IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.33592 OF 2018 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI. A.C. MANJEGOWDA, S/O. LATE CHALUVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS, MAHARANI GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, N.S. ROAD, MYSORE-570 024. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI : VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.06.2018 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3441/2010 [ANNEXURE-A] AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The applicant in application No.3441/2010 on the file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘KSAT’) has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 19.06.2018 passed therein.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that initially, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Science on 14.09.2019. After completion of his probation, he was absorbed in the said cadre and thereafter, he was promoted as Lecturer in the year 1996 itself.
According to him, though there were vacancies available in the promotional quota, his name was not considered till 22.10.2009. According to him, his promotion should have been considered from 01.04.1998 itself. To buttress his argument, he would rely upon Annexure-A6 which is the seniority list maintained with reference to the teachers for various subjects. With reference to the vacancies available as on 23.10.1986, 24.10.1986, 30.04.1998, 01.05.1998, 30.04.2009, 01.05.1998 to 31.12.2009, he would assert that as on 01.04.1998 when 21 promotions were considered for teachers in Mathematics, there was one more vacancy available which would have been considered to the petitioner in those proceedings.
3. As against aforesaid arguments, the tribunal looked into the entire material available on record and observed as under:-
“It is also clearly stated that only 22 posts of lecturers were available against PR quota and 21 persons have been given promotion on 01.04.1998. However, the applicant was not one among them in the seniority list, his turn came only in the year 2009 and was promoted accordingly on 22.10.2009. The order also makes it clear that the applicant is not eligible for retrospective promotion. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there are no infirmities in the impugned order dated 27.03.2010 since no person who was junior to the applicant was promoted ignoring the seniority of the applicant. Further, there were no additional vacancies at the time of consideration of promotion given to 21 persons on 01.04.1998. It is also seen from the order dated 27.03.2010 that many persons were above him and they have been promoted as per the seniority list. As and when the applicant’s turn came for consideration of promotion, his case was considered and he was also promoted on 22.10.2009. Therefore, we do not see any injustice done to the applicant.”
and felt that it is not a fit case to consider his prayer, accordingly, rejected the application.
4. On going through the order impugned, it is clear that the tribunal after considering all the material available on record has observed that the petitioner herein has not been sidelined at any point of time as contended and is only when he reached such an eligibility to get the promotion, immediately, the same is considered on 22.10.2009. In the process, none of his juniors were promoted. All those above him upto the stage of seniority of the petitioner are all considered for promotion in accordance with seniority. The petitioner was promoted on 22.10.2009 and order also is clear that petitioner is not eligible for retrospective promotion. Further the Tribunal has also taken judicial note of fact that there were no additional vacancies at the time of consideration of promotion given to 21 persons on 01.04.1998.
5. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he should have been considered for promotion as on 01.04.1998 is without any basis. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-