- 1 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.329/2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SUDHIRA NAIK S/O LATE GOPYA NAIK AGE. 42 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, MINIVIDHAN SOUDHA, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, R/AT. NANDHIKAMBA, KAMMATHANHALLI POST, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. 2. SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O SHIVALLI HANUMANTHAPPA AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, R/AT. VINAYAKA NAGARA, B BLOCK, RING ROAD, DAVANAGERE. 3. SRI. NAVEENKUMAR D.S. S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGE. 36 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. DODDAGARUDANAHHALLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 4. SRI. M MAHESH KUMAR S/O LATE MAHIME GOWDA AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TASILDAR OFFICE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, R/AT. #375/21, 9TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, BANGALORE. 5. SRI. TEJESH KUMAR B K S/O KALEGOWDA AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, R/AT. #87, 7TH MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 KENGERI TOWN, BANGALORE. 6. SRI. VIDYANANDA C A AGE. 36 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. CHEEMANGAL, SIDDAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 7. SRI. PRABHU V S/O VENKATAREVANAPPA AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. CHINTHAMANI, SIDDAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 8. SRI. RANI K V AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 9. SRI. MANJUNATHA K A AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 10. SRI. YOGIN B K S/O KESHAVA MURTHY B AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BAKTHARAHALLI, SIDDAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 11. SRI. PRADEP KUMAR G AGE. 36 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. 1511, 18 MAIN, GANTHIPURA YELECHANAHALLI, BANGALORE DISTRICT. 12. SMT. SUNITHA N AGE. 41 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. - 3 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 13. SRI. DEEPAK B G AGE. 21 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. 138, TEACHERS COLONY, CHIKKABALAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 14. SMT. NAGARTNAMMA R D/O. LATE RAMAVHANDRA CHARY AGE. 52 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICER, MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT., NO.710, BD COLONY, KENGERI, BANGALORE- 560060. 15. SRI. SIDDARJU S.P S/O. PUTTASIDDEGOWDA AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT., SHETTIHALLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 16. SMT. THARA K.V D/O. VENKATAIAH AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. KOREGALA, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 17. SRI. MAHESH G.V S/O. VISHAKANTAIAH, AGE. 38 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. GEJJALAGERE, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 18. SRI. HARISH C.N. S/O. K NAGARAJU AGE. 26 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. CHANDAHALLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 19. SRI. THIPPESWAMY R S/O. RUDRAPPA AGE. 54 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MADDURU MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. #303, KSCB QUARTERS, MYSORE, MYSORE DISTRICT. - 4 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 20. SRI. KIRAN M. K S/O. KARIYAPPA, AGE. 29 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MADDURU, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. HULIVARA (V & P) MADDURU, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 21. SRI. MANOJ. N S/O. MUKUNDACHAR AGE. 27 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MADDURU MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. #2661, GHANDHINAGARA, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 22. SMT. ANITHA D.R. D/O. RAMANNA AGE. 48 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, MANDYA TALUK OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. #712, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 23. SRI. CHUNCHAIAH S/O. NINGAIAH AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, MANDYA TALUK OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. KIRUGAVALU, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 24. SMT. MANJULA Y.H D/O. HANUMAIAH AGE. 45 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKA BADAVNE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 25. SMT. HEMASHRI D/O. B. SRINIVASU AGE. 40 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, MANDYA TALUK OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. VV NAGARA, PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT. 26. SRI. M.K. CHETAN S/O. KADAIAH AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. LABOUR COLONY, 4TH CROSS, MANDYA DISTRICT. 27. SMT. NAGARTHNA N D/O. NALLANNA AGE. 45 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, - 5 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. #24, 7TH CROSS, MANDYA DISTRICT. 28. SMT. PAVITRA Y.N D/O. NINGEGOWDA AGE. 33 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. #2096, 8TH CROSS, MANDYA DISTRICT. 29. SRI. KIRAN.P S/O. PUTTARAJU AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. 13TH CROSS, V.V. NAGARA, MANDYA DISTRICT. 30. SMT. BHAGIRATHI M.J D/O. JAYARAMU AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. #1434, ASHOKNAGARA, JAIN KALONI, MANDYA DISTRICT. 31. SRI. SIDDARAJU S S/O. SIDDAIAH AGE. 53 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. MALLIGERE, MANDYA DISTRICT. 32. SRI. SATHISHA H V S/O. LATE VEERANNA AGE. 41 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 33. SRI. SHASHIKIRAN S S/O. SHIVANANJE GOWDA AGE. 53 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT. 34. SRI. MADHUKUMAR G S/O. GURUSIDDDAIAH AGE. 32 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, R/AT. SIDDARTHANAGARA, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT. 35. SRI. THIPPESWAMY A.V S/O. VASUDEVAREDDY - 6 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 AGE. 36 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. R/AT. SRINIVASA NILAYA, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 36. SRI. RAKSHITH N.G. S/O. GURUMURTHY AGE. 33 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, R/AT. VEDAWATHINAGARA, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 37. SRI. BARGAVA RAM. C I S/O. INDRAKUMAR AGE. 20 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, R/AT. RAJEEVAGAHANDHI, ASHRAYA LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 38. SRI. RAVIKUMAR K.O S/O. OMKARAPPA K AGE. 38 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, R/AT. MAHESHWARI LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 39. SMT. J SARVAMANGALA AGE. 48 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, CHITRADURGA TALUK OFFICE, CHIATRADURGA DISTRICT, R/AT. GURUNATHA NILAYA, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 40. SRI. G RAGHU S/O. M.S. GOPAL KRISHN AGE. 41 