IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO. 103632 OF 2016 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN: S.S. HEGDE

S/O. SHAMBU HEGDE,

AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR STENOGRAPHER,

N.W.K.R.T.C., SIRSI DIVISION,

SIRSI.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT FOR SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER,

K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE,

SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-580027.

2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

N.W.K.R.T.C., N.K. DIVISION, SIRSI, NORTH CANARA DIST.

…RESPONDENTS

VISHAL

NINGAPPA (BY SRI.M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

PATTIHAL

D N i I g N it G a A l P y P s A ig P ne A d T T b I y H V A I L

SHAL

Location: High Court of

K D a a r te n : a 2 ta 0 k 2 a 5 D .1 h 2 a .1 rw 2 a 1 d 2 : B 0 e 5 n :5 c 9 h THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

+0530

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, SIRSI AS PER ANNEXURE-A DATED 16.04.2015,

ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á¸ÀA;G.PÀ:D¥ÀÛ:

BEARING NO. 2262/14-15 FOR RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF WHICH HIS JUNIORS HAVE BEEN PROMOTED WITH ALL MONITORY BENEFITS AND

ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

1) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order directing the Respondents to consider the recommendation of Divisional Controller, Sirsi as per Annexure-A dated 16.04.2015, bearing No:

ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á¸ÀA;G.PÀ:D¥ÀÛ:

2262/14-15 for retrospective promotion of the petitioner from the date of which his Juniors have been promoted with all monitory benefits and

2) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case including as to cost.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vinaykumar Bhat appearing for Sri.Ravi Hegde for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.M.M.Khannur appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is appointed as a stenographer in the year 1984 in the respondent-KSRTC (hereinafter referred to as, “the Corporation”, for short). From time to time, the Corporation had published seniority lists.

4. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the seniority lists that were from time to time published. On 31.12.1997, it transpires that the juniors of the petitioner were granted promotion to the higher carder i.e. Assistant Grade-2. The petitioner was granted the same promotion notwithstanding the fact of his eligibility. The petitioner then is said to have submitted a representation on 11.11.2009 to the respondents seeking promotion at their hands on par with the juniors that were granted promotion with effect from 31.12.1997. The said communication remained a communication from the hands of the petitioner to the respondents. The communication that comes about is that in the Office of the Divisional Controller, a person with higher qualification was available therefore the petitioner was not promoted. The reason so rendered is on the face of it untenable as the petitioner was entitled to promotion in accordance with his seniority, cannot be denied such promotion on any score except him incurring disability on his own conduct.

That is not the issue in the case at hand.

5. Learned counsel, Sri M.M. Khannur, appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner did not suffer any ineligibility, much less an ineligibility that would disentitle the petitioner from being considered for promotion to the next higher cadre. It is trite that consideration for promotion is a fundamental right, though promotion itself is only a statutory right.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner is no longer in service. However, that would not operate as an impediment, as the petitioner had asserted his claim well before he attained t