THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER v. SRI A VIJAY KUMAR BHANDARY
WA/1373/2024 · 2025-02-18
M I Arun
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 32803 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 32803 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1373 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. …APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.N. ASHWATHANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHARAN N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI A. VIJAY KUMAR BHANDARY S/O LATE NAGAYYA BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024
BONDEL MANGALURU - 575 015. …RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NIVEDITHA C. SHIVANAIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2024 IN W.P.NO.9246/2024 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.9246 of 2024, wherein learned Single Judge issued the following operative directions:
"[a] The petition is allowed directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2024 [Annexure-L] at the first instance for grant of promotion under Rule 32 of KCSR and to place the petitioner's papers for regular promotion in the ensuing DPC. [b] The petitioner shall be communicated with the decision on the promotion under Rule 32 of the KCSR as aforesaid within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation in this regard within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Aswathanarayana for learned advocate Mr.
Sharan N.Majage for the appellant-Board would submit that the directions are not justified inasmuch as the procedure to be adopted would be to place the papers of the respondent-employee for promotion in a sealed cover. - 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024
3. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Niveditha C. Shivanaikar for learned advocate Smt. Vijetha R. Naik for the respondent-employee stated that the direction was only to consider the representation of the respondent and it does not require any interference by this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. 4. On going through the order of learned Single Judge, it could be seen that learned Single Judge observed that the pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be the reason for denial of promotion. In the present case, it appears that the departmental proceedings have already culminated in favour of the employee. 5. Apart from the above, as could be seen from the language of the operative directions, the direction was only "to consider" the representation of the petitioner for the purpose of considering his case for promotion. It was further required that the petitioner shall be communicated with the decision on promotion. 6. Since the matter is left to the appellant-Board to consider the case of the respondent-employee for promotion, no case is made out for any interference in the said direction. It goes without saying
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7174-DB WA No. 1373 of 2024
that the appellant-Board shall consider the representation of the respondent in accordance with law. 7. The appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30