- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.2220 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE DEAN THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION MODEL HOSPITAL & PGIMSR & RAJAJINAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LEGAL). 2. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MODEL HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU, THE UNION OF INDIA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 AND: SHRI RAVICHANRA MANAKANI S/O LATE TIPPANNA MANKANI, AGE 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.1098, NEKARA ONI, NEAR NERKI BHAVI, NIDAGUNDI – 586 213 VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT (UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY WAS NOT MADE AS PARTY, AS NO RELIEF HAS BEEN CLAIMED) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-F DATED 03/11/2023 PASSED IN M.A.NO.52/2021 IN O.A NO.97/2021 AND ORDER ANNEXURE-G DATED 06/11/2023 MADE IN O.A NO.97/2021 BY THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.Nadaf) The petitioner - Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short ‘ESIC’) has filed this petition under Article–226 of the Constitution Of India, calling in question the order dated 03.11.2023, in M.A. No.52/2021, vide Annexure-F and order dated 06.11.2023, in O.A.No.170/97/2021, vide Annexure-G passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short ‘Tribunal’) whereby, the miscellaneous application filed by the applicant-respondent condoning the delay of 3 years, 3 months and 16 days in filing O.A.No.97/2021 and the application No.97/2021, with a prayer for directing the petitioner to consider for issuing an offer of appointment to the applicant for any available vacant post at ESIC Medical Institutes and Hospitals in Karnataka, if otherwise eligible, as has been done in the case of Smt.Sajeeshma, came to be allowed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 2. Though the matter is listed for ‘preliminary Hearing B Group’ with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference. 4. A recruitment notification was issued by the petitioner No.2 dated 27.11.2012 for recruitment of 10 posts of Dental Technicians (Mechanics), whereunder, 5 posts were reserved for General Category, in the remaining 5 posts, 2 posts were reserved for ST and 3 posts were reserved for OBC Category. The applicant belongs to OBC Category applied for the post and appeared for the written examination held on 20.01.2013. 5. On the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination, the applicant was called for interview on 05.04.2013. On the evaluation of the marks secured in the written test as well as in the interview, a select list - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 was published by the second respondent on 12.04.2013, wherein the applicant was placed at Sl.No.2 in the cadre of Dental Technician (Mechanic). Subsequently, an offer of appointment was issued on 28.06.2013, for the post of Dental Technician (Mechanic) in ESIC Model Hospital and ESIC, Karnataka Region. The applicant reported to the duty in ESIC and PGIMSR, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. He was subjected to medical test and declared fit to report for duty. On the basis of the said fitness certificate, the applicant submitted his duty report. The applicant was waiting for his joining letter, however, inspite of his request to issue a posting order the same was not issued to him. Time and again the respondent approached petitioner nos.2 and 3 with a request to issue a joining letter. However, despite his request, the same fell on deaf ear. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 6. Aggrieved by the non-issuance of joining letter / posting order, the applicant filed Writ Petition Nos.694- 698/2015, before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to accept the duty report in pursuance to the order of appointment and issue posting order. The said writ petition was disposed of holding that there is an alternative remedy for redressal of the grievance of the applicants / petitioners therein and directed the respondents and other petitioners to approach the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to consider the application. In pursuance of the said liberty, the applicant filed the present application, contending that one Smt.Sajeeshma K.S., who is junior to the applicant, aggrieved by non-issuance of joining letter had approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.747/2017 which was allowed on 06.11.2018, with a direction to the respondents to immediately consider her posting against any of the vacancies of the Dental Technician (Mechanic) wherever available. The petitioners herein challenged the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 said order in W.P.No.1744/2019 before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Smt.Sajeeshma K.S., was issued an order of appointment on 10.12.2020. The applicant contended before the Tribunal that he is more meritorious than the said Smt.Sajeeshma K.S., as he is in Sl.No.2 in the merit list whereas the name of Smt.Sajeeshma K.S., who also belongs to OBC category is found in Sl.No.3. There was no justification for the petitioners to deny the same treatment to the private respondent herein. 7. The petitioners appeared and filed the statement of objections that the issue of dental technician was under challenge before the Delhi High Court. In that case, the Dental Council of India (‘DCI’ for short) informed the High Court Of Delhi that the course of Dental Mechanics is recognized by the Government of India whereas the course of Dental Technicians is not recognized by the Government of India. The High Court of Delhi considering the submission, held that since DCI has not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 recognized the Dental Technicians course the advertisement floated by ESIC is anomalous. As such, the letter dated 13.05.2014 was issued banning recruitment of Dental Technicians / Dental Mechanics in ESI Corporation. 8. That apart, the petitioners/respondents had taken a specific contention that there is a delay of more than 3 years in approaching the Tribunal and the applicant is not entitled for any relief at the hands of the Tribunal. 9. At an earlier point of time, the Tribunal by a common order dated 23.12.2021, allowed both Original Application No.97/2021 and Miscellaneous Application No.52/2021, for delay of this application, the petitioners carried the common order passed by the Tribunal dated 23.12.2021 in W.P.No.8549/2022 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 21.09.2023, allowed the writ petition holding, the Tribunal ought to have considered the objections contended at paragraph No.1 of the statement - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 of objections and recorded its findings, accordingly allowed the petition, remanded the matter. 