IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT W.P.No.17239/2022 (S-RES) C/W W.P.No.8208/2021 AND W.P.No.23445/2021 (S-PRO) IN W.P.NO.17239/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. N BHUVANESHWARI AGE: 39 YEARS, W/O SANTOSH, WORKING AS SENIOR CATH LAB TECHNICIAN IN SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, GOVT OF KARNATAKA REG AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE -560069. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K S PONNAPPA, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCE AND RESEARCH GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REG AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD 2 BANGALORE- 560069 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCE AND RESEARCH GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REG AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE -560069. 3. SMT. R PADMAJA W/O SRI C RAJANNA AGE: 41 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF CATH LAB TECHNICIAN IN SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REG AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE -560069. 4. SRI R GOVARDHAN S/O SRI RAMA SANJEEVAIAH, AGE: 38 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR CATH LAB TECHNICIAN IN SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REG AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE- 560069. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. D.J. RAKSHITHA, ADV. FOR R1& R2 SRI R.G. BHAT, ADV. FOR C/R3 R4 IS SERVED) 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.SJICR/SIBBANDI(5).122. 2022-23, DATED 20.06.2022 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-1; DIRECT THE R-1 TO DECLARE THE PETITIONER AS SENIOR TO THE R-3 AND R-4 IN THE LIGHT OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 20.06.1995; IN THE ALTERNATE, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R-2 AND R1 TO PLACE THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONS VIDE ANNX-G, H AND N AND OR ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO HER RIGHT FOR SENIORITY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED OR PLACED BEFORE THE COUNCIL, DISPUTING THE SENIORITY OF THE R-3 TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF R-1 AS ENUMERATED UNDER SUB- RULE 4 OF RULE 20 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, GENERAL BYE-LAW OF THE R-1 AND ETC. IN W.P.NO.8208/2021 BETWEEN: SMT. R PADMAJA W/O SRI C RAJANNA AGED 41 YEARS WORKING AS OFFICIATING CHIEF CATHLAB TECHNICIAN SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, (GOV. OF KARNATAKA REGD. AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE) BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 069. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI BHAT RAMACHANDRA GANAPATI, ADV.) 4 AND: 1. SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (GOV. OF KARNATAKA REGD. AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE) BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 069 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE DIRECTOR SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, (GOV. OF KARNATAKA- REGD. AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE) BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 069. 3. SRI R GOVARDHAN S/O RAMA SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR CATHLAB TECHNICAN AT SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (GOV. OF KARNATAKA REGD. AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE) BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 069. 4. SMT. N BHUVANESHWARI W/O SANTOSH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR CATHLAB TECHNICIAN AT SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (GOV. OF KARNATAKA REGD. AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE) 5 BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 069 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ISMAIL M MUSBA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, ADV. FOR R3 SRI SANKET M YENAGI, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO PROMOTE THE PETITIONER AS CHIEF CATHLAB TECHNICIAN IN THE R1 INSTITUTE, AGAINST THE VACANCY CREATED UPON THE RETIREMENT OF SRI K P KUMAR; QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 12.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, THE R2 HEREIN, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION. IN W.P.NO. 23445/2021 BETWEEN: SMT N BHUVANESHWARI W/O SANTOSH AGED 39 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR CATH LAB TECHNICIAN IN SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH GOVT OF KARNATAKA REG AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560069. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K S PONNAPPA, ADV.) 6 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REG. AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560069 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REG. AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560069. 4. SMT. R PADMAJA W/O SRI C RAJANNA AGED 41 YEARS WORKING AS CHIEF CATH LAB TECHNICIAN IN SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REG AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560069. 7 5. SRI R GOVARDHAN S/O SRI RAMA SANJEEVAIAH AGED 38 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR CATH LAB TECHNICIAN IN SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR SCIENCES AND RESEARCH GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REG AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560069. