THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.26534 OF 2013 (S - PRO) BETWEEN:
MR. D.K. SHANKAR S/O MR. D. KEMPEGOWDA AGED 48 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.2, DIVISION, NO.55 RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 020 (BY SRI.KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING VIKASA SOUDHA, II FLOOR BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT …PETITIONER BOARD, ABHAYA COMPLEX NO.55, RISALDAR STREET SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 020 3. MR.K. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD VINOBHA & PES COLLEGE ROAD SUBHASH NAGAR MANDYA – 571 401 4. MR. T.N. NARASIMHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT ABHAYA COMPLEX NO.55, RISALDAR STREET SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KAVITHA H.C., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. D. VENUGOPAL, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. H.S. SANTHOSH, ADV. FOR M/S. KESVY AND CO., ADVs. FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 21.04.2012 AND 31.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-2, THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, VIDE ANNEXURE – A & B AND ALLOW THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was appointed as SDA as a daily wager by the respondent company on 20.01.1965 and his services was regularized on 09.02.1987. The respondent No.2 prepared a seniority list In the cadre of SDA in the year 2000, wherein the petitioner was placed in Sl.No.27. Whereas respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are placed at Sl. Nos 37 and 58 respectively. On the basis of the said seniority list, petitioner is senior and as a senior he is eligible for promotion to the next cadre of FDA The respondent NO.2 without considering the seniority of this petitioner promoted respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as FDAs. Petitioner also relies on the seniority list prepared in 2008 for the seniority list he is placed at Sl. No.11 and respondent Nos. 4 and 3 are below to him. The petitioner approached the respondent No.2 and made a request for consideration of his case along with his juniors to promote him as FDA w.e.f their promotion. Since the same has not been considered, petitioner is before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deprival of petitioner’s promotion to the post of FDA is arbitrary and in violation of Seniority Rules maintained by the respondent No.2. Hence he prays for allowing this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that since the petitioner has not approached the respondent No.2 his case has not been considered. The same would be considered in accordance with law if some time is granted.
3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
4. The promotion is to be made on the basis of the existing Seniority Rules or any Promotion Rules maintained by the respondent No.2. If the promotion is made on the seniority or suitability/eligibility then it has to be explained to the person who is deprived of promotion. In the instant case, Rules maintained by the respondent is by way of seniority and merit. Since the petitioner has not been communicated and no doubt any adverse remark which is communicated by way of memo to that effect is issued to the petitioner. Under these circumstances the petitioner has got a statutory right for consideration of his case for the promotion under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the date promotion of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with all consequential and monetary benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv