- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2644 WP No. 26982 of 2014 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. 26982 OF 2014 (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-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (P), KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. 3. SMT D.SUSHEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS SR. STENOGRAPHER, LAW DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE -560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, R3 IS SERVED THROUGH HAND SUMMONS) Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2644 WP No. 26982 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ADDENDUM ORDER DTD.25.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE R-2 CORPORATION VIDE ANNEX-N.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS CORPORATION TO CONSIDER THE RESPONDENTS CORPORATION TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETIITONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER w.e.f.28.3.01 AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER A WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DTD.4.2.2012 AT ANNEX-M BASED ON THE ADDENDUM ORDER DTD.30.1.12 AT ANNEX-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order at Annexure-N dated 25.06.2012 issued by 2nd respondent. The petitioner also prays for writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of junior Stenographer with effect from 28.03.2001 as requested under the representation dated 04.02.2012 at Annexure-M. The said representation is based on the addendum order dated 30.01.2012 at Annexure-L. 2. Annexure-N referred to above is called in question on the premise that Smt. Susheelamma D.R., 3rd respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2644 WP No. 26982 of 2014 in this petition should have been placed at serial No.51-A ahead of petitioner who is placed at serial No.62-A. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though Susheelamma joined service on 14.02.1984, when she was transferred to the Central office vide order dated 19.01.1995, she reported to duty on 13.06.1996. Whereas, the petitioner though joined service on 23.04.1992, when she was transferred to the Central office vide order dated 11.01.1995, she reported to duty on the same day. As such, she would be senior to 3rd respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent/Corporation would submit that date of joining to a transferred place is not the criteria to determine the seniority. The date of joining the service would be criteria for reckoning the seniority. 5. It is well settled principle of law that when a person employed, his transfer from one division to another, in terms of the rules applicable to the KSRTC employees, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2644 WP No. 26982 of 2014 date of joining of service is to be taken into account to determine the seniority and not the date of joining the place of transfer. 6. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any justification to quash Annexure-N. 7. As far as 2nd prayer of the petitioner to consider her to the promotional post of junior Stenographer with effect from 28.03.2001 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2001, there were five vacant posts to be filled in the cadre of junior Stenographer. The petitioner who was the typist at that point of time and the respondent-Corporation was under obligation to fill all the five vacant junior Stenographer posts. Though the petitioner was not at serial No.5 in terms of the seniority, the person at serial No.3 opted out for promotion as he took transfer to some other department and petitioner who was at serial No.6 was eligible to be considered since 5 posts were available in the cadre of junior Stenographer. The respondent-Corporation ought to have taken a decision - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2644 WP No. 26982 of 2014 to promote the petitioner to the post of junior Stenographer with effect from 28.03.2001, is the submission. The decision of the respondent-Corporation that only four persons are promoted is to be interfered with and petitioner's promotion is to be reckoned with effect from 28.03.2001. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent - Corporation would submit that though 5 posts were available to be filled in the year 2001 in the cadre of junior Stenographer, the Departmental Promotion Committee for administrative reasons has taken a decision only to promote 4 persons and fill 4 out of 5 vacancies. It is her submission that the employee has no right to insist that employer to fill all the posts which are vacant. At the most the employee can make a request to consider the employee for promotion. The law in this regard is also well settled. The employee cannot insist the employer to fill up all the vacancies in the promotional cadre. At the most, there can be request by the employee to consider him for promotion and if such a request is made, the employer is under obligation to consider the request. Since the Departmental Promotion Committee - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2644 WP No. 26982 of 2014 has taken a decision to promote only 4 persons to and to fill only 4 vacancies out of the 5 vacancies available, the petitioner's prayer to consider the date of her promotion with effect from 28.03.2001 instead of the promotion which was accorded in the year 2004 is not tenable. 9. It is also noticed that in another petition i.e. W.P. No.10987/2013, this court has taken a view that the respondent-Corporation has recalled the promotion of one S.R. Thimmegowda was erroneously promoted and his effective date of promotion was re-determined with effect from 28.03.2001 instead of 1990. Because of the said decision, the seniority of the petitioner was pushed down to Sl. No.6. In these view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20.1