- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10540-DB WP No. 13371 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 13371 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA K. L., S/O DR. V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR, YOUTH EMPOWERMENT AND SPORTS, BANGALORE, STATE YOUTH CENTRE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISHKUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH EMPOWERMENT AND SPORTS, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH EMPOWERMENT AND SPORTS Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10540-DB WP No. 13371 of 2024 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2023 PASSED IN A.No- 1589/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE KSAT AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION VIDE No-1589/2022 BY QUASHING IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.04.2021 IN DYES/C/3/46/KAT/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-A12 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 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 aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2023 in Application No.1589/2022 on the file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, rejecting the prayer to quash the endorsement dated 21.04.2021 (Annexure-A12), whereunder the petitioner had sought retrospective promotion from 2000 against roster point 7 to the post of Deputy Director. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10540-DB WP No. 13371 of 2024 2. Heard Sri Giriskumar R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Sri Girishkumar R., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was directly recruited and appointed as Assistant Director of Youth Empowerment and Sports Department. He completed his period of probation in the year 2000 and it is his case that on completion of his probation, he became eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre of Deputy Director. As on that date, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that roster point 7 was available for scheduled caste candidate for promotion and since the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category, his case ought to have been considered for promotion against 7th roster point. 3.1 Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking direction to consider his representations for promotion to the post of Deputy Director - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10540-DB WP No. 13371 of 2024 retrospectively and the Tribunal by order dated 11.06.2020 in Application No.8399/2015 directed the respondent-authorities to consider the representations and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. However, he submits that the respondents on consideration of his representations under impugned endorsement dated 21.04.2021 (Annexure-A12), erroneously rejected the request of the petitioner for retrospective promotion. 3.2 Learned counsel would further submit that in fact the 7th roster point was available as on the date the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Director. 4. Per contra, Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents invited attention of this Court to the impugned endorsement dated 21.04.2021 and would submit that as on the date of the petitioner becoming eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre of Deputy Director, the 7th roster point for scheduled caste candidate was not available, as the same was utilized for promotion of one Smt. S. Lalithamma, who also belonged to the scheduled caste category. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10540-DB WP No. 13371 of 2024 4.1 Further, learned AGA would submit that the petitioner was regularly promoted as Deputy Director on 07.08.2012. Thus, he would support the order passed by the Tribunal and prays for rejecting the petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the availability of 7th roster point as on the date he became eligible for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Director in the year 2000. The relevant portion of the endorsement dated 21.04.2021 reads as follows: "ªÀiÁ£Àå DqÀ½vÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ²æÃ. PÉ. J¯ï. ¸ÀĨsÁµïZÀAzÀæ, dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, AiÀÄĪÀ ¸À§°ÃPÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ QæÃqÁ E¯ÁSÉ, EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ºÁUÀÆ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ²æÃ. PÉ.J¯ï. ¸ÀĨsÁµï ZÀAzÀæ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁV vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀjÃPÁëxÀð ¸ÉêÁ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-7-2000 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆtðUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ªÀÈAzÀzÀ gÉÆøÀÖgï ©AzÀÄ 7 gÀ°è ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ²æêÀÄw J¸ï. ®°vÀªÀÄä EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ªÀÈAzÀ¢AzÀ G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ªÀÈAzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀ£Àß ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ²æÃ. PÉ.J¯ï. ¸ÀĨsÁµï ZÀAzÀæ EªÀgÀÄ G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ CºÀðgÁzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è gÉÆøÀÖgï ©AzÀÄ 7 gÀ°è ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄÄ SÁ° EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ PɼÀPÁt¹zÀ DzÉñÀ. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10540-DB WP No. 13371 of 2024 DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:rªÉÊEJ¸ï/¹3/46/PÉ.J.n/2015-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21/04/2021 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ²æà PÉ.J¯ï. ¸ÀĨsÁµïZÀAzÀæ, dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, AiÀÄĪÀ ¸À§°ÃPÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ QæÃqÁ E¯ÁSÉ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÁëxÀð CªÀ¢ü ¥ÀÆgÉʹ ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ CºÀðªÁzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ SÁ°¬Ä®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ gÉÆøÀÖgï ©AzÀÄ 7 gÀ°è ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ CºÀð C¨sÀåyðAiÀiÁVzÀÝ ²æêÀÄw J¸ï. ®°vÀªÀÄä EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ »AzÉAiÉÄà ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ²æÃ. PÉ.J¯ï. ¸ÀĨsÁµïZÀAzÀæ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß gÉÆøÀÖgï ©AzÀÄ 7 gÀ°è ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw C¨sÀåyðAiÀiÁV G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¸ÁÜ£À¥À£Àß ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÉ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁV ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è." 6. The above endorsement clearly indicates that on completion of probationary period of the petitioner and on the date he became eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre of Deputy Director, there was no vacancy and the roster point 7 meant for scheduled caste category was utilized for promotion of one Smt. S. Lalithamma. Therefore, when the said roster point 7 is utilized by the said Smt. S. Lalithamma, apparently the said vacancy was not available. 7. The petitioner has not produced any other material to demonstrate that the 7th roster point vacancy was available much prior to his promotion. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10540-DB WP No. 13371 of 2024 8. The Tribunal having considered in detail the contentions of the petitioner, has rightly dismissed the application. The Tribunal under the impugned order has rightly observed that no government servant could claim promotion as a matter of right from the date of attaining eligibility. In addition to that, the petitioner has not made any other person who is promoted earlier to seek retrospective promotion as party respondent to the present petition. In the absence of the necessary parties, this Court would not examine the promotions made earlier to the petitioner's promotion. 9. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56