1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.201236 OF 2024(S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT GOUSIA BEGUM W/O RAMESH KUMAR AGE 39 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT COURT OFFICER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH R/O AKKAMAHADEVI COLONY NEAR HIGH COURT KALABURAGI-585102. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMIT KUMAR DESPANDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ADDL. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA KALABURAGI BENCH KALABURAGI-585102. 3. SRI MANJUNATH SIDDAPPA AGE 37 YEARS OCC: COURT OFFICER 2 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH R/O KALABURAGI NEAR HIGH COURT KALABURAGI-585102. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: SRI. VENKATA RAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED: 16.08.2023 BEARING NO. HCE 1/2023 (CO-LC) VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS GRANTING PROMOTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE RANK OF COURT OFFICER IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the notification dated 16.08.2023 bearing No.HCE 1/2023 (CO-LC) vide Annexure-F in so far as granting promotion to the third respondent in the rank of Court Officer is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity; 3 (ii) Direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant eligibility date of promotion to the petitioner in the post of Assistant Court Officer as on the date of promotion of the 3rd respondent in the rank of Senior Assistant, i.e., on 09.06.2021 and thereafter, promote the petitioner to the rank of Court Officer retrospectively in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Second Division Assistant, in the establishment of the first respondent, on 05.06.2009. Thereafter, she had opted for local cadre as per the notification dated 03.09.2014. Then, she has been promoted to the cadre of First Division Assistant in the local cadre, by order dated 25.02.2015. The third respondent was appointed as a Typist on 01.04.2010 and he has also opted for local cadre. He has been promoted as First Division Assistant on 20.08.2015. 4 3. As per the seniority list of First Division Assistants, as on 31.12.2019, issued by the first respondent, on 08.04.2021, vide Annexure-B, in the local cadre, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.4 and the third respondent was placed at Sl.No.12. Since the petitioner had completed her law degree, she has given her willingness to be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Court Officer. 4. In the year 2021, the posts of both the Assistant Court Officers and Senior Assistants fell vacant. The employees working in the cadre of First Division Assistants were eligible for promotion to both the cadres, but the persons with law degree were to be considered for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Court Officers. Both the vacancies were considered for filling up, simultaneously. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Court Officer, by order dated 14.06.2021 and the third respondent, even though 5 junior to the petitioner, was promoted as Senior Assistant by order dated 09.06.2021. Since there was no common seniority list issued to the cadres of Assistant Court Officers and Senior Assistants, the petitioner was not aware of the promotion order given to the third respondent. The petitioner came to know about the same only in the month of August 2023, when the impugned promotion order dated 16.08.2023 has been issued, promoting the third respondent to the cadre of Court Officer. Immediately, she has given representations to the first respondent vide Annexure-G series. Since the same were not considered, she is before this Court. 5. Sri Amit Kumar Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions: 6 (i) Firstly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 2009, i.e., on 05.06.2009 as a Second Division Assistant and the third respondent was appointed in the year 2010, i.e., on 01.04.2010 as a Typist. As per the seniority list issued by the first respondent, in the cadre of First Division Assistants, as on 31.12.2019, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.4 and the third respondent was placed at Sl.No.12. The petitioner is senior to the third respondent. Even then, third respondent was promoted as Senior Assistant, by order dated 09.06.2021 and the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Court Officer on 14.06.2021. This action of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 (for short, ‘1973 Rules’). (ii) Secondly, when the vacancy arose to the posts of Senior Assistants and Assistant Court 7 Officers, the petitioner as well as third respondent were eligible to be promoted to both the cadres. In view of the fact that the administrative order, promoting the third respondent as Senior Assistant is dated five days prior to the date of the administrative order promoting the petitioner as Assistant Court Officer, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion to the cadre of Court Officer. (iii) Thirdly, even though the petitioner has submitted representations seeking consideration of her case for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Court Officer, till the month of June 2021, it has not been considered. Therefore, there is no bar for considering the case of the petitioner along with the third respondent on 09.06.2021 when the third respondent was promoted as Senior Assistant. 