Hanumantharaya B N v. The Director, (A and H R), Kptcl

NC:(2026:KHC:6793( WP(No.(17614(of(2021( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(5 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(17614(OF(2021((S-PRO)( BETWEEN:(( (

1., HANUMANTHARAYA,B,N, S/O,SRI,NARAYANA,REDDY, AGED,ABOUT,35,YEARS, WORKING,AS,STATION,ATTENDANT,GRADE-1, 66/11,KV,STATION,,KPTCL, RAMPURA,–,577,540, CHITRADURGA,DISTRICT., ,

2., MUTHANNA,SHIRAHATTI, S/O,SRI,GANIBASAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS, WORKING,AS,STATION,ATTENDANT,GRADE-1, 400,KV,STATION,,KPTCL, GUTTUR,577,601, HARIHARA,TALUK, DAVANAGERE,DISTRICT., Digitallytisignedtiby , MALATHI CHALUVA0IYENGAR 3., D.,THIPPESWAMY, Location:0HIGH S/O,SRI,DASANNA,COURTOF KARNATAKA AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS, WORKING,AS,STATION,ATTENDANT,GRADE-1, 66/11,KV,STATION,,KPTCL, MUTHOD,-,577,527, HOSADURGA,TALUK, CHITRADURGA,DISTRICT., ,

4., NAGARAJ,S, S/O,SRI,SURYANAYAK, AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS, WORKING,AS,STATION,ATTENDANT,GRADE-1, 66/11,KV,STATION,,KPTCL, NC:(2026:KHC:6793( WP(No.(17614(of(2021( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( HONNALLI,–,577,217, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT., …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,SRINIVASA,K.,,ADVOCATE), AND:( (

1., THE,DIRECTOR, (A,AND,HR),,KPTCL, KAVERI,BHAVANA, BANGALORE,-,560,009., ,

2., SUPERINTENDING,ENGINEER,(ELE), TRANSMISSION,(W,AND,M),CIRCLE, KPTCL,,HADADI,ROAD, DAVANAGERE,-,577,002., ,

3., EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER,(ELE), T.L,AND,S.S.,DIVISION, KPTCL,,VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE,-,577,002., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,SHUBHA,S.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,TO,R3), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, OFFICIAL, MEMORANDUM, DTD, 25.10.2019,, BEARING, NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/¥ÀæªÀiÁGPÉÃA«/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À1/PÀ-51S VIDE, ANNEXURE-F, TO, THE, WRIT, PETITION, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENTS, TO, RESTORE, THE, PROMOTIONS, OF,THE,PETITIONERS,TO,THE,CADRE,OF,STATION,MECHANIC,,,,,,,,,,,, GRADE-2,AND,ETC.,, , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

¶1In this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the official memorandum dated 25.10.2019 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F, whereby the respondents had withdrawn the promotion given to the petitioners thereby demoting them from the cadre of Station Mechanic Grade-2 to Station Attendant Grade-1.

¶2The brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that they were appointed to the post of Station Attendant Grade-2 on 30.01.2008 in the respondent-Institution. In the year 2013-14, the petitioners were promoted to the next cadre of Station Attendant Grade-1. Subsequently, on

04.03.2014, based on their merit and seniority, they were further promoted to the cadre of Station Mechanic Grade-

¶2However, by the impugned order dated 25.10.2019, vide Annexure-F, respondent No.3, without any justification and without issuing any notice or affording an

opportunity of being hearing, withdrew the promotions granted to the petitioners and reverted them from the cadre of Station Mechanic Grade-2 to the cadre of Station Attendant Grade-1 on the ground that their promotions were contrary to the C & R Rules of the Corporation. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-F has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Station Mechanic Grade-2 in the year 2013-14 and have been working in the said promoted post since then. After a lapse of six years, the impugned order has been passed reverting the petitioners to the post of Station Attendant Grade-1, that too without issuing any notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the respondent-Institution cannot disturb the service of an employee who has been promoted and

has worked for more than five years in the promoted post. He further submitted that no seniority list has been issued subsequent to the promotion of the petitioners to the cadre of Station Mechanic Grade-2. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as per the C & R Rules of the Corporation, the method of recruitment to the post of Station Mechanic Grade-2 is by way of promotion from the cadre of Station Attendant Grade-I on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Due to an oversight, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Station Mechanic Grade-2 in the year 2013-14 solely on the basis of seniority. Thereafter, certain employees submitted representations with respect to the said promotion. Upon verification of the same, the competent authority came to the conclusion that the promotions granted to the petitioners were contrary to the C & R Rules. Accordingly, a separate seniority list was issued in accordance with the C & R Rules and objections

were also invited. As no objections were filed by any person, the final seniority list was implemented. In view of the same, the impugned order at Annexure-F was passed. Consequently, the petitioners are now working as Station Attendant Grade-1. Therefore, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the respondents. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused writ petition papers.

¶6It is not in dispute that the petitioners were promoted to the post of Station Mechanic Grade-2 in the year 2013. As per the C & R Rules of the Corporation, the method of recruitment to the post of Station Mechanic Grade-2 is that 75% of the posts are to be filled by promotion from the Category 'H' on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit.

¶7The specific case of the respondents is that while promoting the petitioners to the post of Station Mechanic

Grade-2, the authority considered the promotions only on the basis of seniority. Subsequently, the authority realized that the C & R Rules prescribe promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, a fresh seniority list was issued and the impugned order at Annexure-F was passed, reverting the petitioners from the post of Station Mechanic Grade-2 to the post of Station Attendant Grade-1.

¶8The impugned order at Annexure-F, whereby the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Station Mechanic Grade-2 to the post of Station Attendant Grade-1, has been passed without affording any notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

¶9Hence, following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed.

b) The official memorandum dated 25.10.2019 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F is hereby quashed. c) It is also made clear that the impugned order at Annexure-F has already been implemented and the petitioners are presently working as Station Attendant Grade-1. Therefore, quashing Annexure-F shall not give any scope to the petitioners to continue in service as Station Mechanic Grade-2. d) The respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioners, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. e) The petitioners are at liberty to submit their reply to the notice, raising all contentions, including the issue of seniority. f) Upon receipt of such reply, the respondents are directed to consider the same, in accordance with law

and pass appropriate orders, within four weeks from the date of submission of the reply.

In view of disposal of the main matter, all pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33