- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100334 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI SUBHASCHANDRA S/O VENKATESH RAGHUNATHI AGED ABOUT: 57 YEARS R/O AT: POST CHANNAPUR (SLT), TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI 591123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE & SRI. VINAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI 590001. 2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NWKRTC, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI 590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED. 22.07.2023 NO. VA.KA.RA.SA/BE.VI/CI/C1- 1/1496, ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND ETC: THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the endorsement dated 22.07.2023 No. VA.KA.RA.SA/BE.VI/CI/C1-1/1496, issued by R1, vide Annexure-G and; b. Consequent upon quashing aforesaid endorsement, issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to assign proper seniority and promote the Petitioner to next higher cadre from the date on which his juniors have been promoted with all consequential benefits, by fixing outer limit, and c. Issue further direction to alter the date of putting the Petitioner o probation from 15.02.1994 with all benefits thereof and also direct the respondents to pay the wages from the date of award dated 3.11.2010 till his actual reinstatement i.e. on 12.03.2013, by fixing outer limit, and d. Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including cost of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the Respondent – Corporation on 15.5.1992 and dismissed from service after holding inquiry on certain misconduct. The same gave raise to the industrial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 dispute under proceedings in KID No.30/2009 wherein the Labour Court vide order dated 3.11.2010 had granted the relief of reinstatement with other benefits without backwages. An appeal having been filed in W.P.No.65251/2011, this Court directed the reinstatement of the Petitioner into service within three months from date of receipt of the copy of the order permitting the management to negotiate for imposition of punishment before the permanent Lok- adalath. The reinstatement into service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits but without backwages. An appeal having been filed in W.A.No.100384/2014 which came to be disposed on 29.4.2014 clarifying that the award of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service for the purpose of payment of retiral benefits and the appellant would not be entitled for consequential benefits in monetary terms enuring to his benefits shall be notionally - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 considered for fixing the wages as on the date of reinstatement. 3. The Petitioner was so reinstated in the Chikkodi division which had by then in split from the Belagavi division. The Petitioner reported to work on 29.3.2013. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a request for transfer from Chikkodi division to Belagavi division on 23.6.2013, which came to be accepted on 24.6.2013. Thereafter, the Petitioner has been serving in the Belagavi division. The Petitioner is now before this Court contending that the Petitioner has been denied seniority in Belagavi division after being transferred from Chikodi to Belagavi. 4. The submission of Sri.Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there is infact no transfer of the Petitioner for administrative reasons or otherwise from Belagavi division to Chikkodi division. The reinstatement in furtherance of order passed by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 Labour Court and the Coordinate Bench as also Division Bench was made directly by the respondent in Chikkodi division. Hence, there being no transfer, there is no request for retransfer by the Petitioner and as such, the denial of the seniority to the Petitioner on his transfer to Belagavi division is not sustainable. 5. Sri.Prashant Hosamani, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 - Road Transport Corporation would however contend that the Petitioner was very well aware that the transfer from Chikkodi to Belagavi would result in the Petitioner losing his seniority in Belagavi since the transfer being made at his request and not for administrative reasons and the same would attract the conditions in Circular No.775 dated 9.2.1990 issued by the Corporation which is to the knowledge of the Petitioner. Once the Petitioner was transferred from Chikkodi to Belagavi, the seniority of the Petitioner from the date of transfer would be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 considered at Belagavi division and the earlier seniority could not be considered. His submission is that there being a request transfer, the Petitioner knowing fully well of the implications thereof, cannot now contend otherwise. 6. His further submission is that once earlier the Petitioner being denied the seniority, the Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.117073/2019, which came to be disposed by this Court on 9.7.2021 permitting the Petitioner to submit a representation to consider his seniority. The Petitioner having earlier been denied the seniority in Belagavi division is not entitled for fresh consideration of such seniority now after such a belated period. 7. Heard Sri.Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri.Prashant Hosamani, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 and perused papers. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 8. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is whether the reinstatement of the Petitioner in Chikkodi division could be considered to be a transfer made by the Respondent Corporation and the subsequent transfer made from Chikkodi to Belagavi division could be one which could be said to be a transfer on request? 9. The facts are not in dispute. On earlier occasion, the Petitioner has been dismissed from service. Subsequently, in the industrial dispute, the Petitioner had been directed to be reinstated by way of the order dated 3.11.2010 of the Labour Court. The Writ Petition which had been filed in relation thereto came to be dismissed on 24.9.2012 thereafter the Petitioner was reinstated and commenced service from 29.3.2013. In the meanwhile, a Writ Appeal having been filed as regards certain clarification, the Writ Appeal came to be disposed on 29.4.2014. By - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 29.4.2014, the Petitioner had requested for a transfer to the Belagavi division which was acceded to by the Respondents on 24/26.6.2013. During all this time, the Petitioner did not have any grievance as regard the transfer which was made on a consent basis. It is only in the year 2017 that the Petitioner for the first time submitted a representation to grant him seniority which having been refused was challenged in WP No.117073/2019. During the course of argument when the learned counsel for the Respondent- Corporation had brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench that the seniority was fixed on the basis of the request transfer, the Petitioner’s counsel sought permission to submit one more representation treating this case as a transfer to another division. In pursuance thereof that this Court granted such liberty to the Petitioner and the representation dated 3.11.2017 submitted by the Petitioner along with any additional representation submitted by the Petitioner - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 was directed to be considered by the Respondent – Corporation. In pursuance thereto, endorsement came to be issued by the Respondent - Corporation on 9.12.2021 rejecting the earlier representation, which however has not been challenged by the Petitioner. 10. Now the Petitioner is before this Court challenging the present endorsement dated 22.7.2023, which has been submitted in pursuance of another endorsement submitted by the Petitioner on 14.3.2023. The above would indicate that subsequent to transfer made in the year 2013 the Petitioner has submitted three representations, one in the year 2017, another in the year 2021 and the third in the year 2023. Mere submission of such representations would not create any vested right in favour of the Petitioner. The fact remains that the Petitioner was reinstated in the Chikkodi division after the Belagavi division was split into Chikkodi and Belagavi and thereafter the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11641 WP No. 100334 of 2025 Petitioner had sought for transfer from Chikkodi to Belagavi, which was granted by the Respondent – Corporation. Thus, the transfer was a request transfer making applicable the Circular No.775 dated 9.2.1990. 11. The Petitioner cannot now contend that he is not aware of the said circular and/or the contents of the said Circular would not be binding on the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. ii) Respondents are however, directed to include the reference to the Circular dated 9.2.1990 in any request transfers made by the Respondents in future so that such a stand is not taken by such a dissatisfied employee. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44