8 (iv) Fourthly, as per Rule 10 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, the respondents have to prepare the seniority list in respect of each cadre every year. Even though the First Division Assistant cadre has two avenues of promotion, the respondents, without preparing the seniority list, the promotion order has been issued. (v) Lastly, even though the petitioner is senior to the third respondent, her case for promotion to the cadre of Court Officer has not been considered and third respondent has been promoted to the said cadre. This action of the respondents is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments: (i) 1986 (Supp) SCC 617 (R.S.DASS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. (ii) 2005 SCC Online Ker.32 (SREENARAYANA ELAYATH vs. K.S.E.B.) 9 (iii) 1989 (Supp) 2 SCC 351 (BAL KISHAN vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER) (iv) (1999) 7 SCC 209 (AJIT SINGH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS) 6. Sri S.S.Naganand, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the petitioner is estopped from seeking seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant and Court Officer as she had remained silent and has not objected to the promotion accorded to the third respondent to the post of Senior Assistant, in the year 2021. After a lapse of two years, the petitioner had made a representation requesting to fix the seniority, eligibility date for promotion to the petitioner as on the date of promotion accorded to the third respondent. On the ground of delay itself, the writ petition has to be dismissed. 10 (ii) Secondly, the petitioner, while discharging duties as the First Division Assistant, has submitted a letter dated 14.07.2020, intimating that she has completed her LLB degree and requested to consider her candidature to the post of Assistant Court Officer under local cadre. Therefore, the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant, but considered for Assistant Court Officer. Accordingly, she has been promoted by order dated 14.06.2021. Therefore, now she cannot turn back and say that her case had to be considered for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant. (iii) Thirdly, there were 135 vacant posts of Senior Assistants and 32 posts of Assistant Court Officers. Therefore, registry has taken up the promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistants first. After short-listing the candidates, the same has been placed before the Committee on 09.06.2021. The 11 Committee has approved the candidature for promotion on 09.06.2021. Accordingly, first, the promotion orders have been issued in respect of Senior Assistants, promoting 121 candidates in the residual parent cadre and 14 candidates, including the third respondent, in the local cadre. Thereafter, the registry considered promotion to the cadre of Assistant Court Officers. After short listing the names of the candidates, the same has been placed before the Committee on 10.06.2021. Thereafter, the promotion order has been issued on 14.06.2021, promoting 18 candidates in the residual parent cadre and 4 candidates in the local cadre. Therefore, there is no administrative delay in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Court Officers. (iv) Fourthly, as far as promotion to the cadre of Court Officer is concerned, as per the 1973 Rules, the 12 promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the cadre of Assistant Court Officers and Senior Assistants, who are law graduates. The seniority will be considered on the basis of the length of service in the feeder cadre. In the feeder cadre, the third respondent is senior to the petitioner. Therefore, his case has been considered for promotion to the cadre of Court Officer in the local cadre. The promotion of third respondent to the cadre of Court Officer is in terms of the recruitment rules. There is no illegality in the promotion order issued by respondent No.1. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 8. The petitioner and the third respondent were appointed as Second Division Assistant and Typist in the years 2009 and 2010, respectively. They are also 13 promoted as First Division Assistants in the year 2015. The petitioner was promoted in the month of February, 2015 and the third respondent in the month of August, 2015. The seniority list of First Division Assistants in the local cadre was published as on 31.12.2019. As per the seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.4 and the third respondent was placed at Sl.No.12. The service particulars of the petitioner and the third respondent are as under: Sl. No. Service particulars Smt. Gousia Begum- Petitioner Sri. Manjunath Siddappa- Respondent No.3 1 Date of entry into service and appointed as As SDA on 05.06.2009 As Typist on 01.04.2010 2 Promoted as First Division Assistant on 25.02.2015 20.08.2015 3 Promoted as ACO/Senior Assistant on As Assistant Court Officer on 14.06.2021 As senior Assistant on 09.06.2021 4 Promoted as Court officer on ----- 16.08.2023 9. As per the 1973 Rules, an employee working in the cadre of First Division Assistant has two promotional avenues, i.e., Assistant Court Officer and 14 Senior Assistant. As on 09.06.2021, there were 135 vacant posts of Senior Assistants, out of which, 121 posts for residual parent cadre and 14 posts for local cadre. In the cadre of Assistant Court Officers, there were 32 vacant posts, out of which, 28 posts for residual parent cadre and 4 posts for local cadre. Therefore, the registry has prepared the list of eligible candidates for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant and Assistant Court Officers, simultaneously and they have bifurcated the candidates by residual parent cadre and local cadre. As per the statement of objections filed by the respondents, it appears that first, they have prepared the list of Assistant Court Officers and thereafter considered the case of the petitioner and third respondent for the cadre of Assistant Court Officer in local cadre. Since there was no vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Court Officer, his 15 case has been considered for Senior Assistant. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: “9. Respondent No.3 is also a law graduate. The candidature of respondent No.3 was not considered due to non-availability of vacant post in the cadre of Assistant Court Officer. He was considered and promoted as Senior Assistant along with 13 other eligible officials vide Proceedings No.HCE 01/2021 dated 09.06.2021 as per Annexure-D of the writ petition. During the consideration of promotion accorded to respondent No.3 to the post of Senior Assistant, the petitioner had not objected to the promotion accorded to respondent No.3 to the post of Senior Assistant.” 