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, R/AT. KUBEERA STREET, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 41. SRI. P ABHINADANA S/O. PRAKASH SHETTY AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, CHITRADURGA TALUK OFFICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, R/AT. SRINIVASA NILAYA, - 7 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 42. SRI. N NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. MADDANAPPA AGE. 45 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, CHITRADURGA TALUK OFFICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, R/AT. JOGIMATTI ROAD, 3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 43. SMT. KUSUMA H.N D/O. NARAYANAGOWDA AGE. 38 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. HANUMANTHA PURA, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 44. SMT. T.N. HEMALATHA D/O. NARASHIMAMURTHY AGE. 47 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. MANJULA NILAYA, GOKULA EXT, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 45. SMT. SOWMYA J.M, D/O. MAHENDRAKUMAR, AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BASAVESHWARA BADAVANE, KYATASANDRA TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 46. SMT. SHOWBHAGYALAKSMAMMA. B.R D/O. RANGANATHA AGE. 40 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT., SREEDHATRI, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 47. SMT. MANJULA G C D/O. CHANANINGAIAH AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. MYLARA NILAYA, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 48. SMT. T.N. NETRAVATHI D/O. NARAYANACHAR AGE. 40 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. SADASHIVANAGARA, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. - 8 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 49. SMT. RASMI .P D/O. PUTTATHAMMAIAH, AGE. 25 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, TUMKUR SUB DISVISION, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. LINGAPURA, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 50. SRI. CHANDRASEKHARA. S.B S/O. BORAIAH AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. JAYANAGAR WEST, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 51. SRI. CHETANSHIM S.P S/O. PRASANNA KUMAR AGE. 26 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. VALMIKINAGRA, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 52. SRI. M.H. SURESH, S/O. HUCHAPPA, AGE. 46 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TUMKUR TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. SOREKUNTE, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 53. SRI. NATARAJA V S/O. VENKATANARAYANA, AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. RAGAVENDRA COLONY, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 54. SMT. SWETHA P.N. D/O. NAGESHRAO, AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. SIRA GATE, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 55. SMT. H.R. ROOPA W/O. RANAGAPPA, AGE. 40 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. GUBBI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 56. SMT. INDRAMMA, W/O. LATE SIDDAIAH, AGE. 51 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. K.S. AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 57. SHASHIKALA M.H, D/O. HEERANAIAK, - 9 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. GUBBI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 58. SRI. P. MAHENDRA S/O.PRAKASH AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BHEEMASANDRA, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 59. SRI. THATHANAYAR D.K, S/O. KARIBASAYYA, AGE. 36 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 60. SRI. G.H. SATHISH KUMAR, S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. GUBBI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 61. LEIUES B.C S/O. CHANDRAPPA, AGE. 26 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BYDRAHALLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 62. SRI. SHARATH K.G S/O. GURUSHANTHAPPA, AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 63. SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI W/O. SHIVANDAPPA, AGE. 56 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. VIDYANAGARA, 11TH CROSS, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 64. SMT. KARIYAMMA N W/O. SHIVAPPA, AGE. 42 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, GUBBI TALUK OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. SHETTIHALLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 65. SMT. ASHA U.N. S/O. NAGARAJU, AGE. 28 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. ASHREYA NILAYA, - 10 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 66. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY B.R S/O. LATE RAJANNA, AGE. 32 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BILIDEVALAYA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 67. SRI. SHASHIKUMAR.S. S/O. SHIVARAMAIH AGE. 31 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. MADIKEHALLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 68. SMT. SUMITRA C.R. D/O. RANGAPPA AGE. 48 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, R/AT. 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, ADARSHA NAGARA, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 69. SRI. VUDHEER NAIK S/O. GOPYA NAIK, AGE. 42 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, MINIVIDHAN SOUDH, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE, R/AT. NANDIKUNTUMBA, HARAPANAHHALI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 70. SRI. ROSHAN T.A. S/O. ABDUL HAMMED, AGE. 25 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE BELLUR, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN, R/AT. BEDIGANAHALLY, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. 71. SRI. UDAY S/O. NAGARAJU, AGE. 29 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, SAKLESHAPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT, R/AT. 125, KANAKA KUTER, CHANNARAY PATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT. 72. SRI. CHETAN M.S. S/O. SHIVASWAMY, AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, SAKLESHAPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN, R/AT. CHANNARAYAPATNA, HOUSING BOARD, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT. - 11 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 73. SHILASHREE M. ODEYAR, D/O. MALAKAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE INDI, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. KAREEMNAGARA, INDI, INDI TALUK, VIJAYPUR DISTRICT. 74. SMT. VEENA. V. KOLURAGI S/O. VEERAPAKSAPPA, AGE. 28 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE INDI, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BANGARAGALLI,,3RD CROSS, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYPUR DISTRICT. 75. SRI. RAVI S MADIWALAR, S/O. SHARANAPPA AGE. 29 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE INDI, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. SAINAGARA, MUDDEBHIHAL, MUDDEBHIHAL TALUK, VIJAYPUR DISTRICT. 