- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8835 WP No. 23889 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 23889 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DHANAVANTARI RAO, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 974, 66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SOHANI A. HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER AND GRANT RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION TO THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS AND ETC., Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8835 WP No. 23889 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired Section Officer of this Court is before this Court, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and grant retrospective promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Registrar for the purpose of financial benefits and also for a direction to the Registrar General to put up a note or issue copy of resolution dated 10.03.2021 with HC No.136/2017 and the resolution of the High Court Staff Committee as approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka. 2. Heard Smt. Sohani A.Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who joined service of the respondent on 31.03.1990 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019 as Section Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner opted for local cadre of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8835 WP No. 23889 of 2024 Hyderabad-Karnataka region and his option was accepted and he was allotted to local cadre of Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent published provisional seniority list of the local cadre on 09.07.2020, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.1 and in the Final Seniority List of the cadre of Section Officers also shows the name of the petitioner at Sl.No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner’s request for promotion is rejected under memo dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure-D). Learned counsel submits that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation and on the same day, one of his junior was promoted as Assistant Registrar. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for promotion as on the said date. 4. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others reported in AIR 2010 SC 1682 and submits that the promotion is part of the right and non-consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8835 WP No. 23889 of 2024 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as sought in the writ petition for the following reasons: The petitioner, a Section Officer of the respondent, retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019. Admittedly, the seniority list placed on record at Annexure-C is published subsequent to petitioner’s retirement on 09.07.2020. It is also admitted fact that no material is placed on record to demonstrate promotion of any of the juniors during service period of petitioner or prior to his retirement. A Government Servant or Employee has right for consideration of his case for promotion and mere existence of vacancy would not give right to employee to claim promotion. One would get right to claim promotion only if his junior is promoted ignoring or overlooking. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner is not overlooked for promotion of any of his Juniors. The Apex Court in the case of Government of West Bengal & Others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others1, while considering the question as to whether a retired employee 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3512 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8835 WP No. 23889 of 2024 would be entitled for promotion, has held at paragraph-21 as under: “21. While we recognize respondent No.1’s right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that the promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No.1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.” In light of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT: BHK