10. Subsequent to remand, the Tribunal on appreciation and considering the materials on record and the grounds raised by the private respondent in miscellaneous application to condone the delay of 3 years, 3 months and 6 days, held that the cause of action for the private respondent to file the application would arise only when his junior Smt.Sajeeshma K.S. who stood next to the applicant in selection list was issued order of appointment and joining on 10.12.2020. The private respondent filed O.A. No.97/2021 immediately thereafter within one year. That apart, the relief granted to Smt.Sajeeshma K.S. cannot be denied to the applicant who was at Sl.No.2 and meritorious than the Smt.Sajeeshma K.S. merely on hyper technicalities and so also on the premise that in the event the application is not allowed, a meritorious candidate would lose opportunity to the post and will be put to greater hardship, allowed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 application for condonation of delay on 03.11.2023. Subsequent to allowing the application, for condonation of delay, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the order allowing the original application holding that a candidate similarly situated as that of the applicant has already been granted relief by the Tribunal, the applicant cannot be denied the same relief, on the principle of doctrine of similarity and similarly situated person. However, the Tribunal has made it clear that the applicant/respondent shall not be entitled to any retrospective benefit from 28.06.2013 as prayed by him. Further, clarifying that the applicant would be entitled to his due benefits with prospective effect only from the date of his actual appointing / joining of the post. It is these two orders passed on M.A. as well as on O.A. by the Tribunal are called in question in the present writ petition. 11. Heard Sri.Prakash Shetty.S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.M.Nagarajan learned counsel for caveator / respondent and perused the entire writ petition papers. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 12. Sri.Prakash Shetty reiterating the grounds urged before the Tribunal submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal require to be quashed on three grounds, firstly, the respondent/applicant was sitting on the fence, watching the result of the application filed by said Smt.Sajeeshma K.S. though he has filed writ petition before this Court at an earlier point of time and relegated to approach the Tribunal to make his claims. The respondent being aware of his rights ought not to have waited for the results of the application filed by said Smt.Sajeeshma. Secondly, there is an inordinate delay of 3 years, 3 months 16 days in approaching which has not been properly explained. 13. The Tribunal has failed to consider the aspect of delay which has been raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal as a ground in para no.1 of the statement of objections. Further, contended that the inordinate delay caused runs against the claim of the respondent, as such, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 he is not entitled even to claim under the ‘principle of similarly situated persons’. 14. Thirdly, placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.No.6899/2011 and C.M.Appeal No.15865/2011, that the Delhi High Court, on the basis of the submission made by the DCI that it recognizes only two para-dental course, namely Dental Hygienist and Dental Mechanic and the course of Dental Technicians is not recognized by the DCI, declined to direct DCI to include and recognize the particular course to grant equivalence with other course as it is a Statutory Regulatory Body. On this, he submits that, the Dental Technician is not a recognized course by the DCI as has been held by the Delhi High Court, the respondent is not entitled for the post. With this, he sought to allow the petition and dismiss the application in M.A. as well as O.A. filed by the respondent. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 15. Refuting the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.Nagarajan with all vehemence contends that the grounds urged by the petitioners have no legs to stand, for the reason that the cause of action to file the application arose to the respondent only when his junior was appointed, which is also a ground raised in the application filed seeking condonation of delay. As such, the petitioners having extended the benefit to Smt.Sajeeshma K.S. who is junior to the applicant / respondent, now cannot be permitted to contend that the same benefit could not be extended to the respondent, which is against to the ‘principles of like to be treated alike and similarly situated persons’. 16. He has also stated that the fact that the respondent was allowed to participate in the recruitment notification and subsequent issuance of select list, declaring the respondent as successful and issuance of appointment order way back in the year 2013, clearly - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 shows that the respondent is eligible for the post. As such, the contention urged by the petitioners does hold any water. 17. There is an inordinate delay of 7 years caused by the petitioners in considering the case of the respondent. The petitioners ought to have considered the case of the respondent who is also similarly placed as that of Smt.Sajeeshma K.S. without relegating the petitioners to approach the Court and get an order, which has already been granted by the Tribunal / this Court to a particular person and against the petitioners/corporations and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire writ petition papers, the only point that would arise for our consideration is as follows: “Whether the orders impugned herein, passed by the Tribunal requires any interference at the hands of this Court?” - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 19. Before dwelling on the contentions raised by either of the parties, it is very fruitful to refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of the LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, in Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the individual who are similarly situated to those who have already been granted relief by the court need not be required to initiate separate proceedings for the similar benefits. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.14, 18 and 19 has held as follows: “14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714] 15. xxx 16. xxx 17. xxx - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 18. The respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench in OA No.111 of 2013 and batch to the appellant. To illustrate, take the case of the valiant Indian soldiers bravely guarding the frontiers at Siachen or in other difficult terrain. Thoughts on conditions of service and job perquisites will be last in their mind. Will it be fair to tell them that they will not be given relief even if they are similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court? We think that would be a very unfair scenario. Accepting the stand of the respondents in this case would result in this Court putting its imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities. 