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 SRI ISMAIL M MUSBA, ADV. FOR R2 R3 & R5 ARE SERVED SRI R.G. BHAT, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.05.2020 AT ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R2, IN RESPECT OF FINAL GRADATION LIST OF SENIOR CATHLAB TECHNICIAN AS ON 01.05.2020; QUASH OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 12.10.2020 AT ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE R2 IN RESPECT OF THE POST OF IN CHARGE OF SENIOR CATHLAB TECHNICIANS AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24/01/2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT 8 CAV ORDER The above batch of writ petitions relates to the seniority of Cathlab Technician and promotion to Chief Cathlab Technician in Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research Institute and all the writ petitions arise out of common facts. Hence, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P.No.1723/2022, the petitioner is working as Senior Cathlab Technician and the challenge is to promotion of respondent No.3 as Chief Cathlab Technician under O.M. dated 20.06.2022 bearing No.SJICR/SIBBANDI(5)/122/2022-23, (Annexure-A) and consequential direction to declare that the petitioner as senior to respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the light of Government Order dated 20.06.1995. 9 3. In W.P.No.8208/2021, the petitioner who is third respondent in W.P.No.1723/2022 is before this Court questioning O.M. dated 12.10.2020 by which Cathlab Technicians are directed to work as in-charge of Cathlab Technician on rotation basis and for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Chief Cathlab Technician. 4. In W.P.No.23445/2021, the petitioner has questioned Annexure-D dated 11.05.2020 – Final Gradation List of Senior Cathlab Technician as on 01.05.2020 and Annexure-G, O.M., dated 12.10.2020 wherein Senior Cathlab Technicians are directed to work as in-charge Cathlab Technicians on rotation basis for a period of two years without any additional financial application. 5. In W.P.No.1723/2022 and W.P.No.23445/2021, Smt.N.Bhuvaneshwari is the 10 petitioner and in W.P.No.8208/2021, Smt.R.Padmaja is the petitioner who is respondent No.3 in W.P.No.17239/2022. Hence, the ranking of the parties would be referred to as they stand in W.P.No.17239/2022. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 are directly recruited Cathlab Technicians having been entered the service of the first respondent-Institute on 06.11.2006. Subsequently, they were promoted as Senior Cathlab Technicians on 01.01.2013. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The first respondent under Notification dated 18.12.2017 published final gradation list of Senior Cathlab Technician as on 01.06.2017 and in the said final gradation list of Senior Cathlab Technician, petitioner is at Sl.No.6, whereas third respondent is at Sl.No.4 and their date of entry into the cadre is shown as 01.01.2013 respectively and the date 11 of promotion is also shown as 01.01.2013 respectively. Subsequently, one more final gradation list was published by the first respondent – Director under notification dated 11.05.2020 wherein also respondent No.3 was shown at Sl.No.4 and petitioner is shown at Sl.No.6. Based on the said seniority list, respondent No.3 was initially placed in-charge of the Chief Cathlab Technician and subsequently, under O.M. dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure-A) impugned herein, third respondent was promoted as Chief Cathlab Technician. Questioning the promotion of the third respondent to the post of Chief Cathlab Technician and for declaration to declare the petitioner as senior to third respondent, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel Sri.K.S.Ponnappa for petitioner; Smt.Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.R.G.Bhat, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.17329/2022; 12 Sri.Bhat Ramachandra Ganapathy learned counsel for petitioner; Sri.Ismail M Musba, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Mohammad Jaffar Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.Sanket M Yenagi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.8208/2021; Sri.K.S.Ponnappa, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Shivaprabhu Hireamth, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1, Sri.Ismail M Musba, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel Sri.R.G.Bhat for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.23445/2021. Perused the writ petition papers. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that seniority of petitioner and respondent No.3 in the cadre of Cathlab Technician and Senior Cathlab Technician is not determined under Bye-Law 20 of the Sri.Jayadeva Cardiovascular Bye-Laws, 1983 (for short, ‘Bye-Laws’). Learned counsel would submit that under Bye-Law 20, seniority of employees in each category 13 shall be determined by order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the cadre in question and if two persons are appointed on the same date, the seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. It is his submission that the seniority of the petitioner and respondent No.3 is contrary to Bye-Law 20. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner being selected under Scheduled Caste category to the post of Cathlab Technician, she ought to have been placed above respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the seniority list of Cathlab Technicians and the petitioner ought to have been promoted as Chief Cathlab Technician. Further, learned counsel places reliance on the Government Order dated 20.06.1995 in support of his submission that the petitioner being Scheduled Caste candidate, ought to have been placed above respondent Nos.3 and 4. Thus, learned counsel would pay for allowing the writ petition. 14 9. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Rakshitha.D.J., for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the seniority list of the cadre of Cathlab Technician and Senior Cathlab Technician is prepared in accordance with the Bye-Law No.20 of the Bye-Laws of the first respondent-Institute and further submits that the seniority of petitioner and respondent is fixed in terms of the merit. It is submitted that the third respondent had obtained 17 marks out of 25 and was selected under General Merit to the post of Cathlab Technician, whereas the petitioner who has scored 16.10 marks out of 25 was selected under Scheduled Caste category to the post of Cathlab Technician. Since the petitioner is less meritorious than respondent No.3, petitioner was rightly placed below respondent No.3. In that regard, learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Annexure-R3 produced along with the statement of objections. Learned counsel would further 15 submit that roster or reservation would not apply to the post of Chief Cathlab Technician since it is a single post. Learned counsel moreover would submit that at any point of time, petitioner has not questioned the seniority of third respondent either in the Cadre of Cathlab Technician or Senior Cathlab Technician. For the first time in W.P.No.23445/2021 filed on 14.12.2021, the petitioner has questioned the seniority list of Senior Cathlab Technician which was published under Notification dated 11.05.2020. Learned counsel would submit that there is delay in questioning the seniority list of Senior Cathlab Technician and on that ground also, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel Sri.R.G.Bhat appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that the respondent No.3 who is selected under the General Merit as Cathlab Technician was rightly placed above the petitioner since she was more meritorious. Further, he submits that both 16 the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were promoted to the cadre of Senior Cathlab Technician on the same day and as such their seniority is maintained as stood in the cadre below. Further, he also submits that since there is only one post of Chief Cathlab Technician, reservation or roster would not be applicable and as such he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, Whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the order of promotion of third respondent or to interfere with the final seniority list/gradation list of the cadre of Senior Cathlab Technician? 12. The answer to the above point would be in the negative and interference of the order of promotion of respondent No.3 as well as to the final seniority 17 list/Gradation list of the senior Cathlab Technician is not warranted at the hands of this Court, for the following reasons: The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 applied for the post of Senior Cathlab Technician in the first respondent/Institute. The petitioner applied claiming reservation under Scheduled Caste category, whereas respondent No.3 applied under General Merit. On undergoing selection process, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 were selected as Cathlab Technicians and were appointed under O.M. dated 30.10.2006 (Annexures-C and C1). The merit list of the selected candidates for the post of Cathlab Technician which is placed on record at Annexure-R3 would indicate that respondent No.3 is placed at Sl.No.1 having scored 17 marks out of 25 marks whereas the petitioner is placed at Sl.No.3 having scored 16.10 marks out of 25 marks. In terms of Bye-law 20 of the first respondent/Institute, 18 seniority of employees in each category shall be determined by order of merit in which they are selected for appointment to the grade in question and if two members joined duty on the same day, the person who is elder in age shall be senior. In the instant case, in terms of merit list (Annexure-R3), rightly respondent No.3 is shown as senior to the petitioner in the seniority list of Cathlab Technician since she is more meritorious than petitioner. Further, the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are promoted to the cadre of Senior Cathlab Technician on the very same day i.e., on 01.01.2013 as could be seen from the Seniority List at Annexure-F dated 18.12.2017 of the Senior Cathlab Technician as on 01.06.2017. When both the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are promoted on the same day, they would maintain the same seniority of the cadre below from which they are promoted. Therefore, no fault could be found with the final seniority/gradation 19 list of Senior Cathlab Technician dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure-F). 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the Government Order dated 20.06.1995 to claim seniority over respondent No.3. The above Government order relates to reservation in direct recruitment, hence the Government Order dated 20.06.1995 would not come to the aid of the petitioner. 14. The petitioner has questioned the promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Chief Cathlab Technician on the ground that she belonged to Scheduled Caste category and she ought to have been promoted on the basis of reservation in promotion. In the instant case, the said contention cannot be accepted as there is only one post in the cadre of Chief Cathlab Technician. When 20 a cadre consists of single post, no reservation or roster would be applicable as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.R.INAMDAR v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 19 SCC 543, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there can be no reservation of solitary post and that in order to apply rule of reservation within a cadre, there must be plurality of posts. 15. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that there is no merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner and both the writ petitions in W.P.No.17329/2022 and W.P.No.23445/2021 filed by the petitioner are liable to the dismissed and accordingly dismissed. In view of the above order, the prayer of respondent No.3 who is petitioner in W.P.No.8208/2021 21 would no more survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said writ petition also stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC/mpk/-* CT:bms