- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35098-DB WP No. 2690 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH 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. 2690 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S. C. SHEKAR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O SRI CHELUVEGOWDA, WORKING AS HORTICULTURE ASST., ON INDEPENDENT CHARGE, OFFICE OF SENIOR ASST. HORTICULTURE, DIRECTOR, KRISHNARAJANAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT 571602, MOB 9900371051. 2. SRI P. M. JAYASIDDAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI MOLLAIAH, WORKING AS HORTICULTURE ASST., ON INDEPENDENT CHARGE, OFFICE OF ASST. DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, PARKS AND GARDENS, ZOO ROAD, MYSORE 570001, MOB. 8105078313. 3. SRI B. DEVARAJU AGED 59 YEARS, S/O SRI BASAVAIAH, WORKING AS HORTICULTURE ASST., ON INDEPENDENT CHARGE, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35098-DB WP No. 2690 of 2024 OFFICE OF ASST. DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, STATE SECTOR, KARZAN PARK, HUNUSUR FARM, HUNUSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT 571105 MOB 8722165357. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.M. BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), DIRECTORARE OF HORTICULTURE, LALBAGH, BANGALORE 560004. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT BANGALORE DATED 02.11.2022 PASSED IN A.No-3428/2020, 3435/2020 AND 3436/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC,. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35098-DB WP No. 2690 of 2024 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) Though the matter is listed for orders, the same is taken for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Heard Sri.S.M.Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The petitioners are before this Court questioning the order dated 02.11.2022 in Application Nos.3427-3439/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein, their request for consideration of their cases for retrospective promotion in terms of the orders passed in respect of some other - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35098-DB WP No. 2690 of 2024 persons dated 13/16.12.2013 and 07.02.2020 are rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are directly recruited as Gardeners in pursuance to the recruitment notification dated 01.04.1987. It is submitted that though select list was published in the year 1988, the appointment orders were issued only in the year 1998 after long litigation. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, certain of the daily wage workers were regularised in the post of Gardeners. Subsequently, the petitioners were placed in independent charge to the post of Horticulture Assistant under Rule 32 the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) and their request for retrospective promotion was rejected. Learned counsel would submit that though the petitioners were selected in the year 1988, for no fault of the petitioners, their appointment was delayed due to litigation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35098-DB WP No. 2690 of 2024 5. It is further submitted that the persons who are regularised in the cadre of Gardeners were shown above the petitioners in the seniority list published by the Department and their challenge to that seniority list by the petitioners is rejected by this Court by order dated 14.01.2019. However, learned counsel would submit that the petitioners would be entitled for retrospective promotion to the cadre of Horticulture Assistant from the date they were placed under Rule 32 of KCSR prior to the consideration of cases of others who were regularised. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal without going into any of the details, dismissed the application only on the ground of delay. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the application only on the ground of delay since their cases for promotion was not considered under Rule 32 of KCSR. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35098-DB WP No. 2690 of 2024 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the contrary submits that admittedly the petitioners are juniors to those Gardeners who are regularised prior to the appointment of petitioners. According to learned AGA, the petitioners entered the cadre of Gardeners only in the year 1998 whereas, other Gardeners were regularised prior to the appointment of the petitioners. Therefore, they cannot claim seniority over the regularised persons and rightly the petitioners' challenge to the seniority is rejected. As such, he submits that the petitioners cannot claim for retrospective promotion. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35098-DB WP No. 2690 of 2024 8. Admittedly, the petitioners entered the Department as Gardeners in the year 1998. Before their appointment, certain of the gardeners, who were appointed on daily wage basis were regularised. The regularization of such gardeners is not questioned. The seniority of the gardeners placing above the petitioners is rejected by the Tribunal and the said order is not taken up further. The said order of the Tribunal has become final. Therefore, the gardeners who were regularised are seniors to the petitioners. 9. The request of the petitioners for retrospective promotion from the date they were placed in independent charge under Rule 32 of KCSR, would depend on the availability of the posts. If there are vacant posts as on the date of placing petitioners under Rule 32 of KCSR, the petitioners would be entitled for such retrospective promotion in terms of Rule 2 of Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Rules, 1978. In that regard, it is open for the petitioners to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35098-DB WP No. 2690 of 2024 make such representation and seek retrospective promotion. 10. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application, would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20