76. SMT. UMA S. KATTIMANI, D/O. MOHAN AGE. 45 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE INDI, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. BEERAPPA NAGARA, INDI TALUK, INDI, VIJAYPUR DISTRICT. 77. SRI. SANTHOSH A. MYAGERI, S/O. ASHOK, AGE. 43 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE INDI, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. AMBEDKAR NAGARA, INDI, INDI TALUK, VIJAYPUR DISTRICT. 78. SRI. ARAVINDA A. PAWAR, S/O. AMBDAS, AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE INDI, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. #73, ADOORVA NILAYA, VIJAYPUR, VIJAYPUR DISTRICT. 79. SRI. SANKET B. PATIL, S/O. BASANGOUWDA PATIL, AGE. 33 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE INDI, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. VIDYANAGARA, INDI, INDI TALUK, VIJAYPUR DISTRICT. 80. SHIVASHARAN M. GORNAL, S/O. MALLIKARJUNA, - 12 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 AGE. 43 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, CHADACHANA, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. SADASHIVANAGARA, INDI, INDI TALUK, VIJAYPUR DISTRICT. 81. SRI. UMESH S. AUDI, AGE. 55 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT. RAMANAGARA, BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT. 82. SRI. SHIVASHANKAR VISHNU YALAVATHI S/O. VISHNU, AGE. 36 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DISTRICT TRAINING INSTITUTE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. R/AT. #B3, B BLOCK, REVENUE QUARTERS, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 83. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR C HOSAKOTI S/O. CHANDRASEKHAR, AGE. 32 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. R/AT. IN FRONT OF VIDYA HOSTAL, UDAYA CIRCLE, DHARAWD, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 84. SRI. MAHESH MOHANREDDY KENCHARADDER, S/O. MOHANRADDI, AGE. 28 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. R/AT. #108/8 PLAT NO.13, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 85. SRI. RAKESH ABHAYAKUMAR PANDIT, S/O. ABHAYAKUMAR, AGE. 31 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER;S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. REVENUE QUARTERS, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. - 13 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 86. SRI. VERANNA RACHAYYA MATHAPATHI, S/O. RACHAYYA, AGE. 27 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. #H3, A BLOCK, REVENUE QUARTERS, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 87. SAGAR MURGESH SONNAGI S/O. MURGESH, AGE. 26 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. R/AT. #C1, B BLOCK, REVENUE QUARTERS, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 88. SRI. CHANNABASAVANNA P SANKNOOR, S/O. PARAPPA, AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. NEAR HALAKATTI HIGH SCHOOL, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 89. MOUNESHWAR RAJNAL S/O. SHAMBULINGAPPA, AGE. 31 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. MOUNESWAR NILAYA, SHIVABASAVA NAGARA, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 90. SRI. ANIL GANAPATHI LONDE, S/O. GANAPATI, AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. R/AT. #B BLOCK, REVENUE QUARTERS, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 91. SRI. RAJAKUMAR Y VIKRAM, S/O. VIKRAM AGE. 40 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. - 14 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 R/AT. SHANTHAGERI, MASALI, GADAG DISTRICT. 92. SMT. JAYASHREE ASHOK SHIRUR, D/O. DODDABASAPPA, AGE. 40 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. VIVEKANANDA NAGARA, SIDDARTHA BUILDING, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 93. SMT. SUJATHA N GOBBARAGUPPI D/O. NEELAPPA, AGE. 44 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. WARD NO.13, MULAGUNDA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT. 94. SMT. MANJULA HAVALDAR D/O. MAHADEVAPPA, AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, LAXMESWAR, GADAG DISTRICT. R/AT. POLICE QUARTERS, LAXMESWAR, GADAG DISTRICT. 95. SRI. PRAVEEN KAGGALA GOUDAR S/O. SHANKARGOUDA, AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, LAXMESWAR, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. LAXMESHWAR, GADAG DISTRICT. 96. SRI. AMMAZADKHAN M TADAKONDA, S/O. MAHAMDKHAN AGE. 38 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. #REVENUE QUARTERS, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 97. SRI. SHIVAMMA A PATIL, D/O. SHANTHAPPA, AGE. 44 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. REVENUE QUARTERS, GADAG DISTRICT. 98. SMT. SHASHIKALA Y YADAHALLI, D/O. SHANKRAPPA, AGE. 48 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, - 15 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 R/AT. ASHREYA COLONY, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 99. SMT. ANNAPURNA GIRISHKUMAR, D/O. CHANNAVEERAIAH, AGE. 44 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, LAXMESWAR, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. KUSTAGI CHALA, BETAGERI, GADAG TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT. 100. SMT. ROOPA A DALABANJANA D/O. EDVARD J, AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, NADAKACHERI BETAGERI, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT., GHANDINAGARA, BETAGERI, GADAG TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT. 101. SMT. N PREMAKKA, D/O. THEERTHAPPA, AGE. 38 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. GADAG, GADAG TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT. 102. SRI. PRAKASH N INAMADAR, S/O. NARASIMHCHARYA, AGE. 33 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, MUNDARAGI, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. #3-381, KARATAGI, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 103 SRI. VARUN A KANKAI, S/O. ANANDAPPA, AGE. 29 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, MUNDARAGI, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT., V A KANKI, BEHIND POLICE STATION, MNDARAGI TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT. 104. SRI. UMAKANTH DODDAMANI, S/O. MALLAPPA, AGE. 47 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, MUNDARAGI, GADAG DISTRICT. 105. SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA M VIBHUTI S/O. MALLAYYA AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, MUNDARAGI, BIJAYAPUR DISTRICT. 106. SRI. BASAVARAJA S DHARAWAD, S/O. SHIVAPPA, AGE. 29 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, MUNDARAGI, GADAG DISTRICT. - 16 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 107. SRI. BHEEMARAJ VASANTHKUMAR KASAR S/O. VASANTHAKUMAR, AGE. 31 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT. 108. SRI. SHIVARAJA PRAKASH JADHAV, S/O. PRAKASH, AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT. 109. SMT. MAHANTAVVA, D/O. SIDDAPPA, AGE. 52 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT. 110. SMT. SUJATH MAILARAPPA SUNKAD, D/O. NEELAPPA, AGE. 41 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. BENTUR, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 111. SMT. SUMA@ DEVAKKA DODDAGOUDAR, D/O. SHIVAPPA, AGE. 41 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. BENTUR, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 112. SRI. ANJANEYA GADAGOLI, S/O. GADAGOLI, AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. MUTGURU, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 113. SRI. NANDA NANDENNAVAR, S/O. NANNDENAVAR, AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT. R/AT. MUTGURU, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 114. SRI. RAHUL KURABAGATTI, S/O. KARABAGATTI, AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE SHIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT. BENTUR, GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT. 115. SRI. NAGAPPA BASAPPA HANDIBAGH, S/O. BASAPPA, AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, REGIONAL OFFICE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. HANCHIGOUDU VILLAGE, RAYABAGA TALUK, BELAGUM DISTRICT. - 17 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 116. SRI. AADARSHA H MUNDAINAMANI S/O. HAUMAPPA AGE. 24 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, REGIONAL OFFICE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. #745, 1ST CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI, DHARAWAD DISTRICT. 117. SRI. SACHIN R. KARANE, S/O. RAMESH AGE. 40 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, REGIONAL OFFICE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. AMDEKAR NAGARA, HUKKERI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 118. SMT. KASTURI KULLALI, D/O. MUTTAPPA, AGE. 45 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, REGIONAL OFFICE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. 3 E 11, VISHWESARAIAH NAGAR, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 119. SRI. SIDHARUDA SHASHIKANTH HALYAL, S/O. SHASHIKANTHA, AGE. 45 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, REGIONAL OFFICE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. PLAT NO.3 VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 120. SMT. SAVITA S SAVALAGI, D/O. SIDDARAM AGE. 47 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, REGIONAL OFFICE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. 8, KULAKARNI GALLI, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 121. SMT. MADHURI S. DHIXITH W/O. MURULIDHAR, AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. MANASA RESIDENCY VIDYANAGARA, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 122. SRI. M.Y. MADIWAL S/O. YALLAPPA AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. 3 E 11, VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. - 18 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 123 SMT. BABITA D MOHANGEKAR D/O. DUDDAPPA, AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. 1296, VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 124. SRI. RAJU MALLAPPA CHOUDPAGOL S/O. MALLAPAP AGE. 38 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. BADIGAWAD, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 125. SRI. SACHIN VITTOBHA PATIL S/O. VITHOBA PATIL AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. 26, SUBHASH NAGARA, HUBLI. 126. SRI. ARUN ARJUN BASTWAD, S/O. ARJUN AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT., 641, SHIVAJINAGARA, PWD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 127. ANEES MULLA S/O. NAZIR AHMED AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 128. SMT. A.S. JAMBOTI D/O. MALLAPPA BASAPPA LAKKANNAVAR AGE. 43 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 129. SMT. VIDYA V KAMAT D/O. PRABHAKAR JOSHI AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. SHIVAJINAGARA, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. - 19 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 130. SMT. ANKA M KODLI D/O. MALAPPA, AGE. 53 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. PLAT NO. 1198, RAMATEERTHANAGARA, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 131. SMT. SUREKHA M NERLI D/O. SATAPPA AGE. 41 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. 1988, ANJINEYA NAGARA, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 132. SRI. RUDRANNA DUNDAPPA YADAVANNAVAR S/O. DUNDAPPA AGE. 32 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. SHIVANAGARA, MUNDARAGI, GADAGA DISTRICT. 133. SRI. SANTHOSH IRAPPA DASANAL S/O. IRAPPA AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. PLAT NO.301, RAMATEERTHA NAGARA, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 134. SMT. MALLAVVA R TADAKOONDA D/O. SHAMBU AGE. 48 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. NO.11, RAYABAGAGALLI, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 135. SRI. V.S. HIREMATH S/O. GURUSIDDAIAH AGE. 42 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. 301, VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 136. SMT. PAVITRA C BAILUR AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. PLAT NO.1232, SAHUNAGARA, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. - 20 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 137. SRI. BASAVARAJ BADIGER S/O. RUDRAPPA AGE. 31 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. PLAT NO.123, BASAVANAKUDACHI, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 138. SRI. SUNIL K CHOUAGLE S/O. KALIMATH AGE. 34 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. PLAT NO.127, VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 139. SMT. MANJULA S PATIL D/O. SADEPPA AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. BLOCK NO.21, VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 140. SMT. GIRIJA K PADASALAGI D/O. BHIMAPPA AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QURATERS, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 141. SRI. MUTTAPPA M KOTI S/O. MADIVALAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 142. SRI. RAVI. BINGE S/O. MARUTI, AGE. 29 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. ZED GALLI, SHAHAPURA, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 143. SMT. PARIMALA S PATIL D/O. BHIMARAYA AGE. 40 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. - 21 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 R/AT. VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 144. SRI. SANTHOSH WALLEPURKAR, S/O. MARUTI AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. VISHWESARAIAH NAGARA, PWD QUARTERS, BELAGAVI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 145. SRI. AKSHAY B BETAGERI, S/O. BASAVARAJ AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE HUKKERI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. NO.1123/1C, KULAKARNI GALLI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 146. SMT. PARVATHI BASAVARAJ MISHEGERI D/O. BALAGOUDA AGE. 37 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. MRUTUNJAJAYANAGARA, BAILHONGAL, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 147. SRI. VINAYAKA MADIVALAKAR, S/O. ASHOK AGE. 43 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. JYOTHINAGARA, JAMBOTI ROAD, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 148. SRI. SUNIL DESAI S/O. GOVINDA AGE. 39 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. OLAMANI, KHANAPURA TALUK, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 149. SMT. R.M. SHINDU D/O. BABUNAR AGE. 50 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, R/AT. NO.46231, BADAKALGI, BELAGUM, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 150. SRI. PADMAKARA S. PATIL, S/O. SUBHASH AGE. 30 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, - 22 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 BELAGAVI DISTRICT. R/AT. NO.235, 5TH CROSS, TILAKAWADI, BELAGUM DISTRICT. 