SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442665

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ASHOK S.KINAGI
SRI H V VENKATESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF MYSORE – Respondent
WP 25552/2013



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 25552 OF 2013 (S-R)

BETWEEN:

SRI H V VENKATESH

S/O LATE H.S. VEDVYSACHAR,

AGED 60 YEARS,

CHIEF MANAGER (RETD)

ZONAL OFFICE,

BANGALORE ZONE-2,

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,

RESIDING AT 605, SHESHA-SHAYEE

Digitally

signed by 10TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR,

SUNITHA K S

BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,

Location:

HIGH COUR T BANGALORE-560085

OF

KARNATAKA …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M MADHAVACHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BANK OF MYSORE HEAD OFFICE: AVENUE ROAD,

BANGALORE-560002

REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER-II INCHARGE OF H.R.

STATE BANK OF MYSORE, H.O. AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560002.

3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA (KARNATAKA CIRCLE)

LOCAL HEAD OFFICE ST. MARKS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ;CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO SELECTION OF OFFICERS TO SMGS-V IN PURSUANCE OF CIRCULAR DATED 30.8.2012 VIDE ANN-B AND ALL CONNECTED RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME, DECLARE THE PETITIONER AS ONE SELECTED AND PROMOTED FROM THE CADRE OF SMGS-IV TO SMGS-V WITH EFFECT FROM 1.11.2012 TO THE DATE OF RETIREMENT NAMELY 28.2.2013 DIRECT THE REVISION OF PAY PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF GRANTING ALL OTHER BENEFITS ARISING OUT OF SUCH REVISION INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS PROCEEDINGS THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(i) call for records pertaining to selection of officers to SMGS-V in pursuance of Circular dated 30.08.2012 vide Annexure-B and all connected records, peruse the same, and (ii) declare the petitioner as one selected and promoted from the cadre of SMGS-IV to SMGS-V with effect from 01.11.2012 to the date of retirement namely 28.02.2013;

(iii) direct the revision of pay payable to the petitioner with consequential relief of granting all other benefits arising out of such revision including the cost of this proceedings;

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Typist-cum-Clerk on 28.06.1972 and he was promoted in Group B (Merit channel), as a Deputy Manager MMGS-II, promoted as a Deputy Manager MMGS-III and promoted as a Senior Manager SMGS-IV. A Circular was issued on 30.08.2012 stipulating the policy for promotion for the year 2012-13. The list of zone of selection showing the place of the petitioner in serial No.3 was published on 08.10.2012. On 16.10.2012, the list of promotees from SMGS-IV to SMGS-V was published.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the publication of list of promotees dated 16.10.2012, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e., the Managing Director. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

5. The respondents filed a statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and contended that the petitioner appeared for the interview for promotion from SMGS-IV to SMGS-V during 2012.

6. The petitioner did not come out successfully in the interview and he was not promoted to the post of SMGS-V.

7. Against his non-promotion, the petitioner submitted a review petition before the competent authority which was not considered, as the petitioner was not successful in the interview, who had scored least marks. Hence, the petitioner was not promoted.

8. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an appeal before the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top