Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. MUDAGAL, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, JJ.
Smt. Poornima G., D/o. Sri. Gurappa K. and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, rep. By Its Principal Secretary Department Of Forest, Ecology And Environment and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.13897 of 2022 (S-KSAT) C/W Writ Petition No.9090 of 2022 (S-KSAT)
Decided On : 24-06-2025
For the Petitioners: Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, Adv., A/W Sri. G. Nataraj, Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. Vijaykumar, AAG A/W Sri. Vikas Rajipura And Sri. Manjunath B., AGA, Sri. B.O. Anil Kumar, Adv.
The court emphasized the necessity for seniority lists to follow established rules and recommendations from committee reports, rejecting flawed tribunal orders based on misinterpretation.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 - Writ Petition No.13897 of 2022 & Writ Petition No.9090 of 2022 - Seniority list preparation - Tribunal directed a re-do of seniority list for Deputy Range Forest Officers, quashed in appeal due to incorrect reliance on objections rather than committee findings - Findings highlight that errors in seniority were not substantiated by applicants - Matter reiterated following the Supreme Court's rulings on quota and seniority principles. (Paras 5, 9, 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The State challenged Tribunal's orders concerning seniority list prepared for DRFOs, asserting adherence to Committee recommendations was overlooked by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal erred in setting aside seniority list based on misunderstood document submissions.
Issues: Whether the seniority list was appropriately prepared adhering to regulations and whether objections raised by applicants justified alterations to it.
Ratio Decidendi: Court affirmed that seniority must reflect proper processes and regulations as indicated in Committee reports, rejecting the Tribunal’s order based on misinterpretation of documents.
Result: W.P.No.9090/2022 is allowed; W.P.No.13897/2022 is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. senior lists challenged by petitioners (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. objections to seniority list preparation (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments for and against tribunal's error (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's evaluation of tribunal's findings (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. principles governing seniority and promotion (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. findings regarding private respondents' seniority (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. final order regarding petitions (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
W.P.No.9090/2022 is filed by the State of Karnataka and others challenging the order dated 02.09.2021 passed in Application Nos.6659-6663/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') wherein the applications filed by the respondents were allowed, impugned order dated 29.08.2020 passed by the petitioner No.3 was quashed, petitioner No.3 was directed to re-do the seniority list of the Deputy Range Forest Officers- cum-Surveyors (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRFO') in accordance with the Special Committee report dated 23.02.2020 and the letters issued by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 dated 27.05.2020 and 06.06.2020.
2. W.P.No.13897/2022 is filed by four of the applicants challenging the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in HC-KAR Application Nos.4134, 4137, 4138 and 4140 of 2020 by the Tribunal wherein their applications were partly allowed, impugned seniority list dated 29.08.2020 issued by petitioner No.3 was set aside sofar it relates to assigning of rankings to the respondents over applicant No.1 in the said proceedings, Petitioner No.3 was directed to consider revising of the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 by assigning appropriate ranking to applicant No.1 above the private respondents therein subject to extant rules relating to quota, reservation and verification of the actual dates on which the applicants and respondents therein come to occupy the posts of DRFO.
3. The State Government filed objections to the applications before the Tribunal contending that the seniority list prepared and published by Chikmagalur Circle is as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.Pavitra Vs. Union of India , [AIR 2019 SC 2723] . It was averred that there is no material change in the eligibility date assigned to the applicants, the authority has considered the ratio as prescribed for direct recruitment and promotion and published the final HC-KAR seniority list after considering the objections filed to the provisional seniority list. It was further averred that the applicants have not filed any objections to the provisional seniority list and the final seniority list was prepared considering the recommendation of the Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.Pavithra Vs. Union of India. It was also averred that as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Forest Department, 50% posts have to be filled by way of direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion in the cadre of DRFO. It was contended that the final seniority list dated 11.10.2019 was revised considering the representations / objections of many DRFOs. It was further contended that the State Government constituted a Committee headed by the Prl. Chief Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru to consider the anomalies in the final seniority list dated 11.10.2019. The Committee submitted its report on 23.03.2020 along with recommendation and based on such recommendation, revised seniority list was published vide order dated 29.08.2020. They sought for dismissal of both sets of applications.
4. The Tribunal allowed Application Nos.6659- 6663/2020 directing the respondent No.3 to re-do the seniority list in accordance with the Special Committee Report dated 23.03.2020 and letters of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Tribunal partly allowed the Application Nos.4132-4140/2020 by setting aside the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 sofar it relates to assigning of ranks to respondents over applica
