SRI. ASHOK PATIL S/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL, vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17923-DB
WA No. 100555 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196352024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT APPEAL NO.100555 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. ASHOK PATIL S/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
(CORRECT AGE IS MENTIONED),
OCC: DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER
NWKRTC, HAVERI DIVISION,
DIST: HAVERI – 581 110.





…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 027.






2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, NWKRTC,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD – 580 030.
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

3. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER,
CENTRAL OFFICE, NWKRTC,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD – 580 030.
4. THE DIRECTOR, (CI.JA)
CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
5. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER,
CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17923-DB
WA No. 100555 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196352024

K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 027.

6. SRI. JADHAV RAJENDRA BABURAO,
AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS DTO,
KKRTC, KOPPAL DIVISION,
KOPPAL – 583 231.
7. SRI. G. S. SUDHIR,
AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS DTO,
BMTC, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 027.

8. SRI. PURUSHOTTAM,
AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS DTO,
BMTC, SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 027.

9. SRI. K. MURALIDHAR ACHARYA,
AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS DTO,
KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION,
PUTTUR – 517 583.

10. SRI. DEVANAND A. BIRADAR,
AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS DTO, KKRTC,
VIJAYAPUR DIVISION,
VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.

11. SRI. G. B. MANJUNATH,
AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS DTO, BMTC,
SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

12. SRI. DASHARATH S. S.
AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS DTO, KSRTC,
MYSORE CITY DIVISION,
MYSORE – 570 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. KINI N.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R7 & R11;
R6, R8, R9, R10 & R12 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.101240/2024, DATED 30.09.2024, IN VACATING THE

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17923-DB
WA No. 100555 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196352024

INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.03.2024, CONSEQUENTLY CONTINUE
THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

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


1. The present appeal is preferred against an order
dated 30.09.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge vacated
the interim order granted on 15.03.2024.


2. The appellant is the writ petitioner. A writ petition is
preferred in WP No.101240/2024 seeking the following prayer:
“ a) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the
Endorsement dated 13- 16/01/2021 bearing No.
Ka. Ra. Sa/Ke. Ka/Va. Sha/Sanchar/226/2020-21,
issued by the respondent No.1, vide Annexure-D
and consequential endorsement dated 10/11-
12/2022, bearing No. Ka.Ra.Sa/Ke.Ka/Sibbandi
/c- 1/117/1509/2022-23, issued by respondent
No.4, vide Annexure-E and,

b) Also quash the Circular No.1328, dated 4/3-
4/2005, bearing No.KST/Co/ADM/SR/228/2/2004-
05, issued by respondent No.1, vide Annexure-F,
only insofar as Clause 8 and 10, and
Communication dated 23/01/2024, No. Ka. Ra.
Sa/Ke.Ka/Sibbandi/C/1/43/1429/2023-24, issued
by respondent No.5, only in so far item No-I is

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17923-DB
WA No. 100555 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196352024

concerned, vide Annexure-K, and

c) consequent upon quashing the aforesaid
endorsement and circular, issue writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to promote the petitioner
as deputy chief traffic manager retrospectively from
7/8/2006 with all benefits, by fixing outer limit. ”


3. An interim order was initially granted. An
application seeking vacation of the interim order was preferred
by the Corporation. The interim order stood vacated by an
order dated 30.09.2024. The order vacating the interim order
reads as follows:
Sri.Ravi Hegde., counsel for the petitioner,
“
Sri.Prashant Hosmani., counsel for respondents 1 to 5,
Sri.Mrutyunjaya S.Hallikeri., counsel for respondent No.6
have appeared in person.
Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Prashant Hosmani., for respondents 1 to 5 and
Sri.N.S.Kini., counsel for respondents 7 and 9 to 11 have
appeared through video conferencing.
The petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition
seeking following reliefs:

A) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the
endorsement dated 13/16.01.2021 issued by the
first respondent in ¸ÀASÉå:/PÀgÁ¸Á/PÉÃPÀ/ªÀ±Á/¸ÀAZÁgÀ/226/2020-
vide Annexure-D and consequential
21
endorsement dated 10.11/12.2022 issued by the
fourth respondent in
¸ÀASÉå:PÀgÁ¸À/PÉÃPÀ/¹§âA¢/¹-
vide Annexure-E.
1/117/1509/2022-23

B) Also quash the Circular No.1328 dated
04.03/04.2005 issued by the first respondent in
No.KST/CO/ADM/SR/228/2/2004-05 as far as
Clause 8 and 10 vide Annexure-F and the
Communication dated 23.01.2024 issued by the
fifth respondent in ¸ÀA:PÀgÁ¸Á/PÉÃPÀ/¹§âA¢/¹:1/43/1429/2023-

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17923-DB
WA No. 100555 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196352024

as far as Item No.1 is concerned vide
24
Annexure-K.

