- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9441-DB WA No. 531 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.531 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SUBHAS T GORAWAR S/O TIRKAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AT CORPORATE OFFICE, CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, CESC, MYSURU R/AT NO.25, 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS, NIVEDITHANAGAR MYSURU – 560 002 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9441-DB WA No. 531 of 2024 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 3. THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN & HR) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED HEAD OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1; MS. RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.7749/2022 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the learned Single - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9441-DB WA No. 531 of 2024 Judge in W.P.No.7749/2022 wherein in paragraph Nos.6 to 9 the learned Single Judge has stated as under:- “6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KPTCL, on the other hand, contends that the first request of the petitioner made in August, 2012 was not considered, because of the pendency of departmental enquiry and this position was acquiesced by the petitioner. It is further contended that on conclusion of the departmental enquiry, a second request was made and the same has been accepted by the KPTCL within a reasonable time. 7. It is also contended that the conditions, under which the change of cadre was permitted, were applied by the KPTCL and hence, no fault can be found in the impugned order wherein the seniority of the petitioner is fixed below the last of AEE (Graduate) and the change in cadre is given effect from 29.08.2015. 8. It is further submitted that this petition has been filed on 05.04.2022 challenging the order at Annexure-'N' dated 29.08.2015, i.e., after a period of seven years and therefore, if the present petition is entertained, it is obvious that several other people who had been promoted in the interregnum would be put to severe prejudice. It is also submitted that since the petitioner had chosen not to challenge the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9441-DB WA No. 531 of 2024 impugned order dated 29.08.2015 for seven long years, he would not be entitled for any relief. 9. As already noticed above, it is not in dispute that a request was made by the petitioner in August 2012 for change of cadre, but he did not choose to take it to a logical conclusion and he accepted the fact that the change of cadre could not be considered during the pendency of departmental enquiry. The fact that the petitioner, thereafter, sought a change of cadre by making one more application in the year 2014, itself, goes to show that the petitioner acquiesced to the fact that he would not be entitled for change of cadre due to the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, his second request for change of cadre was accepted by the KPTCL on 29.08.2015. However, the petitioner chose not to challenge the same till 05.04.2022. In my view, this inordinate delay of seven years in filing the present writ petition questioning the change of cadre made in the year 2015 cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.” 2. The uncontested facts are that the appellant while working with the respondents – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) has in the year 2012 had applied for change of cadre from Assistant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9441-DB WA No. 531 of 2024 Executive Engineer (Non-Graduate) to Assistant Executive Engineer (Graduate). It appears the same was not acted upon till 29.08.2015 when the respondents issued Annexure-‘N’, which reads as under:- “As per the appeal of Sri Subhash T Goravar PIN11935 Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) Corporate office CESC Mysore, as per the order No: KPTCL/B16/B68/3414/04-05 of Corporate order dated: 22-11-2007, his cadre has changed from of Assistant Executive Engineer (Non-graduate) from Assistant Executive Engineer (Graduate) cadre, his seniority has been fixed after the position to the next of very junior in the Assistant Executive Engineer (Graduate) cadre to the date of issue of this official memorandum.” 3. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have issued a draft seniority list to which the appellant herein had filed objections. Those objections were decided and communicated to the appellant herein on 27.08.2021. It is this communication/order which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. We have already reproduced relevant conclusion drawn by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9441-DB WA No. 531 of 2024 learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos.6 to 9 while dismissing the writ petition. 4. The position that emerges from the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge are the following:- (i) The appellant had sought the change of cadre which was decided on 29.08.2015. ii) Appellant had not challenged either the change of cadre that too on the ground that it must relate back to the year 2012 nor he has challenged the stipulation in the order dated 29.08.2015 fixing his seniority after the position next to the junior in the Assistant Executive Engineer (Graduate) cadre. It was only after the draft seniority list was issued, to which, the representation was made, which was rejected and final seniority list was issued on 27.08.2021, that the appellant had approached learned Single Judge by way of writ petition. 5. We agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in as much as petitioner having not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9441-DB WA No. 531 of 2024 challenged the change of cadre in the year 2012 and also not contested the seniority position which was assigned to him in the order dated 29.08.2015, the petition filed before the learned Single Judge was clearly hit by delay and laches. We do not see any merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33