IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.27656 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN SRI NAGARAJAIAH S/O BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC:RTD PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER O/O YALACHAVADI GRAM PANCHAYATH KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159 (BY SRI BABU RAO M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLAPANCHAYATH, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA -562 159 3. SRI.CHANDRU S/O MUDAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION ASSISTANT DIRECTOR O/O KANAKAPURA TALUKA PANCHAYATH EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159 ... PETITIONER NOW O/O ASST PROJECT OFFICER RAMANAGARA ZILLA PANCHAYATH RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159 (BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 ... RESPONDENTS SRI B J SOMYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.12.2017 IN APPLICATION NO. 6358/2015 AND ORDER DATED 20.04.2018 IN R.A. NO. 6/2018 ON THE FILE OF KSAT PASSED BY THE KSAT AS PER ANNEX-A AND B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner made a prayer before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to give regular promotion to the post of Panchayat Development Officer w.e.f. 12.03.2010 on which date promotion was given to his junior respondent No.3 as per Annexure-R4 dated 20.05.2014. The application came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner approached the court belatedly seeking promotion from the date on which the respondent No.3 was promoted on 12.03.2010. Against which, this petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the date on which his junior was promoted, he made several representations, but same has not been considered. The respondents have not finalised the seniority list. On the other hand, draft seniority as on 01.01.2013, is acted upon.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that seniority list between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 was prepared in the year 2000, which is operated for nearly 20 years. Petitioner has kept his silence without challenging the same on the basis of seniority and on superannuation both the petitioner and the respondent No.3 are retired from service.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
5. It is undisputed fact that the seniority list grade II Secretary was of the year 2000, which was the basis for promotion to next cadre and it was operated upon for nearly 20 years. The petitioner did not chose to challenge the same, but at the fag end of his service he has challenged the same to settle his pensionary benefits. Since the things are allowed to stand for a long time and Seniority list was operated for nearly 2 decades, we tend to concur with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly Writ Petition is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE KLY/