151. SMT. APARNA @ ROOPA BAPASHETTY, D/O. VISWANATH, AGE. 41 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. 152. SMT. VIDYAVATHI R DESAPANDE D/O. SRINIVASHRAO, AGE. 49 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TAHASILDAR OFFICE INDI, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT, R/AT. GOUDAR ONI, INDI TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT. 153. SRI. AJAYKUMAR J GAYALSAWAD, S/O. SHIVAJI AGE. 49 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT. R/AT. AMBEDKAR COLONY, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT. 154. SRI. CHANABASAYYA IRAYYA HEMANTH S/O. IRAYYA, AGE 28 YEARS, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA, R/AT. RAJKUMAR LAYOUT, GURBASAVA NILAYA, VIJAYAPURA. 155. SRI. PAVANKUMAR RAMESH NIMBALKAR, S/O. RAMESH, AGE. 27 YEARS, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA, R/AT. AL AMEEN HOSPITAL, NEAR SENANAGAR, PLOT NO.58, VIJAYAPURA. 156. SRI. PRAKASH NARGAN MASUTI, S/O. NARGAN MASUTI AGE 39 YEARS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, R/AT. C/O. P.N. MASUTI, NEAR NARASING TEMPLE, TORAVI, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT. 157. SARFARAJ NAWAJ AKKALKOT S/O. GOUSE LAZAM AGE. 35 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, R/AT. SHIVASHAKTINAGAR, NEAR RAMNAGAR, VIJAYAPURA. 158. SMT. SOUMYA S. SHEKKI, D/O. SHIVABASU, AGE. 22 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, R/AT. C/O. SOUMYA SHEKKI, PLOT NO.445, - 23 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 MANAGULI ROAD, NEAR JALNAGAR BUS STOP, S.R. COLONY, VIJAYAPURA -586 109. 159. SRI. KAREPPA LAXMAN PUJERI, S/O. LAXMAN PUJERI, AGE. 31 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, R/AT. C/O. LAXMAN PUJERI, AT POST JAMBUGI (A), TALUK AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPRA-586112. 160. SRI. TIRUPATI S/O. CHADAPPA, AGE. 45 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, C/O. TIRUPATHI C. ALTI, AT POST REVENAGAR, TALUK. VIJAYAPURA, DISTRICT. VIJAYAPURA-586 102. 161. SRI. SHARANAKUMARA P. HIREMATH, PRABHAYYA HIREMATH, AGE. 23 YEARS, SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, R/AT. GOTAKHANDANKI, AT POST BANTNY, TALUK. TALIKOTI, DISTRICT. VIJAYAPURA. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE–570001. 4. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001. 5. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI DIVISION, KALABURAGI- 585101. 6. B. DODDABASAPPA REDDY, S/O. SOMPPA AGE. 36 YEARS, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, HORAMAVU, K.R. PURAM TALUK, BANGALORE-43 R/O. #2, 6TH CROSS, KRISHNA NAGAR, - 24 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 DEVASANDRA ROAD, K.R. PURAM TALUK. BANGALORE. 7. KARNATAKA RAJYA GRAMA LEKHA ADIKARIGALA KENDRA SANGHA, DAVANAGERE- 577002. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 8. SRI. SHIVANDA NAIK K.S S/O. LATE SIDDANAIK, AGE. 37 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, JAJURU CIRCLE, OLD TALUK OFFICE, B.H. ROAD ARASIKERE, HASSAN-573103. 9. SRI. MADHUSUDHAN K.N. S/O. LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGE. 35 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, O/O. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, G. BOMMANAHALLI CIRCLE, DEVARAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA-571432. 10. SRI. HARISH D.P. S/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGE. 40 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, O/O. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KRISHNARAPETE CIRCLE, MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK, MANDYA-571426. 11. SRI. AMARESH, S/O. LATE DHARMANNA, AGE. 27 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, O/O. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KADAKOLA CIRCLE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE-571311. 12. SRI. VINAYAKA GURUMALLAPPA S/O. KOTRAIAH M.G. AGE. 31 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, O/O. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KYSENAHALLI CIRCLE, JAGALURU TALUK, DAVANGERE-577528. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONGWITH SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA & SRI. K. SATISH, ADVOCATES FOR R6 & R7; SRI. M.B. HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R12) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.09.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5316-5476/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. - 25 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE), S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) This writ petition is presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Application Nos.657 to 662 of 2022 and Application Nos.5316 to 5476 of 2021, whereunder the petitioners’ challenge to the Karnataka Revenue Subordinate Branch Services (Recruitment)(Amendment) Rules, 20211, notified under Notification dated 12.10.2021 is rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Second Division Assistants2 and respondents No.9 to 12 are working as Village Accountants3 in the Revenue Department. For both posts of SDAs and VAs, the next promotional post is First Division Assistant (for short ‘FDA’) or First Division Revenue Inspector (for short ‘FDRI’). The 1 For short ‘ Amendment Rules 2021’ 2 For short ‘SDA’ 3 For short ‘VA’ - 26 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 petitioners (SDAs) and private respondents (VAs) are governed by the Karnataka Revenue Subordinate Branch Services (Recruitment) Rules, 19774. In terms of Rules, 1977, method of recruitment to FDA including FDRI reads as under: Category of Posts Method of Recruitment Minimum qualification First Division Clerks including Revenue Inspectors (i) Thirty percent by direct recruitment in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Recruitment to Ministerial Posts) Rules,1966 (ii) Thirty percent by promotion from the cadre of Second Division Clerks (iii)Forty percent by promotion from the cadre of Village Accountants (1) Must Have Possessed SSLC Examination Or Equivalent Qualification. (2) Must Have Put In Not Less Than Five Years Of Service In The Cadre Of Second Division Clerks Or Village Accountants, as the case may be. 3. In terms of the above, the post of FDA/FDRI was to be filled up 30% by direct recruitment, 30% by promotion from the cadre of SDAs and 40% by promotion from the cadre of VAs. The cadre strength of VAs is 9843 and that of SDA is 3059 in the Revenue Department. The Association of VAs submitted representation stating that though the cadre 4 For short ‘Rules,1977’ - 27 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 strength of SDAs is much lesser than the cadre strength of VAs, SDAs are getting promotion much earlier than VAs and therefore, sought amendment to the method of promotion to the cadre of FDA/FDRI. The State Government issued notification dated 29.07.2021 to amend the method of recruitment to the post of FDA/FDRI and invited objections and suggestions from the persons likely to be affected. The proposed amendment was to the effect that the method of recruitment to the post of FDA/FDRI would be 30% by direct recruitment and 70% by promotion from the cadre of SDAs and VAs on the basis of combined seniority, seniority being determined based on the length of service in the respective cadres. Thereafter, under Notification dated 12.10.2021, Amendment Rules, 2021 were published. The amended provision insofar as filling up the post of FDAs/FDRIs reads as under: (i) Thirty percent by direct recruitment in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Recruitment to Ministerial Posts) Rules, 1978 and (ii) Seventy percent by promotion from the cadre of Second Division Assistant and Village Accountants on the basis of combined seniority, seniority being - 28 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 determined based on the length of service in the respective cadres. Seniority interse being maintained. 4. Questioning the said amendment, the petitioners were before the Tribunal in the aforestated applications on the ground that the amendment is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal under impugned order dismissed the applications placing reliance on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi and Others Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Others5 as well as Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani & Others6 and holding that based on the exigencies of circumstances and administrative requirements, the amendment was brought in. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as Amendment Rules, 2021, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vijayakumar Bajentri for the petitioners; learned Addl. Advocate General Sri. Reuben Jacob for Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned AGA for the official respondents; Sri. R Subramanya, learned counsel for 5 2003(2) SCC 632 6 2008 (9) SCC 242 - 29 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 Sri. K Satish, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 and 7 and Sri. Hariprasad M.B., learned counsel for respondents No.8 to 12. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Learned counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajentri for the petitioners submits that the order of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous. In that, he submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners that the Amendment Rules, 2021 is patently arbitrary and would affect both the SDAs as well as VAs. Learned counsel would submit that prior to the Amendment Rules 2021, promotion was being made in terms of Rules 1977, wherein the posts of FDA/FDRI was to be filled up 70% by promotion i.e., 30% from the cadre of SDAs and 40% from the cadre of VAs. It is submitted that by virtue of Amendment Rules, 2021, the amendment to the method of recruitment to the posts of FDA/FDRI i.e., by promotion on the basis of combined seniority of SDAs and VAs would be totally arbitrary. It is submitted that if direct recruitment takes place either in the cadre of SDAs or VAs, direct recruitees would be placed in the seniority list en-bloc - 30 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 and until and unless one batch of either SDAs or VAs is promoted to the next higher cadre, the other cadre would not get promotion at all. Therefore, he submits that fixing ratio based on the cadre strength of each of the cadre would be reasonable and would provide equal opportunities to both cadres of SDAs and VAs. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners filed objection to the preliminary notification to maintain ratio between SDAs and VAs in terms of cadre strength of each cadre, but the said objection is not considered. It is submitted that the cadre strength of VAs is more than 9000, whereas cadre strength of SDA is 3000 and odd. Taking note of the cadre strength of both cadres, he submits that 3:1 ratio would be reasonable. It is submitted that the ratio proportionate to the cadre would be reasonable and would provide equal opportunity to both SDAs and VAs. 7. Learned counsel Sri. Bajentri would invite attention of this Court to the Circular dated 6.7.2020 and submits that the said Circular lays down guidelines for amendment of Cadre and Recruitment Rules. In that, it is submitted that if post is - 31 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 to be filled up by more than one feeder cadre, it would be appropriate to provide ratio for promotion to the next higher cadre. Ignoring the said circular as well as recommendation of the Deputy Commissioners, wherein majority of the Deputy Commissioners of the Districts had recommended to maintain the ratio between VAs and SDAs, the Government proceeded to amend Rules 1977 by way of Amendment Rules 2021 to the effect that the promotion to the FDA/FDRI would be by combined seniority of VAs and SDAs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi supra to contend that if the action of the State is patently arbitrary, the Court could interfere in the matter of policy decision. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned AAG Sri.Reuben Jacob would submit that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners holding that it is for the Government to amend the Rules based on the administrative exigencies and it is a prerogative of the State to reorganize, merge, alter or create - 32 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 and abolish the posts. The said policy decision of the State is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Learned AAG would submit that there was an imbalance between SDAs and VAs in the cadre of FDA/FDRI, as such, the amendment was necessitated. It is submitted that the SDAs who are less in number got promotion early and their strength in the FDA cadre is much lesser than the strength of VAs. Learned AAG further submits that to equalize the strength between the SDAs and VAs, the amendment in question was brought in. Learned AAG would further submit that no government servant has right for promotion and every government servant has a right only to be considered for promotion. He further submits that in the instant case, promotional opportunities of the petitioners is not taken away and they would be entitled for promotion to the next higher cadre based on the combined seniority of VAs/SDAs. Therefore, he submits that mere reduction in promotional opportunities is not a ground to interfere with the rules of recruitment. Learned AAG also places reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi supra as well as Pushpa Rani supra. