- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13859 WP No. 85721 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 85721 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. BABURAO S/O. RAMAPPA KAMATAGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER, PATTANA PANCHAYATHI, KUDCHI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DIRECTOR , DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SIR M VESHWESHWARAIAH TOWER BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, BAGALKOT. 4. SRI. B. A. SOUDAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, REVENUE OFFICER, BASAVAN BAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR. 5. SRI. C. S. BILAGI, AGE: MAJOR, OFFICE MANAGER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BAGALKOT, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13859 WP No. 85721 of 2013 DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. SRI. J. S. ETI, AGE: MAJOR, OFFICE MANAGER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SANKESHWAR, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; R4 TO R6 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS NO 1 TO 3 CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF OFFICE MANAGER FROM 16.03.2013 AT ANNEXURE-Q THE DATE OF JUNIORS RESPONDENT NO 5 TO 6 WERE PROMOTED WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER OF CHANGE OF CADRE OF PETITIONER FROM THE POST OF FDA TO FDRI WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 11-10-2014 THE DATE OF PERMITTING THE CHANGE OF CADRE OF THE SAID POST TO THE RESPONDENT NO4 AND THEREAFTER TO THE POST OF REVENUE OFFICER W E F 15/12/2007 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL AND SERVICE BENEFIT FLOWING THERE FROM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PERLIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13859 WP No. 85721 of 2013 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer. “1. Issue a direction to the Respondents no 1 to 3 consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Office Manager from 16.03.2013 at Annexure-Q the date of Juniors Respondent no 5 to 6 were promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. Issue a direction to the respondent to reconsider the matter of change of cadre of petitioner from the post of FDA to FDRI with retrospective effect from 11-10-2014 the date of permitting the change of cadre of the said post to the respondent no4 and thereafter to the post of Revenue Officer w e f 15/12/2007 with all consequential and service benefit flowing there from in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Issue any other incidental and consequential relief’s as deemed fit under the facts circumstances of the case and in aid of the main relief sought for.” 2. The facts brief in germane are as follows. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13859 WP No. 85721 of 2013 3. The petitioner is appointed as a Second Division Assistant on 29.01.1992 and the respondent No.4 is said to have been appointed as Second Division Assistant on 29.11.1992. The respondent No.4 is promoted as First Division Assistant on 04.03.1998 and the petitioner is promoted on 24.11.2005 with retrospective effect from 04.03.1998, the date on which the respondent No.4 was promoted. When things stood thus, the respondent No.4 sought change of cadre as Revenue Officer and the same was considered and the cadre of respondent No.4 was changed from First Division Assistant to Revenue Officer. 4. The petitioner submits a representation on 13.08.2007 requesting change of cadre as was done in the case of the respondent No.4, which comes to be rejected. The issue is not with regard to the change of cadre, but grant of retrospective promotion to the petitioner from the dates on which the respondent No.4 to respondent No.6 were granted. The petitioner submits a representation to that effect, and the representation having gone unheeded is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13859 WP No. 85721 of 2013 at the doors of this Court way back in the year 2013. Even then the representation of the petitioner is said to be left unconsidered. 5. Learned HCGP would submit that as per the instructions, there is no representation even submitted by the petitioner. 6. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation, if he so desires to the respondent – State within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, and if such a representation is submitted, the State shall consider the representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within twelve weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75