- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 78137 OF 2013 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 78138 OF 2013 IN WP NO. 78137/2013 BETWEEN: SRI. GYANAPPA YALLAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT, KANNADA UNIVERSITY HAMPI VIDYARANYA, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, KANNADA UNIVERSITY HAMPI VIDYARANYA, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KANNADA UNIVERSITY HAMPI VIDYARANYA, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. ASHWATHNARAYAN, AND SRI B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATES FOR R1, SRI RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, AND SRI ASHWATH NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 13.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER NO. KVHUM:HV:KU.S:2006-07 LE.THAA W:02/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-D SO FOR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED & REMINDER DATED 10.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER K.V. HUM:KU.S: AUDIT/2012-13/27 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION FROM THIS HON’BLE COURT IS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WP NO. 78138/2013 BETWEEN: SRI. G. SHIVAKUMAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT, KANNADA UNIVERSITY HAMPI VIDYARANYA, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, KANNADA UNIVERSITY - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 HAMPI VIDYARANYA, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KANNADA UNIVERSITY HAMPI VIDYARANYA, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 13.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER NO. KVHUM:HV:KU.S:2006-07 LE.THAA W:02/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-D SO FOR AS PETITIONER CONERNED AND REMINDER DATED 10.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER NO.K.V.HUM:KU.S:AUDIT/2012- 13/25 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION FROM THIS HON’BLE COURT IS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question a communication dated 13.06.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 by which the recovery of certain amounts that has paid to the petitioners are sought to be initiated on reworking of the dates of promotion. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond appearing for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.M.Ashwathnarayan Reddy on behalf of Sri.B.Chidananda appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Rajashekar R. Gunjalli and Sri.Ashwanath Narayan appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioners are working in the cadre of Senior Assistant in Kannada University Hampi. It transpires that on 22.12.2003 a representation comes to be made by the petitioners before the syndicate of the University seeking - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 promotion from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Senior Assistant. 4. In furtherance of the said representation after analyzing the necessary rules, the syndicate resolves to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant. The resolution of the syndicate pass through all musters and finally the petitioner was promoted as a Senior Assistant. After about nine years of such promotion the University is said to have withdrawn the said promotion on the score that the petitioners had been granted such promotion contrary to law, without issuance of any notice. It transpires that thereafter the syndicate again resolves to promote the petitioners to the post of Senior Assistant. On the basis of the resolution the petitioners are again promoted to the post of Senior Assistant owing to their eligibility. The contention or the averment in the petition is once having been promoted, again withdrawing of the earlier promotion would not arise. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 5. When things stood thus, the respondent No.2 is said to have issued an endorsement directing the petitioner to deposit the excess amount that was paid to him on account of the erroneous promotion, failing which it would be recovered from his salary. Representation against the said endorsement did not yield any results and therefore the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition. 6. Learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioners were given appropriate promotion from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Senior Assistant in accordance with law. Therefore the very withdrawal of such promotion at the outset was erroneous and again the syndicate resolves to promote these petitioners to Senior Assistant and therefore the withdrawal of the promotion earlier was contrary to law. Not stopping at that the respondent No.2- the University now initiates proceedings to recover the salary that is paid to these petitioners between 2003 to 2012 on the score that the promotions - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 were in error. Learned counsel would seek that the orders impugned are arbitrary and illegal seeks quashment of the same. 7. Per Contra learned counsel Sri.M.Ashwathnarayan Reddy appearing for the respondent-University would though seek to defend the action of the endorsements that are issued against the petitioner would admit the fact that is syndicate of the University yet again in the year 2012 have resolve to promote the petitioners to the post of Senior Assistant and would further submit that the reason for the ordering recovery in terms of an endorsement dated 10.10.2012 was on account of audit objections of the University and therefore would seek to defend the action and consequentially seeks dismissal of the petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of events and the dates are all a matter of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 record. The petitioners were employed as Junior Assistant in the University. They appear to have represented to the University that they are entitled and eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistant. The representation of the requisition is placed before the syndicate. The syndicate then resolves to grant such promotion to these petitioners from Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant. This happens in the year 2003 and 2005. Therefore it is necessary to notice those orders of grant of promotion. They read as follows: “¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É: PÀ£ÀßqÀ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è jPÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀ »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ CºÀðgÁzÀ QjAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤Ãr £ÉëĸÀ®Ä PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ¸À«Äw ¤tð¬Ä¹zÉ. CzÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ DzÉñÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå.PÀ«ºÀA:PÀĸÀĪÀÄÄA§rÛ:2003-04/991 r¸ÉA§gï22,2003, F PɼÀPÀAqÀ QjAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÁV, ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. CZÀgÀÄ »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ªÀKvÀ£À ±ÉæÃt 5200-125-5700260-200- 8800-260-9580 AiÀÄ°è PÀ¤µÀÖ ªÀÄÆ®ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ CºÀð ¨sÀvÉåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 01, 02 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 07 gÀ°è£À ¥À.eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥À.¥ÀAUÀqÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ F ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ PÀ¤µÀÖ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉʹgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¸ÉêÁ¥ÀǪÀð CªÀ¢ü ¥ÀÇgÉʸÀĪÀ ªÉüÉUÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉA§ ±ÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ºÁUÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¢zÀÝ°è F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÁ¬ÄÝj¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 PÀæ.¸ÀA. ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¥ÀæªÀUÀð 01. ²æà f. ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï 22.09.2003 ¥À.eÁ 02. ²æà ©. FgÀ¥Àà 22.09.2003 ¥À.¥ÀA. 03. ²æÃ. JA.JA.²ªÀ¥ÀæPÁ±ï 22.09.2003 04. ²æà jZÀqÀð r¸ÉÆÃd 22.09.2003 05. ²æà eÉ. §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUËqÀ 22.09.2003 06. ²æà ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï 22.09.2003 07. ²æà UÁå£À¥Àà §rUÉÃgÀ 22.09.2003 ¥À.eÁ DzÉñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ, PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ, PÀ£ÀßqÀ «¸Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ, ºÀA¦, ªÉÄîÍAqÀ K¼ÀÄ d£ÀjUÉ «zÁågÀtå” 10. The petitioners then continue in the cadres of Senior Assistant for about seven to nine years. Then again represent that their past service should be taken note off under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973. Here begins the problem. The audit objections emerge and orders are passed withdrawing the said promotion on 13.06.2012. Immediately, thereafter the syndicate has again resolved to promote these petitioners on 20.06.2012 to the post of Senior Assistant. Therefore the audit objections so raised does not take note of the fact of the eligibility of the petitioners to be working as Senior Assistant. On this short ground the endorsement issued or the impugned orders - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2728 WP No. 78137 of 2013 C/W WP No. 78138 of 2013 passed on the basis of the audit objections will have no legs to stand. In that light, the petitions deserve to succeed and the endorsement being rendered unsustainable. 11. For the aforesaid reasons the following: ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned letter dated: 13.06.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 dated 13.06.2012 vide Annexure-D and reminder dated 10.10.2012 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F in Writ Petition No.78137/2013 and letter dated: 13.06.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 dated 13.06.2012 vide Annexure-D and reminder dated 10.10.2012 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-F in Writ Petition No.78138/2013 are quashed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3