10. The registry while placing the records before the Committee, have placed the list of the candidates who are eligible to be promoted as Senior Assistants first on 09.06.2021. It has been approved by the Committee on the same day and promotion order has also been issued on the same day. In respect of the 16 promotion to the cadre of Assistant Court Officers is concerned, the list was placed before the Committee on 10.06.2021, some of the members have signed on 10.06.2021 and some of them signed on 14.06.2021 and the promotion list has been issued to the cadre of Assistant Court Officers on 14.06.2021. Even though the petitioner is senior to the third respondent, since the promotion orders have been issued on different dates, the petitioner’s right to promotion to next higher cadre has been affected. Because of administrative delay, the seniority of the petitioner has been affected. 11. In the case of UNION OF INDIA vs. SADHANA KHANNA (SMT.) reported in (2008) 1 SCC 720, the Apex Court has held that a mistake on the part of the department cannot recoil on the employee. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: 17 “11. It may be noted that the respondent was offered appointment vide letter dated 5-7-1983 which is after 1-7-1983 from which the eligibility was to be counted. Hence, it is the department which is to be blamed for sending the letter offering appointment after 1-7-1983. In fact, some of the candidates who were junior to the respondent were issued letters offering appointment prior to 1-7-1983. Hence it was the department which is to be blamed for this. Moreover, in view of the office memorandums of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 18-3-1988 and 19-7-1989 the respondent was also to be considered, otherwise a very incongruous situation would arise, namely, that the junior will be considered for promotion but the senior will not.” 12. In the case of P.N.PREMACHANDRAN vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 1 SCC 245, the Apex Court has held that employees should not suffer due to administrative laps. The relevant portion is extracted below: 18 “7. It is not in dispute that the posts were to be filled up by promotion. We fail to understand how the appellant, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, could question the retrospective promotion granted to the private respondents herein. It is not disputed that in view of the administrative lapse, the Departmental Promotion Committee did not hold a sitting from 1964 to 1980. The respondents cannot suffer owing to such administrative lapse on the part of the State of Kerala for no fault on their part. It is also not disputed, that in ordinary course they were entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director, in the event, a Departmental Promotion Committee had been constituted in due time. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the State of Kerala took a conscious decision to the effect that those who have been acting in a higher post for a long time, although on a temporary basis, but were qualified at the time when they were so promoted and found to be eligible by the Departmental Promotion Committee at a later date, should be promoted with retrospective effect.” 19 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the promotion orders issued on earlier occasions. In the year 2013, promotion orders to the posts of Assistant Court Officers and Senior Assistants has been issued on the same day, i.e., on 06.06.2013. He has also produced the promotion orders made in the year 2023 to show that, on 05.09.2023, promotion orders of both the Assistant Court Officers and Senior Assistants have been issued. The same are produced at Annexure H series. 14. The main contention taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that, since the petitioner submitted a letter dated 14.07.2020, requesting to consider her candidature for the post of Assistant Court Officer, therefore, her case was not considered to the post of Senior Assistant. As per the materials available on record, till 10.06.2021, no decision has been taken on the letter dated 14.07.2020. Even, there was a 20 request to consider her case to the post of Assistant Court Officer, but that was not a bar to consider her case for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant. In fact, the petitioner has produced a memo dated 04.07.2025 enclosing the representation submitted by one Usman, First Division Assistant on 21.07.2020, requesting to consider his case for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Court Officer. But, his case has been considered to the cadre of Senior Assistant and he has been promoted by order dated 09.06.2021. Therefore, this action of the respondents is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. The petitioner and the third respondent were appointed as Second Division Assistant and Typist in the years 2009 and 2010, respectively. They are also promoted as First Division Assistants in the year 2015. The petitioner was promoted in the month of February, 2015 and the third respondent in the month 21 of August, 2015. The seniority list of First Division Assistants in the local cadre was published as on 31.12.2019. As per the seniority list, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.4 and the third respondent was placed at Sl.No.12. The petitioner was senior to the third respondent in the cadre of First Division Assistants. She had to be promoted first as an Assistant Court Officer. Because of administrative delay in issuing promotion order, her right to promotion as a Court Officer cannot be denied. It is well settled that, denial of legitimate right without justification amounts to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, her case for promotion to the cadre of Court Officer has to be considered from the date her junior was promoted. 16. In view of the discussions made above, the following order is passed: 22 (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The first respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Court Officer from the date the third respondent was promoted as Court Officer, with all consequential benefits, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (H T NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM/-