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 33 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 10. Learned counsel Sri. R Subramanya appearing on behalf of the private respondents i.e. Village Accountants, would submit that after taking note of the factual aspects and after considering the objections and suggestions of the petitioners as well as private respondents, Amendment Rules 2021 has been brought into force. It is submitted that the cadre strength of VAs is more than 9000, whereas cadre strength of SDAs is only 3000. Taking note of cadre strength, the Department is justified in prescribing promotion based on the combined seniority of VAs and SDAs. Learned counsel Sri. Subramanya in addition to P.U. Joshi supra, places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.P. Shivprasad Pipal Vs. Union of India & Others7 to contend that mere reduction of chances of promotion would not be a ground to interfere with the policy decision or Rule making authority of the State. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on careful scrutiny of the material on record, the only point 7 (1998) 4 SCC 598 - 34 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 which falls for consideration is, whether the impugned Amendment Rules, 2021 as well as impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference? 12. Answer to the above point would be “partly in the affirmative” and in the facts and circumstances, we have come to a conclusion that the Amendment Rules, 2021 needs relook by the State for the observation made during the course of this order. 13. The cadre strength of VAs is 9843 and that of SDAs is 3059 approximately in the Revenue Department. The next promotional post to the SDAs and VAs is FDA/FDRIs. In other words, for filling up the post of FDA/FDRIs, the feeder cadre is SDAs and VAs. Till 2021, the posts of FDAs/FDRIs were filled up 30% by direct recruitment and 70% by promotion i.e. 30% from the cadre of SDAs and 40% from the cadre of VAs. Under Amendment Rules, 2021, the method of promotion was amended to say that 70% of promotion from the cadre of SDAs and VAs on the basis of combined seniority, seniority being determined based on the length of service in the respective cadres. - 35 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 14. The amendment is to the effect that the Department shall have to maintain the combined seniority list of SDAs and VAs and based on the seniority among SDAs and VAs in terms of combined seniority list, the promotion shall have to be effected to FDAs/FDRIs. The effect of amendment is that it might delay the promotion either to VAs or SDAs, but it would not deny the promotion. In that, promotional opportunity is being reduced or time gap for promotion is increased, that by itself cannot be termed as an arbitrary action on the part of the State or it may not amount to an unreasonable amendment. As held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, the legislation plenary or subordinate can be struck down as arbitrary. But, it is for the persons who approach the Constitutional Court to establish that the legislation is manifestly arbitrary. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka8 while examining the validity of Rule 3(11) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, at paragraph-13 has held as under: 8 (1996) 10 SCC 304 - 36 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 13. It is next submitted before us that the amended Rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and cause undue hardship and, therefore, violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Although the protection of Article 19(1)(9) may not be available to the Appellants, the Rules must, undoubtedly, satisfy the test of Article 14, which is a guarantee against arbitrary action. However, one must bear in mind that what is being challenged here Under Article 14 is not executive action but delegated legislation. The tests of arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; a law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated with the law-making power. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India | MANU/SC/0406/1984MANU/SC/0406/1984 :(1985) 1 SCC 641: 1985 SCC (Tax) 121), this Court said that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. A subordinate legislation may be questioned Under Article 14 on the ground that it is unreasonable; unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. Drawing a comparison between the law in England and in India, the Court further observed that in England the Judges would say, "Parliament never intended the authority to make such Rules, they are unreasonable and ultra vires. In India, arbitrariness is not a separate ground since it will come within the embargo of Article 14 of the Constitution. But subordinate legislation must be so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. (Emphasis supplied) - 37 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 16. In Cellular Operators Association of India Vs. TRAI9, the Apex Court has laid down parameters of judicial review of subordinate legislation. At paragraph-34, it has held as under: “34. In State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamoorthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517, this Court after adverting to the relevant case law on the subject, laid down the parameters of judicial review of subordinate legislation generally thus:- “There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognised that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds: (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. (b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. (d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules).” 9 (2016) 7 SCC 703 - 38 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 17. The Apex Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad & Others Vs. Union of India & Others10, was considering the quota fixed for promotion to the cadre of Appraiser from the cadre of Preventive Officer (grade-I) and Examining Officers under the provisions of Department of Revenue (Customs Appraisers Recruitment) Rules, 1988. The principal contention in that said case was that, fixation of 20% quota for promotion of POs is not proportionate to their cadre strength. It was contended therein that fixation of such small quota of 20% of POs as compared to 75% to EOs is arbitrary and discriminatory and hence, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. While considering the said contention, the Apex Court at paragapsh-16 and 17 has held as under: “16. Fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer, mainly pertaining to policy making field. The relevant considerations in fixing a particular quota for a particular post are various such as the cadre strength in the feeder quota, suitability more or less of the holders in the feeder post, their nature of duties, experience and the channels of promotion available to the holders of posts in the feeder cadres. Most important of them all is the requirement of the promoting 10 (2003) 6 SCC 535 - 39 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 authority for manning the post on promotion with suitable candidates. Thus, fixation of quota for various categories of posts in the feeder cadres requires consideration of various relevant factors, a few amongst them have been mentioned for illustration. Mere cadre strength of a particular post in feeder cadre cannot be a sole criteria or basis to claim parity in the chances of promotion by various holders of posts in feeder categories. 