- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 22901 OF 2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANIL KUMAR T K, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, THE THEN PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS(DPAR), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DR SUBHASH CHANDRA KUNTIA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, THE THEN CHIEF SECRETARY (RETD), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 3. SMT P HEMALATHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, THE THEN SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 4. SRI P RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 THE THEN CHIEF SECRETARY (RETD), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 5. SMT VANDITA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 6. SRI M S SRIKAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG & SRI. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA) AND: 1. MAJOR RETD. SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH, KAS, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SHIVAYYA HIREMATH, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103, NOW WORKING AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., NKUSIP, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.121-A, ‘B’ BLOCK, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 1ST FLOOR, IT PARK, HUBLI-580029. 2. SRI BHANU PRATAP SHARMA, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. SRI T JACOB, SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110069. 4. SRI AJAY MITTAL, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 5. SRI DEEPAK KHANDEKAR, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 6. SMT VASUDHA MISHRA, SECRETARY, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAJHAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110069. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH, C/R1 PARTY-IN-PERSON, SRI. B.PRAMOD, CGC FOR R2, SRI. N AMARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE MAJORITY VERDICT OF THE CAT IN CONTEMPT PETITION No-57/2017 BY JUDMENTS DATED 28.02.2023 AND 25.07.2023 IN ANNEXURES-A AND C RESPECTIVELY, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are the functionaries of the Government of Karnataka challenging the orders dated 28.02.2023 and 25.07.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Contempt Petition No.170/00057/2017. Vide the said orders, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 Tribunal through majority view held, the contempt proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 cannot be closed. 2. Suffice to state, respondent No.1 who was a Short Service Commissioned Officer (SSCO) of the Indian Army from 30.10.2000 to 30.04.2008, which includes period of ten months wherein he had undertaken training, had filed an original application before the Tribunal by contending that his entire past service as an SSCO of eight years in addition to his four years of service in Karnataka Administrative Service has to be counted for the purpose of meeting the eligibility criteria of 8 years as provided under the proviso 3 and 4 to sub-regulation 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 for being in the zone of consideration for appointment by promotion to the Indian Administrative Service against the 2015 vacancies. 3. OA No.170/00230/2016 was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.02.2017, wherein the Tribunal has, in paragraphs No.15 and 16, stated as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 “15. We hold that the applicant is entitled to the benefit offered by the fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2). The respondents are directed to consider the applicant's representations and decide any pending issues including the question. of the applicant's position in the seniority list of KAS officers and his claim to be considered for appointment to the IAS within three months of receiving a copy of our order. We make it clear that these issues will be decided in accordance with the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and other relevant rules, and based on the merits of the case. 16. The OA is allowed to the extent indicated above. There is no order as to costs.” 4. It is a conceded position that against the judgment dated 01.02.2017, the Union of India had filed a writ petition being WP No.11337/2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2017. Even the special leave petition being SLP(C) No.15887/2017 against the said order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.07.2017. It was in the above background that a contempt petition being CP No.170/00057/2017 was filed by the respondent No.1, which was decided on 21.03.2018, whereby the Tribunal has held that, the order dated 01.02.2017 has been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 complied with. The said order dated 21.03.2018 became the subject matter of a writ petition before this Court being WP No.103232/2018 filed by the respondent No.1. The same was decided on 08.01.2020, whereby this Court had disposed of the writ petition by stating in paragraphs No.10 and 11 as under: “10. In view of the aforesaid observations, we are of the opinion that, contempt proceedings have to be restored to the file of the CAT and the CAT has to examine the order passed by the respondents as to whether it is in strict compliance of its order after providing an opportunity to both the parties to produce any further documents in respect of the above said matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order passed by the CAT in contempt proceedings No.170/00057/2017 dated 21.03.2018 is hereby set aside. 11. While disposing of the contempt proceedings on merits, the CAT has to strictly adhere to the material on record and it should not persuade itself by any observations made by this Court in this order. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed off.” (Emphasis supplied) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 From the aforesaid, it is noted that this Court has restored the contempt petition being CP No.170/00057/2017 on the file of the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to examine as to whether the order passed by the petitioners is in strict compliance of its order by providing opportunity to both the parties to produce any further documents in respect of the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Paragraphs No.7, 7a and 8 of the order dated 08.01.2020 are reproduced as under for ready reference: “7. Revisiting paragraph 15, it clearly discloses that the issue with reference to the applicant's position in the seniority list of KAS Officer and his claim to be considered for appointment to the IAS is the direction strictly ought to have been complied by the respondents. It appears that, the same has not been done in the particular case. Therefore, this Court has directed them to produce the consideration of the petitioner's name for the said post considering the pending issue of the applicant including the question of applicant's seniority and thereafter appropriate order ought to have been passed. Whether consideration of the seniority has been done by the respondents, if so, how is the moot question that ought to have been taken into consideration by the CAT while dealing with the contempt proceedings. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 7a. It is not that compliance of the directions issued by the Courts are mechanically done like a post office without really understanding what exactly the direction to issue and what is the responsibility of the respondents by virtue of the directions issued. According to the direction, they have to give reasons and findings as to the decision taken by the respondents as the seniority of the petitioner was called in question and such directions have been issued. The act of the respondents should flow from legal understanding of the orders and logical conclusion with specific findings. The same is conspicuously absent in this case. Of course that can also be shown by producing the surrounding circumstances and documents which is also not been done for the present. 