Smt. Ashalatha v. The State of Karnataka

( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(19 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2025( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(KRISHNA(S(DIXIT( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(RAMACHANDRA(D.(HUDDAR( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(7477(OF(2024((S-KSAT)( C/W( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(15461(OF(2024((S-KSAT)( IN(WP(No.(7477/2024:( ( BETWEEN:(( ( SMT.,ASHALATHA,, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS,, D/O,LATE,SRI.,SANJEEVE,GOWDA,, RESIDENT,OF,ANUSH,NILAYA,,IST,FLOOR,, ND NDDOOR,NO.400,,2 ,MAIN,,2 ,CROSS,,

HAMAVATHI,NAGAR,,HASSAN-573,202., WORKING,AS,ASSISTANT,ENGINEER,,, Digitally RURAL,DRINKING,WATER,AND,SANITATION,DIVISION,, signedtiby PRESENTLY,ON,DEPUTATION,TO, CHETAN0B0C KARNATAKA,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,DEVELOPMENT,BOARD., Location: , HIGH0COURT …PETITIONER,OF (BY,SRI.,V,LAKSHMINARAYANA.,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,A/W,KARNATAKA ,,,,,,SRI.,VIKRAM,BALAJI.,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,, DEPARTMENT,OF,RURAL,DEVELOPMENT,&,PANCHAYAT, RAJ,, M.S.BUILDING,,BENGALURU-560,001., , ( (

2., THE,COMMISSIONER,, RURAL,DRINKING,WATER,&,SANITATION,DEPARTMENT,, KHB,BUILDING,,K.G.ROAD,, BENGALURU-560,009., ,

3., THE,CHIEF,ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT,RAJ,ENGINEERING,DEPARTMENT,, KHB,BUILDING,,K.G.ROAD,, BENGALURU-560,009., ,

4., SMT.,NAVYASHREE,N.R.,W/O,SRI.,SHAMBUGOWDA,S,, AGED,ABOUT,35,YEARS,, R/OF,CHANDAGOLU,VILLAGE,&,POST,, BASARALU,HOBLI,,MANDYA., ,

5., SRI.,HARIPRASAD,M,S/O,SRI.,MUNIRAJULU,, AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS,, TH THR/O,NO.447-C,,17 ,G,MAIN,,6 ,BLOCK,, KORAMANGALA,,BENGALURU-560,095., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.VIKAS,ROJIPURA.,AGA,FOR,R1,TO,R3;, ,,,,,,SRI.VIJAY,BAJENTRI.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R4,&,R5), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND,227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,CALL, FOR, RECORDS, IN, A.No-1396, AND, 1397/2023, (ANNEXURE-A), AND,II),ISSUE,A,WRIT,OF,CERTIRORAI,AND,CONSEQUENTLY, SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER, DATED, 08.02.2024, PASSED, BY, THE, KSAT, AT, BENGALURU, IN, A.No-1396, AND, 1397/2023, (ANNEXURE-A), AND, DISMISS, THE, APPLICATIONS, FILED, BY, THE,RESPONDENT,No-4,AND,5.,, , IN(WP(NO.(15461/2024:( , BETWEEN:( , , SMT.,ASHALATHA.,B.,S., ABOUT,49,YEARS,, D/O,LATE,SRI,SANJEEVE,GOWDA,, ( ( STRESIDENT,OF,ANUSHA,NILAYA,,1 ,FLOOR,,, ND NDDOOR,NO.400,,2 ,MAIN,,2 ,CROSS,, HEMAVATHI,NAGAR,,HASSAN-573,202., ...PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,V,LAKSHMINARAYANA.,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,A/W, ,,,,,,SRI.,VIKRAM,BALAJI,.,ADVOCATE), , AND:( ,

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, DEPARTMENT,OF,RURAL,DEVELOPMENT,, &,PANCHAYAT,RAJ,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,, TO,GOVERNMENT,, KARNATAKA,GOVT.,SECRETARIAT,,, RD3 ,FLOOR,,MS,BUILDING,,BENGALURU-560,001., ,

2., THE,COMMISSIONER, RURAL,DRINKING,WATER,&,SANITATION,DEPARTMENT, KHB,BUILDING,,K.G.,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560,009., ,

3., THE,CHIEF,ENGINEER, PANCHAYATI,RAJ,ENGINEERING,DEPARTMENT,, KHB,BUILDING,,K,G,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560,009., ...RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.VIKAS,ROJIPURA.,AGA), , ,,,,,,,THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226, AND,227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO, ISSUE, A, WRIT, IN, THE, NATURE, OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER,APPROPRIATE,WRIT,QUASHING,THE,ORDER,DATED,

29.05.2024, (ANNEXURE-A), PASSED, BY, THE, HON'BLE, TRIBUNAL, IN, O.A, No-1840/2024, AND, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOW,THE,APPLICATION,AS,PRAYED,FOR,,AMD,ETC.,,, , , THESE,PETITIONS,COMING,ON,FOR,FURTHER,HEARING,, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR,JUSTICE,KRISHNA,S,DIXIT, AND,, HON'BLE,MR,JUSTICE,RAMACHANDRA,D.,HUDDAR,

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Petitioner is grieving before Writ Court against the State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 8.2.2024, whereby the private respondents' Application Nos.1396 & 1397/2023 having been allowed, it has quashed the Government Order dated 27.9.2022 coupled with a direction as under: "3.The fourth respondent shall be entitled to date of eligibility in the first respondent department only from the date of her joining the first respondent department on the basis of the OM dated 10-03-2021 as at Annexure A12 and thus the date of eligibility of the fourth respondent in the first respondent department cannot be earlier that 10-03-2021 under any circumstances.

¶4The applicants are entitled to costs of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each from the first respondent institution which shall be payable to them within one month from the date of this order."

¶2Learned Senior Advocate Sri.V.Lakshminarayana appearing for the petitioner having argued the matter for some time, has filed a Memo dated 18.03.2025 agreeing that his client shall be placed at the rock bottom of

Seniority List in the cadre of Assistant Engineers of the Department and that per se should not deny to his client, whatever she is legally entitled to. The said Memo reads as under: "The Petitioner in the above case agrees, that the Petitioner name may be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers in the new department and her earlier permanent services has to be reckoned for the purpose of further promotions in accordance with law.

It is submitted that cadre strength of Executive Engineer is 33 and 31 persons have been already promoted and for the remaining posts the Petitioner name may be considered and her case may be considered for the purpose of further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

The government by an order dated

03.01.2024 promoted the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from

17.06.2021. Copy of the government order is placed on record for kind perusal of the Hon'ble court. Hence, the petitioner submits that the above submission may kindly be taken on record and the direction may be issued to the government to take further steps to consider the case of the Petitioner for further promotion so far as her eligibility in accordance with law to meet the ends of justice."

¶3Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents

herein who happen to be the applicants before the Tribunal, do not join issue so far as placement of petitioner at the rock bottom of Seniority List in the cadre of Assistant Engineers in the department. However they take objection to the content and effect of unnumbered paragraphs 2 & 3 in the subject Memo. However, we need not examine this part of petitioner's claim in the Memo inasmuch as call has to be taken by the official respondents in their wisdom and within the framework of law, of course within an outer limit of six weeks.

With the above observations, these petitions are disposed off, costs having been made easy, costs having been made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25