IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.4299/2015 (S PRO) BETWEEN SRI C RAJU SON OF SRI CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.E-4, K.E.B. ROAD, VETERINARY STAFF QUARTERS, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560024.
(BY SRI B L NANDA KUMAR, ADV.) AND 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560024 2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, G.K.V.K. BANGALORE-560024.
3. THE COMPTROLLER UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, G.K.V.K. BANGALORE-56004.
(BY SRI R SRIDHAR HIREMATH, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEX-A DTD.11.9.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings of respondent No.1-University, whereby the promotion conferred upon him under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme came to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioner failed to report to the place of posting pursuant to the order promoting the petitioner.
3. The brief facts are, that petitioner was appointed as Driver (LV) in the respondent-University. By order dated 21.06.2008, petitioner was promoted as Driver (HV) and by the very same order, he was further directed to report for duty to the Director of Instruction (Sericulture), Sericultural College, Chintamani, on or before 21.07.2008. That on the request of the petitioner, he was given a further extension, but despite the extension of time, petitioner failed to report to duty. Hence, by the impugned order dated 27.08.2008, the earlier order dated 21.06.2008 granting promotion was cancelled on the premise that the petitioner failed to report to duty and has forgone the promotion given to him as Driver (HV).
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and his son were suffering from renal ailments and he would submit that on account of his son’s aliment, petitioner was required to remain along with him. Though no records in support of the said contention are produced along with the writ petition, copies of the same are furnished in Open Court. This Court has looked into the same. The said records pertain to the son of the petitioner and it relates to the year 2005. Admittedly, the promotion and movement order is of the year 2008. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated persons, and he would name about 7 to 8 officials, have been permitted to remain at the institution at Bengaluru and he would submit that he has been discriminated.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent inviting the attention of the Court to the materials produced along with the statement of objections and as also those produced along with IA-1. He would submit that persons pointed out by the petitioner had shown sufficient reasons and after verification of the reasons, they were granted additional time to report to their duties. That in the case of the petitioner, earlier 30 days time was granted, and thereafter, petitioner was granted additional time to report to duty. That despite the same, the petitioner failed to report to duty and thereby is deemed to have forgone the promotion given to him in terms of the amended provisions of Rule 2.3 of the Scheme of Time Bound Advancement for Government Employees. Learned Counsel would invite the attention of the Court to Rule 1(3)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983, which reads as under:
“1. Title, commencement and application.- (1) ……… (2) ……… (3) They shall apply to all Government servants governed by the Karnataka Civil Services Rules except.-
(a) ……… (b) ……… (c) ……… (d) Government servants who have voluntarily forgone their promotion.
6. He would contend that the petitioner having failed to report to duty, has thereby voluntarily forgone the promotion given to him. He would place reliance on the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13780/2015. Further, reliance is also placed on the amended Statute 32 of the First Statutes of UAS, Bangalore, more particularly sub-rule (e) under Sl. No.5 under the chapter eligibility and method of selection for promotion in the existing cadre and recruitment regulations of UAS, Bangalore, which reads as under:
“e) If a person promoted to the next higher cadre does not join the promoted post within the stipulated time, his/her name should be brought back at the bottom of the seniority list in the present cadre.”
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner never reported to duty despite the past more than 10 years. That apart, on perusal of Annexure-B – promotion order, there is no reference to the promotion being granted under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme. If that be the case, then the amended provisions of Statute 32 of the First Statutes of UAS Regulations comes into play and the petitioner is deemed to have forgone the promotion accorded to him. In that view of the matter, petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR