Reserved on : 19.01.2026 Pronounced on : 11.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 28209 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. SHASHIKALA P., W/O K. V. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS WORKING AS OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

…PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P. H., ADVOCATE)

VINUTHA B S Location:

AND:

High Court of Karnataka

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 5^TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 5^TH FLOOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. P. MALLESH, S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ORDER/ENDORSEMENT BEARING No.SAKANI/ SIBBANDI-3/CR/2016-17 DATED 25/02/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-

A14 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No. 3307/2022, has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Typist on 11.07.1997 and was subsequently promoted to the cadre of Stenographer on 26.11.2007. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Typist on 31.01.2000 and was promoted to the cadre of Stenographer on 19.12.2008. Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 was promoted to the cadre of Office Superintendent on 17.10.2014.

3.1 The petitioner sought promotion to the cadre of Office Superintendent with effect from 17.10.2014, i.e., the date on which Respondent No. 3 was promoted to the said post. It was contended that the promotion of Respondent No. 3 was contrary to the Gradation List dated 18.01.2021. The petitioner further asserted that promoting Respondent No. 3 to the cadre of Office Superintendent without considering the petitioner, who was senior, was improper.

3.2 An endorsement dated 25.02.2021 was issued, setting out the reasons for promoting Respondent No. 3 prior to the petitioner and rejecting the petitioner’s claim for retrospective promotion from the date on which Respondent No. 3 was promoted. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal.

3.3 The Tribunal, upon consideration, held that Respondent No. 3 had acquired eligibility for promotion in the year 2014, whereas the petitioner acquired such eligibility only in the year 2017. It was observed that, as on the date when Respondent No. 3 was promoted as Office Superintendent in the year 2014, the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the said cadre.

On these grounds, the Tribunal rejected the application.

4. Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that, as per the seniority list, the petitioner is senior to Respondent No. 3. It is contended that the promotion of Respondent No. 3 without considering the petitioner amounts to a violation of the seniority list. It is further submitted that deputation of the petitioner to undergo one year’s training as First Division Assistant (FDA), which is a pre-condition for promotion