- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 15057 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI RAJARAM M SHETTY S/O M RAMANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.20177 WORKING AS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, BHARTIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU-570003 R/AT PRESENTLY E-15, BRBNMPL TOWNSHIP, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR MYSURU-570003 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GURURAJ. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE, NEAR JALBHAVAN, NO.3 AND 4, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, B T M LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 2. THE SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, NEAR JALBHAVAN, NO.3 AND 4 , 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, B T M LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029 3. THE SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU-570003 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LTD., NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, RBNML PO SALBONI-721132 WEST MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL 5. K DINAKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.20253 BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, NEAR JAL BHAVAN NO.3 AND 4 , 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, B T M LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029 6. DILIPSING AMARSING PATIL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.60271 BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LTD., NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, RBNML PO SALBONI-721132 WEST MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 7. M V RAJANI KANTH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.60006 BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU-570003 8. BABBURI VENKATA SYAM PRASAD AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.60003 BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, RBNML PO SALBONI -721132 WEST MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL. 9. ASHOK KUMAR DAS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.20223 BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU-570003 10. A JOGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.20334 BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU-570003 11. S PRABU KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.60380 BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN P NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSURU-570003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.V.S. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 R5-R8 & R10 & R11 ARE SERVED SERVICE OF NOTICE H/S I.R.O R9 V O D 20.10.2022) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PUBLICATION OF SELECT LIST DTD 18.05.2022 CALL FOR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE VIGILANCE CASE CONTEMPLATED AGAINST MR. THAKUR DESAI, SR. GENERAL MANAGER R2 AND QUASH THE SELECTION LIST DTD 18.05.2022 BY WHICH THE R2 HAVE DECLARED A LIST OF OFFICERS / R5 TO 11 WHO HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AS PER ANNEXURE-P AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R1 TO 3 TO GRANT PROMOTION TO THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM SEPTEMBER, 2008 TO THE POST OF AGM BY PROTECTING HIS SENIORITY SINCE THEN AND ALSO GRANTING CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AT ALL STAGES PROTECTING HIS SENIORITY OVER HIS JUNIORS WHO HAVE SUPERSEDED THE PETITIONER ON BEING DEPRIVED OF PROMOTION SINCE 2008 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for following reliefs: "i. Call for records leading to the publication of Select list dated 18.05.2022 ii. Call for records in connection with the Vigilance case contemplated against Mr. Thakur Desai, Sr. General Manager/Respondent No.2. iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Selection List dated 18.05.2022 by which the Respondent No. 2 have declared a list of officers/ Respondents No. 5 to 11 who have been selected for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager as per ANNEXURE -P. iv. Issue an appropriate order or direction to the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from September, 2008 to the Post of AGM by protecting his seniority since then and also granting consequential benefits at all stages protecting his seniority over his juniors who have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 superseded the petitioner on being deprived of promotion since 2008. v. Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the case of the Petitioner for upgradation of the entries in the Annual Appraisal Reports. vi. Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to prepare a fresh list of candidates including the name of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. vii. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. Respondents No.1 to 4 offered the petitioner the post of Deputy Manager on 15.03.1996. The petitioner accepted the offer of the respondents on 15.04.1996 and the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 Manager in the service of respondents No.1 to 4 with effect from 28.03.1996. After having served as Deputy Manager for a period of 5 years 7 months, petitioner was promoted as a Manager and transferred to Salboni Unit in West Bengal. The name of the petitioner was considered in the zone of consideration in 2008 for regular promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager ('AGM' for short). The petitioner appeared for the interview held on 05.09.2008 before the Selection Committee, but the name of the petitioner was excluded from the list of selected candidates. The petitioner submitted a representation to the management to re-consider his case for promotion to higher grade in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India1. The petitioner, on fulfilling all the requisite criteria for personal promotion duly assessed by the Committee constituted, was granted the benefits of the personal promotion to the post of AGM grade with effect from 1 (2008) 8 SCC 725 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 05.11.2008. The respondent-Company denied the regular promotion to the post of AGM to the petitioner during 2008, 2011 and 2014 on the ground that his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) ratings of the preceding three years considered for the promotion to the higher grade were lesser than his juniors promoted to the higher post. After rendering 15 years of long unblemished service in Manager's post/AGM-PP, the petitioner was promoted to the post of AGM on regular basis on 09.06.2016. The petitioner was informed by the respondent-Company that his name has been included in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of DGM and advised the petitioner to keep himself in readiness to attend the interview. The petitioner was advised to appear for the interview to the post of DGM at Mysore