- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18018 WP No. 106002 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106002 OF 2019 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: SRI ARUN S/O. BHAGAVAN PATIL AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT MASTER, GURUDEV RANADE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, CHANDUR, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY, THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. SRI CHANDESHWAR EDUCATION SOCIETY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHANDUR, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. THE GURUDEV RANADE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL CHANDUR, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, CHANDUR, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER (SOUTH DIVISION) CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18018 WP No. 106002 of 2019 6. SRI SADASHIV S/O. ANNAPPA BANDAGAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT MASTER, GURUDEV RANADE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, CHANDUR, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1, R4 AND R5; SMT. VIDYAVATHI M. KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN REVISION PETITION (APPEAL) NO.101/2018 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-L. QUASH THE ORDER OF PROMOTION OF RESPONDENT NO.6 AS HEAD MASTER OF RESPONDENT NO.3 SCHOOL DATED 31.08.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: i. To quash the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the 1st respondent in Revision Petition (Appeal) No.101/2018 marked at Annexure-L; ii. To quash the order of promotion of respondent No.6 as head master of respondent No.3 school dated 31.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 marked at Annexure-D1. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18018 WP No. 106002 of 2019 3. The petitioner and the respondent No.6 enter the service of the Government in the Department of Human Resources on 22.07.2006 pursuant to a selection process and the appointment orders being issued on the same date i.e., on 22.07.2006. Then comes the claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The promotion to the post of Headmaster is ostensibly on the basis of seniority. The seniority is based upon the feeder cadre. The feeder cadre is the Assistant Master. In the feeder cadre, the seniority assumes significance for the purpose of calculating date of entry into service. The appointment order depicts that the person should report to duties within 10 days from the date of said appointment. The petitioner was eager to join immediately, entered the office on 24.07.2006 on the basis of the appointment order dated 22.07.2006. The 6th respondent took it easy and entered the office on the 6th day i.e., on 25.07.2006, albeit on the same even date appointment order. 4. The petitioner is before the Court on a mistaken notion that seniority would be counted on the date on which they step into the office and not the appointment order. If both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 being beneficiaries of a common appointment order, if the respondent No.6 had reported - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18018 WP No. 106002 of 2019 duties beyond the procedure in the appointment order or under the general recruitment rules, it would have been an altogether different circumstance. Both of them have joined within the time and both of them have joined pursuant to the same appointment order. 5. The respondent No.6 is now placed senior in the seniority list for the reason that the respondent No.6 is senior in age to the petitioner. Even the said placement cannot be found fault with as if the seniority list is to be drawn on a common appointment order. It is only a common appointment order, it would be on merit or if the merit is not the criteria, it would be on the basis of age. Whoever is senior in age will be the senior if it is a common recruitment and recruitment is on the same date. Appointment orders are issued on the same day. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the State in placing the respondent No.6 as Headmaster over and above the claim of the petitioner. The petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK /Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19