- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37994-DB WP No. 6387 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 6387 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. M.P. RAJANNA, S/O. LATE D.M. PARAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT HOUSE No.388 ANR CHOULTRY ROAD, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, BANAHALLI, CHANDAPUR (POST), BENGALURU - 560 081. OCCUPATION: RETD. HEAD ACCOUNTANT (GROUP-C), DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (TREASURY), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. KANTHARAJA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.K. RAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37994-DB WP No. 6387 of 2022 DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR'S VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF TREASURIES SIXTH FLOOR, KPCL, GREEN BUILDING NO.3, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES DISTRICT TREASURY, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.5521/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37994-DB WP No. 6387 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri H. Kantharaja, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri H.K. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The applicant in Application No.5521/2021, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner is a person with a 75% permanent locomotor disability affecting his lower limbs. He was appointed as a Second Division Assistant (SDA) on 04.02.1986 through direct recruitment under the Physically Handicapped (PH) category in the Department of Treasuries. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as First Division Assistant (FDA) on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37994-DB WP No. 6387 of 2022 26.11.2005, as Head Accountant on 24.08.2012, and retired from service on 29.06.2019 while holding the said post. The petitioner claims the benefit of reservation in promotion for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities under the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Central Act No. 49 of 2016) [for short, 'the 2016 Act'], and in terms of various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner had filed Application No. 5521/2021 before the Tribunal, which came to be rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Sri H. Kantharaja, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri H.K. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is entitled to promotion under the quota reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. National Federation of the Blind and another, (2013) 10 SCC 772, and also in terms of the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, 'the 2016 Act'), which mandates reservation for such persons. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37994-DB WP No. 6387 of 2022 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Tribunal, without taking into consideration the fact that the representations submitted by the petitioner prior to his retirement were not considered, has erred in rejecting the application. It is further submitted that the petitioner made a subsequent representation dated 06.11.2021 seeking consideration of his claim. Learned Senior Counsel has also filed a memo dated 22.09.2025 enclosing the Government Order dated 17.05.2025 relating to reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, and submits that the petitioner’s representation requires consideration in the light of the said Government Order. 5. Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the order of the Tribunal declining to interfere is fully justified. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the petitioner, without affording sufficient time to the authorities to consider his representation, has unnecessarily rushed to the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37994-DB WP No. 6387 of 2022 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The only issue that arises for consideration is, "Whether the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his representation dated 06.11.2021? 8. The petitioner was appointed under the Physically Handicapped (PH) category and possesses 75% permanent locomotor disability. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Federation of the Blind (supra) and the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, 'the 2016 Act'), persons with disabilities are entitled to the benefit of reservation. In his representation, the petitioner has sought the benefit of such reservation as recognized under the aforesaid judgment and the 2016 Act. The prayer made before the Tribunal was to direct the respondents to extend notional promotion to the petitioner under the provisions of the 2016 Act. Though the Tribunal may not be in a position to issue a positive direction in the facts of the present case, it ought to have directed the competent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37994-DB WP No. 6387 of 2022 authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. 9. Considering the factual aspects of the matter, we find that there is no impediment to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.11.2021. Such a direction is also warranted in the light of the Government Order dated 17.05.2025. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the following : Order (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order in Application No.5521/2021 dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The respondent authorities are directed to consider the representation dated 06.11.2021, in accordance with law. (iv) Time for compliance is three months from the date of production of copy of this order or uploading of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37994-DB WP No. 6387 of 2022 this judgment in the official website of this Court, whichever is earlier. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34