on 13.05.2022. Respondents No.1 to 4 informed the petitioner about the change in the interview schedule and asked him to appear before the Selection Committee on 17.05.2022 instead of 13.05.2022. After the interview - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 process, respondents No.1 to 4 published the list of selected candidates for promotion to the post of DGM, wherein the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for the post of DGM. In pursuit of exploring the actual facts on the repeated injustices in promotion to higher post, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act' for short) from respondents No.1 to 4 relating to the certified copies of annual performance appraisal reports. Respondents No.1 to 4 furnished the details sought under RTI Act to the petitioner. It appears from the information furnished by the respondents-Company that, there is some manipulation done in the APARs/documents during the respective promotion to the higher post by respondents No.1 to 4. Hence, the petitioner, aggrieved by the selection list dated 18.05.2022 vide Annexure-P, filed this writ petition. 3. Respondents No.1 to 4 filed a statement of objections contending that, the petition filed by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 petitioner is not maintainable and it is contended that, as per Rule 23 of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Ltd. Service Rules ('Service Rules' for short), career growth is inter alia, a matter to be decided by respondent No.1 at its sole discretion and will be made on merits, which will be assessed based on several factors. It is contended that, the petitioner cannot seek a relief of promotion as a matter of right. The petitioner sought a retrospective promotion to the post of AGM with effect from 2008, for which he is not entitled to. The petitioner, having participated in the promotion process in the years 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2016 for the post of AGM, is estopped from challenging the procedure followed by respondent No.1 in that regard, and the petitioner, having not challenged his non-selection to the post of AGM in the years 2008, 2011 and 2014, is estopped from claiming promotion with retrospective effect. 3.1. In 2003, respondents No.1 to 4 formulated a Career Growth Policy in the Administration Circular No.3 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 dated 16.10.2003, on the basis Rule 23 of the Service Rules. In terms of the said Rule, career growth was inter alia a matter to be decided by respondent No.1 at its sole discretion and will be made on merits, which will be assessed taking into consideration relevant factors such as qualification, length and quality of service, experience and suitability to be adjudged on the basis of performance appraisals, training reports, written tests, etc. It is contended that, respondent No.1 has stipulated a benchmark of 75 marks out of 100 marks to be secured by the candidates. This benchmark includes the Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs) of the eligible candidates along with the marks obtained by them in the interview rounds. This is the duly prescribed criteria that is to be met by the candidates to be eligible for promotion to the higher post. It is also contended that, the Officers in the category of SC/ST, whose seniority falls within the number of vacancies estimated and who secures the overall marks in accordance with the benchmarks set by respondent No.1, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 will be given priority as per the guidelines and are automatically to be considered and selected for promotion. It is further contended that, with respect to the Officers, who do not fall under the category of SC/ST, must secure the benchmark and then the total marks should be sufficient enough for inclusion in the panel of selected candidates, as per the remaining vacancies for the promotion in the said cadre. It is contended that, the petitioner secured 51.8 out of 60 marks in his PAR and 25.33 out of 40 marks in his interview, totaling the same to 77.13 marks out of 100, occupying 14th position as per the merits list. Hence, for the said reason, the petitioner was not promoted to the said post. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in the writ petition. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri. Vighneshwar S.Shastri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R.V.S.Naik, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 5. Sri. Vighneshwar Shastri, learned Senior Counsel submits that, excluding the name of the petitioner in the selection list for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (DGM) published on 18.05.2022 is arbitrary, biased and unlawful. The petitioner is qualified in all respects as per the career growth plan framed by respondents No.1 to 4. The selection list dated 18.05.2022 is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that, respondents No.1 to 4, without communicating the gradation and entry in the APARs to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, has selected a candidate for the post of DGM on 18.05.2022. The whole selection process lacks transparency and suffers from arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that, APARs considered for regular promotional assessment to the post of Assistant General Manager (AGM) during September 2008, April 2011, April 2014 and June 2016 and to the post of DGM during May 2022 were - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 not communicated to the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, Sri. R.V.S.Naik, learned Senior Counsel submits that, the petitioner was not eligible for promotion. He submits that, the petitioner was promoted on 09.06.2016 vide Annexure-G, but the petitioner has not raised any objection when he was promoted on 09.06.2016 as per Annexure-G, and further he has also not challenged the seniority list as per Annexure-H. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2023 and further, the petitioner has not raised any objection while selecting the candidates vide selection list dated 18.05.2022. The said selection list was published on 18.05.2022 and the petitioner filed this writ petition on 26.07.2022. He also submits that, the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right and to buttress his argument, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 Others Vs. Dharamdeo Das2. He also submits that, the petitioner has not challenged Annexure-F dated 30.09.2009, wherein the petitioner was promoted as AGM grade with effect from 05.11.2008. The said promotion has attained finality. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the parties. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy manager with respondents with effect from 28.03.1996. He having worked as a Deputy Manager for more than 5 years with respondents, the petitioner was promoted as Manager on 05.11.