The court affirmed that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after substantial delays, even if the grounds for challenge are justified, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

The Writ Appeals No.414/2023, 423/2023, 427/2023, 437/2023 and 1211/2023 are filed aggrieved by a common order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12567/2020 (S-RES) and Writ Appeal No.983/2023 is filed aggrieved by an order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16594/2022 (S-PRO).

2. We have heard Shri. S.S.Naganand, learned senior counsel along with Shri. Phanindra, learned senior counsel for Shri. Shirish Krishna, learned advocate appearing for Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('KPTCL' for short) and Smt. Shweta Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and also Shri. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel as instructed by Ms. M.L. Suvarna along with Shri. Puttegowda and Shri. R. Subramanya learned advocates, Shri. R. Devdas learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Anasuya Devi, Shri. Vijaya Kumar, Shri. Vamshi Krishna, Shri. Subramanya Bhat, Shri. Satish. K and Shri. Ashok. N. Patil, learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties.

3. The Writ Petitions were filed challenging an endorsement dated 05.03.2020 issued by the Director (Admin and HR), KPTCL rejecting the request of the Writ Petitioners for revision of their seniority. Further prayer was made seeking directions to the respondents to issue fresh seniority lists in terms of the declaration of law by the Apex Court in K.Narayanan and Others v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 44 and in P. Sudhakar Rao and others v. U.Govind Rao and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 693.

4. After considering the contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the fixation of seniority of the petitioners in the post of Assistant Engineers is violative of the principles evolved by the Apex Court in the decisions relied on by the petitioners. Though a specific case was taken up by the appellants who were the contesting respondents that they had been promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers and thereafter till Chief Engineers on the basis of the settled seniority and that there is gross and unexplained delay on the part of the Writ Petitioners in challenging the seniority. The learned Single Judge rejected the said contentions. It was found that though there was a direction in Gurushripad v. Karnakata Electricity Board in W.P.No.14622 of 1986's case to prepare a fresh gradation in accordance with the principles laid down in K. Narayanan's case (supra). The Corporation did not implement its own Board orders and granted retrospective seniority to the Junior Engineers who had been appointed by transfer. The learned Single Judge, therefore, quashed the endorsement dated 05.03.2020 and issued directions to the respondent Corporation to redo the seniority in accordance with the judgments of the Apex Court in K. Narayanan's case (supra) and in P. Sudhakar Rao's case (supra) with effect from 26.07.1986.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants were persons appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers Electrical long before the Writ Petitioners. Combined Seniority Lists of Assistant Engineers Electrical had been prepared and published on 01.01.2000, 01.12.2002, 10.01.2004, 01.01.2006, 01.01.2011 and 28.05.2014. It is submitted that there was no objection raised on the ground of non compliance of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in K. Narayanan's case (supra) and in P. Sudhakar Rao' case (supra), as against any of those Seniority Lists. It is submitted that the promotions had been made to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, and even the Chief Engineer on the basis of the settled seniority. It is submitted that it is only when a provisional seniority list dated 08.05.2017 had been issued subsequent to B.K.Pavithra-II's (10.05.2019) case that the writ petitioners had filed objectio