- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30980-DB WP No. 22612 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 22612 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI R SRINIVASA S/O LATE P RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RETIRED INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C.I.D., BANGALORE - 560001 R/O NO.705, 7TH B MAIN, KALYANANAGAR BANGALORE – 560043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.H.M.UMESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE IN KARNATAKA POLICE HEADQUARTERS, NRUPATHUNGA RAOD, BANGALORE - 560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH., AGA) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30980-DB WP No. 22612 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING/ SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2023 PASSED IN A.No-1946/2020 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BANGALORE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A THE SAME IS BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSITE TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, a retired Inspector of Police is before this Court, aggrieved by order dated 03.02.2023 in Application No.1946/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) wherein he has sought for consideration of his representation dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure-A14) and to assign him eligibility date as 10.05.1993 instead of 25.03.1994 in the cadre of Inspector of Police and to consider his case for notional promotion to the cadre of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30980-DB WP No. 22612 of 2025 Deputy Superintendent of Police with all consequential benefits. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.H.M.Umesh for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The petitioner retired from service as Inspector of Police on attaining the age of superannuation in July-2013. Much thereafter, the petitioner is said to have submitted representation dated 23.08.2019 requesting to assign eligibility date as 10.05.1993 instead of 25.03.1994 in the cadre of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) and to consider his case for notional promotion to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal under impugned order, rejected the petitioner’s application solely on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30980-DB WP No. 22612 of 2025 ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.H.M.Umesh for petitioner would submit that the petitioner sought only a mandamus to consider his representation and in the said circumstance, the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel would submit that as the respondents failed to consider his representation, he approached the Tribunal and in that circumstance, the Tribunal could not have rejected his prayer to consider his representation on the ground of limitation. Further, learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the order passed by the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission dated 13.03.2017 whereunder the Commission directed the State Government to consider his case as prayed in the representation and to pass orders. It is submitted that even thereafter, the respondents failed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30980-DB WP No. 22612 of 2025 to consider his representation. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath would submit that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application on the ground of limitation. He submits that the petitioner slept over his right and much after his retirement, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only question that would arise for our consideration is as to, Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the petitioner’s application solely on the ground of limitation? 7. The answer to the above point would be in the Affirmative for the following reasons: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30980-DB WP No. 22612 of 2025 Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service as Sub-Inspector of Police in July-2013. The petitioner was promoted as Police Sub-Inspector on 25.03.1994. In the Final Seniority List of Promotee Police Sub-Inspectors, the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.43 and his date of eligibility to the said cadre is shown as 25.03.1994. The request of the petitioner is to show his eligibility date in the said cadre as 10.05.1993 and for consideration of his case for notional promotion to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The application would not give the date of his promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Police. If the petitioner’s request to assign the date of eligibility as 10.05.1993, it would affect other persons who are above him, who are not before the Court. 8. Moreover, the petitioner is not diligent and he has not exercised his right during his service. More than six years after his retirement, the petitioner appears to have made representation. In terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the petitioner’s - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30980-DB WP No. 22612 of 2025 application before the Tribunal is barred by time. Repeated representations would not extend the original cause of action. 9. Hence, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16