8. Now we come back to the orders passed which is impugned in the contempt proceedings. The contempt Court has reiterated at para 8 what are the directions issued and also the document produced by the respondents. At paragraph 9, it has simply stated that there has been no case of any willful violation of the order passed by the Tribunal. Whether there was any willful violation or not is the second question that ought to have been considered by the CAT. First it has to consider whether there was strict compliance of the order passed by the CAT in the letter and spirit of the directions issued. In our opinion, without production of the document as sought for by this Court either before this Court or before the CAT, the contempt Court could - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 not have been concluded that there was a strict compliance of the directions issued by the CAT. Therefore, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that dropping of the contempt proceedings without considering whether there was strict compliance of the directions issued by the CAT is erroneous.” 5. It may be stated here, the third member to whom the matter was referred to, while concluding, in paragraphs No.36 to 38 of the order dated 25.07.2023, has stated as under: “36. Evidently when the Tribunal indicated that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) and that it was well conceived measure of Government of India to encourage officers who had served Country and to effectively harness the services freshly released from armed forces, the Tribunal was conscious about the twin usages of "deemed date of the appointment into the service" and the "actual date of continuous service" both employed in the fourth proviso. Evidently, for the purpose of fixing the 8 years of continuous service as provided under the preceding proviso, the authority was bound to fix the deemed date of his appointment to that service and fix the continuous service accordingly. This has not been done. By an interpretative technique, which does not either stand to reason nor does get it - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 statutory support, the benefit bestowed on the applicant not be set at naught. To that extent the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) that the order of this Tribunal has not been implemented in its full spirit has to be accepted. 37. A recapitulation of the above legal proposition in the light of the facts mentioned above clearly indicates that it is evident that for the purpose of recommending a person and including in the person in the proposal for being considered to the IAS both the question of eligibility and seniority arises. Though I agree to that extent with the reasoning of the Member (A), the ultimate conclusion that the order of this Tribunal has been complied with cannot be accepted. To that extent, I am in concurrence with the conclusion arrived at by the Member (Judicial) that the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with and the matter needs to be proceeded to ascertain whether there is willful contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents. 38. Accordingly, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Member (Judicial) that the contempt petition cannot be closed. The matter shall now be placed before the Division Bench for consideration of further course of action and steps to be taken. Accordingly, place the matter before the Hon'ble Division Bench at the earliest, for ordering further steps.” - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 So the Tribunal, vide its majority opinion, was of the view that, the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with and the matter needs to be proceeded to ascertain whether there was a wilful contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioners in not complying with the order. By saying so, the third Member had placed the matter before the Division Bench for further course of action. Submissions: 6. Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned AAG for the petitioners would heavily rely upon the orders passed by the petitioners which was communicated to respondent No.1 to contend that, the case of the respondent No.1 for promotion was sent for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in terms of endorsement dated 16.12.2022 issued by petitioner No.1 and as such, there is no contempt committed which can be the subject matter before the Tribunal. He has made various submissions in support of his contentions. He states that, surely when contempt cannot be said to have been committed, the petitioners are within their right to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 approach this Court challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has decided to proceed with the contempt petition which according to him, is uncalled for. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised the issue of maintainability of this petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad -Vs.- Govt. of A.P. and Ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 516] to contend that since there is no order of punishment in the contempt petition, a petition against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. He has also drawn our attention to the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation of which a reference has been made above. Analysis: 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is a conceded position that, the impugned orders which are under challenge are primarily interlocutory order(s), whereby the Tribunal by a majority view, has decided to continue with the contempt petition filed by respondent No.1 as there is no implementation of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 the order passed by the Tribunal on 01.02.2017. Respondent No.1 is also right in contending that this Court would not exercise its discretion against an interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal in view of the judgment in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad (supra). The relevant paragraph No.17 of the judgment of reads as under: “17. … … … While holding the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and so would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings and upset the interim or interlocutory orders of the Tribunals. … … … … …” 9. That apart, we are of the view that the Tribunal is also justified in continuing with the contempt petition, moreso when this Court in the earlier round of litigation, of which a reference has been made above, more particularly in paragraph No.8, wherein this Court has stated, it required to be considered whether there was strict compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal in letter and spirit of the directions issued and also that, there is a wilful violation or - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17897-DB WP No. 22901 of 2023 not. The majority view is that, the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with and the matter needs to be proceeded to ascertain whether there is wilful contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioners. The said petition was entertained and disposed of in the manner we have stated above. Concedingly, the order passed by this Court has attained finality. Since the order challenged is an interlocutory order, in view of the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and even the merits of the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is justified, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. This petition being without merit, is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3