19. The stand of the Department relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 130 to contend that mere reduction in chance of consideration did not result in deprivation of any right does not appeal to us. The appellant’s case is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. If the applicants in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 whom we find are identically situated to the appellant were found to be eligible to be given a - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the amendment to AI No. 37 of 1978 on 20.03.2013, we find no reason why the appellant should not be treated alike.” 20. This Court way back in the year 1986, in the case of NAGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, has held that it is not necessary that every person to approach the Court for a relief similar to the one already been granted by the Court in the earlier decisions. If a decision has been rendered by the Court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefits of that decision in like cases coming before them. That should be the guiding principles to be borne in mind in the administration. It is not proper to drive every person to seek relief in the Court. It is indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decision of the Court to all other similar cases. The reasons for the decisions are stated in paragraph nos. 1 to 3 which reads as follows: 1 ILR 1986KAR 3093 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 “1. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 2, 1986 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No. 2518 of 1986. The petitioners therein are some persons interested either in purchasing or disposing of their landed properties. They apprehend that the Circular issued by the second respondent, which has been filed as Annexure 'B' to the Writ Petition, requiring the registering authority to value the property at the rates mentioned therein would affect their interest, if any registration is to be made. The case of the appellants is that similar Circular has been held to be invalid by several decisions of this Court and in particular the decisions of this Court in M.G. Kulkarni -v.- State of Karnataka, and Nagaraja -v.- State of Karnataka, . 2. We have perused the said decisions and also the averments made in the Writ Petition. In our opinion, it is not necessary for every person to approach this Court for a relief similar to the one already granted by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. If a decision has been rendered by this Court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them. That should be the guiding principle to be borne in mind in the administration. It is not proper to drive every person to seek relief in this Court. It is indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 concluded decision of this Court to all other similar cases. 3. In our view, it is wholly unnecessary for the appellants to approach this Court by way of Writ Petitions. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, which binds all the registering authorities in the State in the similar circumstances, it is not necessary to entertain the Writ Petition of the appellants. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 21. Coming to the case on hand, the cause of action to file the application before the Tribunal, which was not even necessary in view of the judgment referred supra, was the date on which the junior to the respondent issued order of appointment on 10.12.2020. Immediately thereafter, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing O.A., application as well as miscellaneous application seeking to condone the delay, with an abundant caution to avoid any technicalities. The Tribunal having considered the grounds urged by the applicant and the objection - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 taken by the respondents in their statement of objections, condoned the delay with valid reasons stating that the cause of action for instituting the application to the applicant is the date of appointment order issued to Smt. Sajeeshma, who is less meritorious than the respondent/applicant in the selection list. 22. In the present case, the respondent was issued with an appointment order way back in the year 2013. He was just waiting for the joining / posting order. The conduct of the Corporation on protracting to issue joining order to a successful and meritorious candidate on flimsy grounds is preposterous besides appalling. The judgment of Delhi High Court relied by the petitioners have no bearing on the case on hand, as the applicant as per the notification satisfied the eligibility criteria and qualifications. The notification of recruitment issued by the petitioners is still in tact. That apart, a person similarly situated selected in the said category has been issued appointment order, pursuant to the orders passed by the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 Tribunal and this Court, the contention of the petitioners that the order is not issued at their end but for the direction passed by the Tribunal and this Court is incongruent and highly untenable. 23. As per the judgments referred supra, the petitioners without relegating the persons similarly situated in view of suffering an order at the hands of the Tribunal as well as this Court, ought to have extended the benefit to the similarly situated persons if they are otherwise found eligible. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to distinguish between the Sajeeshma and the respondent herein to contend that the respondent is not similarly situated person. 25. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions placed by the parties to the application, so also the issuance of the appointment order in a similarly situated persons, proceeded to condone the delay holding - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 that hyper technicality would result in hardship and as substantial justice is pivotal, condoned the delay and allowed the application directing the petitioners to extend the benefits ordered therein. 26. We find that the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal dated 03.11.2023, in M.A. No.52/2021, vide Annexure-F and order dated 06.11.2023, in O.A.No.170/97/2021, vide Annexure-G are well reasoned and do not suffer from any infirmities, which requires interference at the hands of this Court. The writ petition sans merits, accordingly we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition calling in question the orders dated 03.11.2023, in M.A. No.52/2021, vide Annexure-F and order dated 06.11.2023, in O.A.No.170/97/2021, vide Annexure-G passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench is Dismissed. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22816-DB WP No. 2220 of 2025 ii. The petitioners are directed to comply the direction issued in the with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 06.11.2023 in O.A. No.97/2021 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, without causing any further delay. In the event any delay broke down, it would be at the risk of the petitioners amenable for further consequential hazards. iii. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41