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted with the benefits of personal promotion to Assistant General Manager grade with effect from 05.11.2008. However, the respondents denied the promotion to the grade of AGM during 2008, 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 2011 and 2014 on the ground that his APAR ratings were less than his juniors promoted to higher post, considering the APAR ratings for preceding 3 years for promotion to higher grade. The petitioner submitted representations to the respondent Company to reconsider his case for promotion with consequential benefits. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as AGM with effect from 01.07.2016 as per Annexure-G. On 14.07.2021 vide Annexure-J the petitioner was informed that his name is considered for the promotion to the grade of DGM vide Annexure-K, and the petitioner was asked to keep himself ready to attend the interview. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to appear for the interview before the selection committee on 17.05.2022 vide Annexure-N. Subsequent there to, vide Annexure-P dated 18.05.2022, selection list was released wherein the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner later on filed RTI application vide Annexure-Q asking the respondents to furnish certified copies of APARs, in furtherance of which, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 the respondents replied vide Annexure-R enclosing certified copies of APARs. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted with the benefits of Personal Promotion to AGM grade vide Annexure-F dated 30.09.2009. However, the petitioner neither challenged the said order nor raised any objections. 11. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner was not given promotion during 2008, 2011 and 2014. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted and posted as AGM at Salboni Office vide Annexure-G dated 09.06.2016. This shows that the petitioner kept quiet during 2008 to 2014 and he neither challenged nor raised any objections to the order dated 09.06.2016. The petitioner has given up his right by not raising objections or challenging the order. Admittedly, pursuant to the order of promotion dated 09.06.2016, the seniority list of Assistant General Manager was released as per Annexure-H. The perusal of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 the same discloses that the petitioner was promoted as AGM with effect from 09.06.2016. However, the petitioner has not challenged the said seniority list vide Annexure-H. 12. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned selection list vide Annexure-P for the grade of Deputy General Manager, dated 18.05.2022. 13. However, the petitioner has not raised any objections to the said impugned list, but has filed the present writ petition on 25.07.2022 i.e., after 2 months from the date of release of seniority list vide Annexure-P. 14. From the perusal of entire material on record, it is evident that the petitioner having not challenged the order of grant of benefits vide Annexure-F, having raised no objections to the promotion order dated 09.06.2016 or to the seniority list vide Annexure-H, and having kept silent during 2008-2014, now he is before this court challenging the selection list for the grade of DGM vide - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 Annexure-P dated 18.05.2022 and claiming promotion from 2008 to the grade of AGM. 15. It is settled law that an employee cannot claim the promotion as a matter of right, however he has a right to be considered for the promotion. The Hon'ble Apex court in numerous cases has made it very clear that an employee cannot claim promotion as a matter of right and that mere eligibility does not confer any right to promotion. 16. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Dharamdeodas (Supra), held in para 18 as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself…” - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 17. Also, in the case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Anr v High Court of Gujarat and ors3, the Honble Apex Court has held in paragraph No.81 as follows: “81. However, in India, no government servant can claim promotion as their right because the Constitution does not prescribe criteria for filling seats in promotional posts. The Legislature or the executive may decide the method for filling vacancies to promotional posts based on the nature of employment and the functions that the candidate will be expected to discharge. The courts cannot sit in review to decide whether the policy adopted for promotion is suited to select the ‘best candidates’, unless on the limited ground where it violates the principle of equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution.” Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No.98 held as follows: 3 (2024) 11 SCC 424 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 "98. ....The principle of 'Merit-cum- seniority' postulates that:- i. Merit plays a predominant role in and seniority alone cannot be given primacy. ii. Comparative Assessment of Merit is a crucial, though not a mandatory, factor. iii. Only where merit is equal in all respects can inter-se-seniority be considered. Meaning that a junior candidate can be promoted over the senior if the junior is more meritorious." 18. It is undisputed that the petitioner came within the zone of consideration and was eligible to attend the interview as per Annexure R5. However, after the interview, the petitioner was not selected for promotion in the said cadre. A perusal of the records discloses that the selection process of the promotion to the post of DGM is based on merit-cum-seniority principle. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of I. Chuba Jamir and others vs The State of Nagaland and others4 held that mere eligibility doesn't confer the right to promotion. 20. In view of the exposition of law laid down by the Honble Apex court in the cases referred above, the petitioner cannot claim promotion as of right from 2008, having kept silent for more than 10 years. 21. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Dev Dutt (Supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex court held in paragraph No.39 as follows: “39. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, 4 (2009) 15 SCC 169 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.” 22. The case relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand since in the case on hand, the petitioner has already filed an RTI Application and has secured certified copies of APARs. Also, in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner seeking a direction to furnish APARs and the petitioner has not sought a prayer directing the respondent to furnish APARs. I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40321 WP No. 15057 of 2022 23. In view of the above discussion, the writ fails. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is dismissed; ii. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21