- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4002-DB WP No. 20376 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 20376 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M. P. ARAVIND, S/O LATE M.C. PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SHIRASTEDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NANJANGUD TALUK, NANJANGUD-571301, MYSORE DISTRICT. R/AT RAMASHETTY EXTENSION, NEAR NANJUNDESHWARA GAS AGENCY, NANJANGUD-571301, MYSORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4002-DB WP No. 20376 of 2023 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570001. 3. SMT. HANNA FLORENCE, W/O P. WILLY CHARLES, SHIRASTEDAR (RETIRED) R/AT DOOR No.75, GROUND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570020. 4. SRI.T.K. RAMESH KUMAR, TAHSILDAR GRADE-2, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.08.2024 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2022 IN APPLICATION No. 644/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2023 PASSED IN REVIEW APPLICATION No.10/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BOTH PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.644/2021 AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4002-DB WP No. 20376 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, a Shirestedar working in Taluk Office, Nanjangud, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 12.07.2022 in Application No.644/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') as well as order dated 26.04.2023 in Review Application No.10/2023 passed by the Tribunal, whereunder the petitioner's challenge to the ranking assigned to the petitioner below respondent Nos.3 and 4 in Official Memorandum dated 13.03.2020-Seniority List of Shirestedar/Deputy Tahsildar belonging to Mysore Division is rejected. 2. Heard Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is senior to respondent Nos.3 and 4. Learned counsel further submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4, at their request, were redeployed in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4002-DB WP No. 20376 of 2023 the year 1999, whereas the petitioner was appointed in the year 1997 in the Revenue Department. Learned counsel would submit that in the Final Seniority List dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure-A4) respondent Nos.3 and 4 are shown above the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the Tribunal in Application No.644/2021 contending that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are redeployed subsequent to his appointment and their earlier service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority and place them above the petitioner. The Tribunal noticing that the assignment of seniority to respondent Nos.3 and 4 is in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal dated 09.07.2013 in Application Nos.560-561/2013 rejected the prayer of the petitioner, against which, the petitioner also filed Review Application No.10/2023. The said review also came to be dismissed on 26.04.2023. Against which the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel further submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.560- 561/2013 without making the petitioner as a party to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4002-DB WP No. 20376 of 2023 proceedings and by playing fraud by not placing on record true material facts, secured order to count the service of respondent Nos.3 and 4 from 05.05.1992 and 18.06.1993 respectively, for the purpose of seniority. Learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner was not party to the above stated order, respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be placed above the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 failed to place on record their redeployment order which was in the year 1999. When they have been redeployed to the Revenue Department on their request, they would lose their earlier service and their service would be counted for the purpose of seniority only from the date of their redeployment. Therefore, he submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 committed grave error in counting the earlier service of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to assign seniority above the petitioner. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, Sri V. Shivareddy, Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the assignment of seniority to respondent Nos.3 and 4 was in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal in Application Nos.560-561/2013 dated 09.07.2013. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4002-DB WP No. 20376 of 2023 Moreover, he submits that the petitioner has not questioned the order of the Tribunal and it was always open for the petitioner to question the said order. Further learned AGA would also submit that while challenging the seniority list also, the petitioner has not questioned the said order of the Tribunal which directed counting of past service of respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of seniority. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal for the following reasons. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Second Division Assistant on 28.10.1997 and promoted as First Division Assistant on 14.12.2006. Further, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were deployed as SDA in the year 1999 and they were promoted as FDA on 21.07.2012. Thereafter, respondent Nos.3 and 4 approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.560- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4002-DB WP No. 20376 of 2023 561/2013 (Annexure-A2) and the Tribunal by order dated 09.07.2013 passed the following order; "In view of that decision, both these applications are allowed and endorsements in No.Sibbandi(1) CR:90: 2011-12 dated 19-03- 2012 (Annexure A19 and A20) impugned in these two applications are hereby quashed. The Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to count the service of the applicants from the dates of their regularization ie., 5-5-1992 and 18-6-1993 respectively, in the cadre of second division assistants and consequently, give proper rankings to them in the seniority list OM No.Sibbandi(1) C.R.:90:2011-12 dated 19-3- 2012 (Annexure A21). This shall be done within two months herefrom. Within two months thereafter promotions given to the posts of FDAs shall be reviewed as per the K.S.C.S.(Regulation of P.P & P) Act and Rules. " 9. The Tribunal in the above order, directed the respondent-Authorities to count the service of respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the date of their regularization i.e., 05.05.1992 and 18.06.1993 respectively, for the purpose of determination of seniority in the cadre of Second Divisional Assistant. Consequently, the service prior to regularization is counted and they are placed above the petitioner while determining the seniority in the cadre of Shirestedar/Deputy Tahsildar, published under OM dated 13.03.2020. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4002-DB WP No. 20376 of 2023 10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has never questioned the said order dated 09.07.2013 passed in Application No.560-561/2013 either earlier or at the time of challenging the present seniority list dated 13.03.2020. When the seniority of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is determined in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal stated above, the petitioner or any other person without challenging the said order cannot raise any dispute. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not made party to the above stated application filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they have not produced relevant document in the said application is not available for the petitioner to urge in this writ petition. 11. For the reasons accorded above, there is no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7