The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition for retrospective promotion under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act and Rules, and the significance of seniority in determining promotions.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. - The instant intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner assailing the order dtd. 29/9/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.53351/2014.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records are, the appellant as well as respondent no.3 were directly recruited as Medical Officers in Health and Family Welfare Department in the year 2002 and 2004, respectively. Subsequently, by virtue of the Government Order and change of cadre, the appellant as well as respondent no.3 were deputed to work as Lecturers in respondent no.2-Institute with effect from 13/5/2005 & 29/7/2004, respectively. While they were working as Lecturers in respondent no.2-Institute, concurrence was accorded for their absorption in Medical Education Department as Lecturers in respondent no.2-Institute. In respect of the appellant, the order of absorption was issued on 20/10/2005, whereas in respect of respondent no.3, order of absorption was issued on 18/6/2007. Respondent no.3 was thereafter promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 17/10/2007 while the appellant was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 29/10/2007. Subsequently, in the year 2012, a corrigendum was issued on 8/10/2012 notifying that the order dtd. 29/10/2007 promoting the appellant to the post of Associate Professor should be read as "with retrospective effect from 17/10/2007" and this corrigendum was issued on the representation of the appellant dtd. 24/8/2012. Thereafter, the said corrigendum dtd. 8/10/2012 was withdrawn on 3/11/2012. Two years thereafter, the seniority list of Associate Professors of respondent no.2-Institute was published in the Official Memorandum dtd. 18/7/2014 wherein respondent no.3 was placed at Sl. No.1 and the appellant was placed at Sl. No.2 and this seniority list was based on their date of entry into cadre of Associate Professors. Challenging the said ranking assigned in the seniority list as well as withdrawal of the corrigendum dtd. 8/10/2012, the appellant had approached this Court in W.P.No.53351/2014. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned has dismissed the said writ petition and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in the writ petition has preferred this intra court appeal.

4. Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that respondent no.1 had erroneously withdrawn the corrigendum dtd. 8/10/2012, wherein the appellant was promoted as Associate Professor with retrospective effect from 17/10/2007. He submits that the appellant is senior to respondent no.3 since he was absorbed into service of respondent no.2-Institute on 20/10/2005, whereas respondent no.3 was absorbed on 18/6/2007. He submits that in the order of absorption, it was made clear that respondent no.3 would be placed at the bottom of the seniority of lecturers as on the date of absorption. He further submits that the appellant's experience as a resident doctor is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of qualifying service and in this regard, he has placed reliance on the Medical Council of India under Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 1998 Regulations') and submits that respondent no.1 is required to follow the 1998 Regulations and cannot prescribe its own regulations contrary to the same. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUDHIR.N. & OTHERS VS STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS,(2015)6 SCC 685.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the appellant became eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Professor only on 13/5/2008, whereas respondent no.3 was eligible on 29/7/2007 itself. He submits that the order dtd. 17/10/2007 promoting respondent