- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:447 RP No. 175 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 175 OF 2018 IN WP NO.12459 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560027, REPRESETNED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINGAR, BENGALURU-560027. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D PARASHURAM, S/O SRI DYAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, KSRTC, CONDUCTER BADGE NO.2201(851), KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DEPOT, DAVANAGERE-577004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V S NAIK, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:447 RP No. 175 of 2018 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2018 PASSED IN WP NO.12459/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Review Petition is filed to review the order dated 09.03.2018. In terms of the said order, Writ Petition was disposed of by the predecessor of this Court directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the promotion date said to have been given to one Sri.Neelakantappa and to give consequential seniority to the petitioner by passing appropriate orders. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would invite attention of this Court to paragraph No.3 of the order in W.P.No.12459/2013, which reads as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:447 RP No. 175 of 2018 "3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that erroneously promotion was given to junior to the petitioner. Thereafter, after realizing, the same was withdrawn by the respondent- Corporation". 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would also refer to the statement of objections filed by the petitioners to the said Writ Petition. The contention raised in the statement of objection prima facie would reveal that the statement made in paragraph No.3 of the order under review is incorrect. It appears that the order is passed on the basis of incorrect concession made at the bar. 5. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order has to be recalled and the Writ Petition has to be restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner in the Writ Petition shall appraise the Court about the present status of the respondent's designation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:447 RP No. 175 of 2018 7. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed. Writ Petition is restored. Writ Petition be listed on 29.01.2025. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39