C) Consequent upon quashing the aforesaid
endorsement and Circular, issue a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents to promote
the petitioner as Deputy Chief Traffic Manager
retrospectively from 07.08.2006 with all benefits,
by fixing outer limit.
In the writ petition, interim relief is sought to stay
all further processes of promotion pursuant to the
communication dated 23.01.2024 issued by the fifth
respondent in as far as
¸ÀA:PÀgÁ¸Á/PÉÃPÀ/¹§âA¢/¹:1/43/1429/2023-24
Item No.1 is concerned vide Annexure-K.
This Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 had
granted an interim order and had stayed further process
of promotion pursuant to Communication dated
23.01.2024 issued by the fifth respondent vide
Annexure-K only insofar as Item No.1 – the Deputy Chief
Traffic Manager (Grade-I Senior), till the next date of
hearing. From time to time, the interim order was
extended.
The Corporation and the sixth respondent have
applied to vacate the stay order.
Smt. H.R.Renuka., counsel for the Corporation
submitted that the petitioner has been involved in
default cases and has undergone punishments. She
strenuously urged that the complete list from 2012
onwards is based on the interim order passed by the
Apex Court. She submitted that the petitioner has
challenged the Circular dated 04.04.2005 which is in
force for two decades and has the force of law as of
today. She argued by saying that the petitioner has
challenged the endorsements and the Circular to stall the
promotion proceedings. She vehemently contended that
the petitioner will have to wait for the final decision of
the Apex Court to get the relief. Among other grounds,
she submitted that the petitioner has not made out
a prima facie case to stall the promotion proceedings and
prayed for vacating the stay order.
Counsel appearing for other respondents adopted
the arguments addressed by the Corporation counsel.
Counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde, contends that the
Corporation and the sixth respondents have applied for

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17923-DB
WA No. 100555 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196352024

vacating stay and the other respondents have not
applied for vacating stay. He strenuously urged that the
petitioner’s name falls under the zone of consideration
for promotion along with the others as no order has been
passed to withhold his promotion. Counsel argued by
saying that the Corporation is now intending to promote
the Officers who are ten years juniors to the petitioner
and the Corporation cannot deny the promotion to the
petitioner. He placed reliance on Regulation 18(a) of
KSRTC Servants (C and D) Regulations, 1971 to contend
that withholding promotion is a distinct punishment and
the Corporation has not imposed the order to withhold
the promotion.
Counsel drew the attention of the Court to
Annexure-R3 and submitted that the Corporation alleged
to have issued Articles of Charge on 13.07.2006 and
after an inquiry, the punishment order was passed on
11.06.2008. He submitted that the petitioner was eligible
for promotion on 07.08.2006, however, the promotion
has been denied because of the currency of the penalty.
Assuming for a while that the petitioner had a running
punishment, nothing prevents the Corporation from
considering his name for the promotion. Counsel also
referred to the order passed by the Division Bench in the
Writ Appeal No.536/2006. Lastly, he submitted that the
respondents have not made out a case to vacate the
stay order and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of
the application.
Heard the arguments on interim application i.e.,
vacating the stay order.
The issue relates to the promotion to the post of
Deputy Chief Traffic Manager in the establishment of the
Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner also relates
to his promotion to the said post. The petitioner
contends that the Corporation intends to give promotions
to those officers who are ten years juniors to him and he
is insisting the Corporation to consider his name for the
promotion. The placement of the petitioner in the
seniority list is yet to be decided by the Apex Court in
the Civil Appeal and his eligibility would be examined in
terms of the decision that would be taken by the Apex
Court. Because of the pendency of the case before the
Apex Court, the Corporation has informed the petitioner
that his claim of seniority would be considered only after
the disposal of the case. In my view, the Corporation is
justified in saying so. The petitioner must wait till the
decision of the Apex Court for the finalization of his

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17923-DB
WA No. 100555 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196352024

seniority. Furthermore, Annexure-K is only an internal
communication and as an administrative measure, the
department is seeking the credentials of the officers.
Hence, the petitioner cannot have a grievance.
The grant of an interim order has caused harm to
the corporation since the entire promotion proceedings
have been stalled. In my view, the petitioner cannot stall
promotion proceedings. Therefore, this Court deem it
proper to vacate the interim order granted by this Court
on 15.03.2024. Accordingly, interim order granted by
this Court is vacated.
I.A.No.2/2024 and I.A.No.3/2024 are disposed of
accordingly. ”


4. The Co-ordinate Bench while entertaining the
subject appeal has directed that all promotions that are granted
pursuant to the impugned proceedings before the learned
Single Judge would remain subject to the result of the appeal.


5. In the light of the petition pending consideration at
the hands of the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would plead urgency in the matter as junior of
the petitioner is promoted to higher cadre and the petitioner
has been languishing in the lower cadre.


6. In the light of said submission, the only relief that
can be granted to the appellant now is, the request to the
learned Single Judge to dispose the writ petition that is
pending, if possible expeditiously. The order which observes

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17923-DB
WA No. 100555 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196352024

that the proceedings shall remain subject to the result of the
writ petition shall stand intact.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal
stands disposed .
As a consequence, pending applications, if any, are also
disposed.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE



JTR/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18