IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.541 OF 2024 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: Dr. H. NAGANAGOUDA S/O H.V. KARIBASAVANAGOUDA FORMER DIRECTOR CHARTERED ENGINEER AND ADVOCATE AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS H.No.292, 37TH "B" CROSS 26TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 069 MOBILE No.8748899429 E-MAIL:hnaganagouda@gmail.com ...APPELLANT (BY Dr. H. NAGANAGOUDA, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: THE MANAGAING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ASHVINI PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 IN WP No.7176/2020 PASSED BY THE - 2 LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT TO BE GRANTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.12.2023 in Writ Petition No.7176/2020 (S-PRO). 2. We have heard Shri. Dr. H. Naganagouda, appellant/party-in-person and Smt. Ashvini Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in 1990, was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in 2003, and later nominated as the Director, National Training Centre for Solar Technology in 2010. In 2014, he was upgraded to supernumerary post of Executive Engineer which was - 3 regularized in 2015. He retired in the year 2019 as an Executive Engineer (Electrical) while continuing to serve as Director of National Training Centre until retirement. Having obtained a Ph.D., in 2005, the appellant claimed eligibility for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (R&D), and a Committee recommended his promotion to the said post. Aggrieved by the respondent's inaction, the appellant filed W.P.No.15720/2019 seeking directions to consider his promotion and for grant of study leave benefits for 2000- 2003. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to submit a detailed representation and directing the respondent to consider the matter strictly in accordance with law. However, the appellant's representation was rejected by the respondent on 05.07.2019. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.7176/2020 which was dismissed. This Court upheld Karnataka Power Corporation Limited's ('KPCL' for short) order holding that the post of Superintending Engineer (R&D) required five years of service as an Executive - 4 Engineer and could not be claimed on the basis of Ph.D., qualification. It was held that the post was a selection post and promotion could not be claimed as of right. At the time of retirement, the petitioner's seniority was at 17th position in the seniority list and did not meet the eligibility criteria. As for the claim of 3 years salary, the Court noted that while the KPCL had granted six years permission for completion of Ph.D, the petitioner had taken 13 years with 1073 days of unauthorized absence. The period could not be treated as sanctioned study leave, and hence the claim for the said duration was rejected. 5. The appellant submits that the respondent's failure to grant three years salary, increment, leave encashment and other service benefits and promotion from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer to Executive Director (R&D) with retrospective effect from 23.10.2010 to 31.05.2019 was illegal, improper, arbitrary, contrary to service rules and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. During this period, the appellant submitted that he has served as Director without receiving - 5 any allowances, honorarium, conveyance or the increments for having acquired a Ph.D. It is further submitted that the appellant was entitled to benefits under the KPCL pay scales applicable from 23.10.2010 and the revised scales effective from 01.01.2011 and was eligible for promotion from the post of AEE up to Executive Director (R&D) as per C&R Rules and KPCL criteria with retrospective effect. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, the pleadings and materials on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant being appointed in the Electrical discipline, is not eligible for promotion in the R&D discipline as per the KPCL's Cadre & Recruitment (C&R) Rules. The appellant claimed promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (R&D). Promotions are restricted to one's own discipline and R&D posts are filled through promotion on selection. Sl. No Category of posts and Scale of Pay Method of Appointment Conditions of Appointment Appointing Authority 1. *** *** *** *** 2. *** *** *** *** 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CIVIL/ELECL/MEC H/R&D/ INSTR) Rs.13535-22085 By promotion on selection ESSENTIAL i) A Bachelor's Degree or equivalent in the relevant Engineering discipline ii) Service of 5 years Managing Director - 6 as Executive Engineer in the Corporation Note: An EE on completion of 7 years of service shall be granted the scale of pay SE with the benefit of fixation of pay. However, he will continue to discharge duties of EE only. (Vide Memo No.A1 R1 R dated 28.03.2002 to have effect from 01.04.2002)". 7. The appellant's claim for promotion based on acquiring a Ph.D., is unsustainable since the Rules do not recognize Ph.D., as a qualification for promotion. Further, there are no provisions permitting study leave to be granted in excess of the permissible period. The appellant having the overstayed the leave to which he was eligible and also having being unauthorizedly being absent for 1073 days could not have sought the service benefits for the said period. 8. Additionally, the C&R Rules mandate a minimum of five years of continuous service as an Executive Engineer for promotion subject to availability, seniority, merit and the recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The appellant at the time of retirement was at - 7 17th position in the seniority list and did not meet the criteria for promotion. 9. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the contentions advanced in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE cp*