17. Normally, where officers are to be drawn for promotion from different posts in the feeder cadre, quota for each post in the feeder cadre is maintained proportionately to the sanctioned strength in that post. This, however, cannot be an inviolable rule of strict application in every case, with any absolute equality of arithmetical exactitude but may vary case to case depending upon the pattern, structure and hierarchies in the Departmental set up as well as exigencies and balancing needs of Administration. There are other relevant considerations, some of which have been mentioned above, which may require departure from the practice of fixation of quota for each post in the feeder cadre, solely proportionate to its strength.” 18. From the above, it is clear that the fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion is the prerogative of the employer and it pertains to policy making field. Such fixation of quota or method depends on cadre strength in feeder quota, suitability more or less of the holders in the feeder post, their nature of duties, experience and the channels of promotion available to the holders of post in the feeder cadres. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that - 40 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 fixation of quota or prescribing particular method for promotion from one cadre to the next higher cadre is within the domain of the State and its policy decision is to be taken by the State on examination of various relevant factors. 19. The Apex Court in P.U. Joshi supra was examining bifurcation and restructure in the absence of Accountant General in the State in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and in the said process, the Apex Court has held at paragraph-10 as under: “10…….Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to - 41 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” 20. In light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Courts/Tribunals cannot interfere with the plenary or subordinate legislation lightly and it should be left with the policy maker. 21. In the case on hand, as observed above, the cadre strength of VAs is 9843 and SDAs is 3059 in the Revenue Department. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if promotion is to be effected based on the combined seniority list, unless en-bloc of either VAs or SDAs are promoted, the others would not get an opportunity of promotion. If direct recruitment takes place either to VAs or SDAs, those direct recruitees would be placed in en-bloc seniority list and until en-bloc of either VAs or SDAs get promotion, the other cadre would not get promotion, which would mean that there would not be an equal opportunity of promotion to the VAs and SDAs. 22. Under Circular dated 6.7.2020 (Annexure-A6), the State Government has issued guidelines to be followed by the - 42 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 Authorities while amending C & R Rules. Clause-3(ii) regarding promotion reads as under: “MAzÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä MAzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¥ÉÇõÀPÀ ªÀÈAzÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀÝ°è, CAvÀºÀ ¥ÉÇõÀPÀ ªÀÈAzÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀUÀ¼ÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ C£ÀÄ¥ÁvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÉÃPÀqÀªÁgÀÄ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.” 23. The posts of FDAs/FDRIs is to be filled up by feeder cadres of VAs and SDAs. When such being the position, the respondent/State ought to have considered the objection of the petitioners to the prescribed quota for promotion taking into consideration the cadre strength of VAs and SDAs. The Deputy Commissioners of majority of the Districts from whom the State had sought opinion have expressed that quota of 3:1 to VAs and SDAs respectively would be reasonable as could be seen from Annexure-A8 series. The State while amending in terms of Amendment Rules 2021, ignored such suggestions. 24. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has upheld the provision of fixation of a quota and has held that quota fixation effectuates the mandate of Article 16 of the - 43 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Kuldeep Kumar Gupta Vs. H.P. SEB 11 at paragraph-6 has held as under: “6…….Providing a quota is not new in the service jurisprudence and whenever the feeder category itself consists of different category of persons and when they are considered for any promotion, the employer fixes a quota for each category so that the promotional cadre would be equibalanced and at the same time each category of persons in the feeder category would get the opportunity of being considered for promotion. This is also in a sense in the larger interest of the administration when it is the employer, who is best suited to decide the percentage of posts in the promotional cadre, which can be earmarked for different category of persons. In other words this provision actually effectuates the constitutional mandate engrafted in Article 16(1), as it would offer equality of opportunity in the matters relating to employment and it would not be the monopoly of a specified category of persons in the feeder category to get promotions. We, therefore, do not find any infraction of the constitutional provision engrafted in Article 16(4) while providing a quota in the promotional cadre, as in our view it does not tantamount to reservation.” 25. This Court passed interim order on 20.04.2023, which reads as under: “Matter requires hearing and the fact remains that SDAs have not been heard prior to amending the rules despite they having submitted objections. We direct the official respondents not to precipitate or attempt to present a fait accompli to the Court.” 26. In view of the above interim order, learned AAG submitted that no promotions are made to the cadre of FDA & 11 (2001) 1 SCC 475 - 44 - Writ Petition No.329 of 2023 FDRI. However, the same is disputed by the learned counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajentri. 27. Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate to continue the above interim order dated 20.04.2023 for a period of four months from today and in the meanwhile, we direct respondent No.1/State to reconsider the entire issue in the light of observations made above and take appropriate decision to provide equal opportunity to SDAs and VAs in the matter of promotion. 28. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE JTR