Sri Ravikumar G v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2025:KHC:16143-DB( WP(No.(34892(of(2024( ( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( STDATED(THIS(THE(21 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2025( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(KRISHNA(S(DIXIT( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MR(JUSTICE(RAMACHANDRA(D.(HUDDAR( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(34892(OF(2024((S-KSAT)( BETWEEN:(( ( SRI.,RAVIKUMAR,G,, S/O,GEMYA,NAIKA,, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS,, WORKING,AS,ASSISTANT,TEACHER,, GOVERNMENT,HIGH,SCHOO,L,KOKKANURU,, HARIHARA,TALUK,,DEVANAGERE,DISTRICT-577,601., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,MURALI,B,S.,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, DEPARTMENT,OF,PRIMARY,&,SECONDARY,EDUCATION,, VIDHANE,SOUDHA,,BANGALORE-500,001.,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY., Digi tally ,signedtiby , THE,COMMISSIONER,FOR,PUBLIC,INSTRUCTIONS,,,2.CHETAN0B0C NEW,PUBLIC,OFFICES,,NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,,,Location:

BANGALORE-560,001.,HIGH0COURT ,OF KARNATAKA 3., THE,DIRECTOR,(SECONDARY,EDUCATION),, DEPARTMENT,OF,EDUCATION,,, OFFICE,OF,THE,COMMISSIONER,FOR,PUBLIC, INSTRUCTIONS,,NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,,, BANGALORE-560,001., ,

4., THE,JOINT,DIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION),, DEPARTMENT,OF,EDUCATION,,, OFFICE,OF,THE,COMMISSIONER,FOR,PUBLIC, INSTRUCTIONS,,NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,,, BANGALORE,-,560,001., NC:(2025:KHC:16143-DB( WP(No.(34892(of(2024( ( ( (

5., THE,DEPUTY,DIRECTOR,OF,PUBLIC,INSTRUCTIONS,, DAVANAGERE,,, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,006., ,

6., THE,BLOCK,EDUCATION,OFFICER,,, SCHOOL,EDUCATION,DEPARTMENT,,, HARIHARA,,HARIHARA,TALUK,,, HARIANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,601., ,

7., THE,HEAD,MASTER, GOVERNMENT,HIGH,SCHOOL,,, KOKKANURU,,HARIHARA,TALUK,,, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,530., ,

8., THE,BLOCK,EDUCATION,OFFICER,,, SCHOOL,EDUCATION,DEPARTMENT,,, CHANNAGIRI,,CHANNAGIRI,TALUK,,, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,213., ,

9., THE,HEAD,MASTER,, GOVERNMENT,HIGH,SCHOOL,,, GOVERNMENT,HIGH,SCHOOL,YULODHAHALLI,VILLAGE,,, DHAGINAKATTE,POST,,CHANNAGIRI,TALUK,,, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,501., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.B,RAVINDRANATH.,AGA), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, QUASHING, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 02.07.2024, PASSED, BY, THE, KSAT, IN, A.No-5331/2023,VIDE,ANNEXURE-A,IN,SO,FAR,AS,THE,PETITIONER, IS, CONCERNED, AND, II), CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW, THE, APPLICATION, No-5331/2023, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, KSAT, BANGALORE,AS,PRAYED,FOR,IN,SO,FAR,AS,THE,PETITIONER, IS,CONCERNED,AND,ETC.,, , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS, 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 the Writ Court against State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 02.07.2024 whereby his Application No.5331/2023 has been negatived. In the said Application, the essential request of the Petitioner was to treat his appointment dated

10.11.1998 as being intact notwithstanding that he reported for duty on12.11.1998 and in the meanwhile, the decision of this Court in BASAVARAJA NAGOOR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, ILR 1999 KAR 1814, was rendered on 11.11.1998.

¶2Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that in terms of Rule 18(1) of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment Rules) 1977 as interpreted by this Court in W.P.NO.9552/2023 (S-KSAT), between SRI. M RAME GOWDA & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, disposed off on 17.03.2025, reporting for duty is one thing and seniority is another. Rule 18(1) of 1977

Rules provides for joining time of two weeks and that once the appointee joins within the said period, the appointment becomes accomplished, notwithstanding any nova casa intervenes such as, the decision in BASAVARAJA NAGOOR supra. We agree with this.

¶3The vehement submission of learned AGA that the decision in BASAVARAJA NAGOOR supra that came on 11.11.1998 i.e., one day after Petitioner's appointment, would cast its shadow and therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be faltered, does not have reason or logic. A decision of a Court is always prospective unless otherwise stated. We have not been shown any elements of its retrospectivity and therefore, all appointments done prior to the said decision are left intact. The reasoning of the Tribunal that runs counter to this view therefore cannot be sustained. It is noteworthy that the State in its Reply Statement dated 17.04.2024 at Paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 has stated as under:

"6.It is submitted that against the said order W.A.5807/1998 was filed by the respondents which was dismissed on 26-11-1999 affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the candidates who have already been appointed by giving rural weightage should not be disturbed.

¶7It is submitted that against the judgment passed in writ appeal, SLP was filed which was also dismissed…."

¶4Learned AGA sought to justify order of the Tribunal on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties which the Tribunal itself has made one of the reasons to deny justice to the Petitioner, we do not agree with the same. A civil servant ordinarily would not be knowing where he stands in the assumed Seniority List and whom has to join as a party. Thus the law is fairly settled that where a Seniority List is prepared in gross violation of fundamental principles of Service Jurisprudence, ordinarily those who would otherwise suffer ranking are not necessary parties.

In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of

the Tribunal; Petitioner's Application No. 5331/2023 having been allowed, a Writ of Mandamus issues to reckon his service w.e.f. 10.11.1998 for all practical purposes including Seniority List.

This exercise/order should be implemented and reported to the Registrar General after informing to the Petitioner within an outer limit of three months.

Costs reluctantly made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7