 3rd respondent was appointed in North Canara Division in the first instance and later he was transferred to Bangalore Division. Admittedly, he was transferred for administrative reasons and for which, the seniority will be carried to the transferee Division. The person whose is transferred from one Division to another Division on account of administrative reasons would carry the seniority in the original Division, where he was appointed, to the transferee Division. Circular No.775 marked at Annexure R7 would reveal that in case the person, who is transferred from one Division to another Division for administrative reasons is to be considered for promotion, the promotion has to be considered by reckoning the seniority with the other employees in the transferee Division. The language of the said resolution being very clear 3rd respondent, when he was considered for promotion in the year 2001, his seniority has to be - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 considered along with employees in the transferee Division. Hence, the seniority of 3rd respondent cannot be taken into account by reckoning his seniority in the parent Division, where he was working earlier. 24. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that petitioner has not made out a case that order recalling promotion of 3rd respondent is erroneous. On Point No(c): 25. This being the position, the contention of the petitioner that 3rd respondent could not have been considered for promotion in the transferee Division and should have been considered for promotion in the parent Division where he was appointed merits no consideration. 26. Since the petitioner is appointed subsequent to appointment of 3rd respondent, the petitioner not being able to establish that order recalling the promotion of 3rd respondent is erroneous, this Court is of the view, that - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:2643 WP No. 10987 of 2013 petitioner has failed to establish that she is senior to 3rd respondent. 27. Based on the discussions made above, there is no dispute over the fact that petitioner is junior to 3rd respondent and admittedly, 3rd respondent is senior to the petitioner. 28. Merely because 3rd respondent was given a seniority which was not due to him in the year 1990, and same was reviewed in the year 2010, it cannot be said that the petitioner's seniority is prejudicially affected. 29. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG /CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:VN