SRI. B. R. ANDANI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 05 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND


THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 14017 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B. R. ANDANI
S/O. RAVUTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT JAIL SUPERINTENDENT,
RAICHUR DISTRICT PRISON,
RAICHUR-584 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
AND INSPECTOR OF PRISONS
SESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.

3. SRI. K. N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O. LATE G. NATARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
KOLAR DISTRICT JAIL,
KOLAR-563 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B MANJUNATH, AGA FOR R1 & 2
SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3)











Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka

- 2 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. CALL FOR THE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO A. NO.3124 AND 3764/2020 AND PERUSE AND
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2021 MADE BY THE KSAT IN A.
NO.3124 AND 3764/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A A ERRONEOUS AND
UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW; B. CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
APPLICATION NO.3124 AND 3764/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
RD
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE 3
RESPONDENT WITH COSTS AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 14.10.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner, respondent No.3 before the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’) in Application Nos.3124 and 3764/2020 is before
this Court aggrieved by order dated 24.06.2021,
whereunder the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to
consider the representations of the applicant dated
06.02.2020 (Annexure-A13) regarding re-doing the
seniority list as per Government Circular and also as per
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

- 3 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


2. The parties would be referred to as they stood
before the Tribunal. The petitioner herein was respondent
No.3 and respondent No.3 herein was the applicant before
the Tribunal.

3. The applicant approached the Tribunal praying
for a writ of certiorari to quash seniority list dated
21.05.2019 (Annexure-A1) insofar as respondent No.3 is
concerned in the cadre of Head Warden and also in the
cadre of Jailor; to quash O.M., dated 08.07.2020
(Annexure-A14) promoting respondent No.3 as Assistant
Superintendent of Prisons and thereafter to consider
representation dated 06.02.2020 to re-do the seniority. It
is the case of the applicant that both applicant and
respondent No.3 were directly appointed as Head Warden.
It is stated that respondent No.3 was appointed with Rural
Weightage. After their appointment for the first time,
seniority list of Head Warden was published in the year
2007, wherein the applicant was shown at Sl.No.56 and
respondent No.3 was shown at Sl.No.53. On 04.08.2008,
both applicant and respondent No.3 were promoted as

- 4 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


Chief Warden in which the applicant was placed at Sl.No.45
and respondent No.3 was placed at Sl.No.43. Thereafter, it
is stated that both applicant and respondent No.3 were
promoted to the cadre of Jailor on 13.02.2012. In the
seniority list of the cadre of Jailor published on 14.08.2012,
the respondent No.3 was at Sl.No.68 and applicant was at
Sl.No.70. Thereafter, respondent No.3 is promoted to the
cadre of Assistant Superintendent of Prisons by O.M., dated
02.07.2020. It is the case of the applicant that he ought to
have been placed above respondent No.3 in the select list
of Head Warden and in the subsequent seniority lists of
different cadres, since he was more meritorious. Further, it
is the case of the applicant that respondent No.3 was
appointed with the benefit of Rural Weightage and in view
of the setting aside of Rural Weightage, respondent No.3
would not be entitled for the benefit of Rural Weightage
and as such, he would come down in the merit list. It is
submitted that the applicant had made several
representations and as the representations were not
considered, the applicant had to approach the Tribunal.

- 5 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


4. The Tribunal under impugned order though not
granted the relief of quashing the seniority list as well as
promotion of respondent No.3, however directed to
consider the representation of the applicant to re-do the
seniority list. Aggrieved by the said direction, respondent
No.3 is before this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois for
respondent No.3/petitioner, learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri.B.Manjunath for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.K.B.Monesh Kumar
for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition
papers.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois would
submit that in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the Tribunal could not have issued a mandamus to
consider the representation of applicant wherein applicant
had prayed for re-doing the seniority. Learned counsel for
the petitioner would contend that applicant having accepted
the seniority of respondent No.3 placing above him for

- 6 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


more than fifteen years, could not have sought for re-doing
the seniority. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that settled position of seniority could not be
unsettled after several years at the instance of applicant.
Learned counsel Sri.Ranganath S. Jois would submit that
from the date of appointment in the cadre of Head Warden,
Chief Warden, Jailor, respondent No.3 is shown as senior
and applicant had never questioned or challenged placing
of respondent No.3 above the applicant at any point of
time. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the Tribunal without examining as to whether
at this length of time applicant could question the placing of
respondent No.3 above him, directed to consider the
representation, which is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Thus,
he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri.B.Manjunath would submit that
in pursuance to the direction of the Tribunal, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 published final seniority list of Group-B
Assistant Superintendents vide notification dated

- 7 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


06.09.2024 and in the said list, applicant is shown at
Sl.No.16 above respondent No.3 who is placed at
Sl.No.17. Thus, he would submit that impugned order of
the Tribunal is implemented.

8. Learned counsel Sri.K.B.Monesh Kumar for
applicant would submit that respondent No.3 was placed
above applicant wrongly at the time of appointment of
applicant as well as respondent No.3 by wrongly applying
Rural Weightage to respondent No.3. Further, it is
submitted that the applicant had secured more marks than
respondent No.3 and applicant was more meritorious.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would further submit
that subsequent Hon'ble Apex Court’s decision and
subsequent Government Circular dated 02.07.2003
required the State to rectify the select list. The
representation submitted by the applicant to rectify the
ranking assigned to applicant as well as respondent No.3
in the seniority list was not considered or acted upon. The
applicant is only seeking to rectify the merit list of
petitioner and respondent No.3 while appointing them as

- 8 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


Head Warden. When the Tribunal has only directed
consideration of representation and when already
representation was considered and seniority is rectified, it
would not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal.

9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of
considered view that the Tribunal under the impugned
order could not have directed Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
consider the representation of Respondent No.3 dated
06.02.2020 regarding redoing seniority list.
Both applicant and Respondent No.3 were directly
appointed as Head Warden on 12.08.1999. Respondent
No.3 was appointed with rural weightage and there was
litigation in respect of rural weightage. Be that as it may.
After appointment of applicant and Respondent No.3, for
the first time, seniority list of Head Warden was published
in the year 2007 showing Respondent No.3 as senior to
applicant. Admittedly, Respondent No.3 was shown as
senior to applicant in the seniority list of Chief Warden and

- 9 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


also in the seniority list of Jailer published in the year
2012. The applicant has not questioned the placement of
Respondent No.3 above him in the seniority list of Head
Warden, Chief Warden or in the seniority list of Jailer and
the applicant accepted the placement of Respondent No.3
above him in all the above stated seniority lists.

10. Under representation dated 06.02.2020, the
main grievance of the petitioner reads as follows:
“¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀĪÀ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 15
JAzÀÄ ¤UÀ¢üUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀ CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ 109.50
(J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ ±ÉÃPÀqÁªÁgÀÄ+¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£À CAPÀ) DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£À£ÀVAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ CAPÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà ©üêÀÄgÁAiÀÄ
CAzÁ¤ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ºÉZï.f. ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À CAPÀ
PÀæªÀĪÁV 105.33 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 104.00 (UÁæ«ÄÃt PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀ gÀ»vÀ)
DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è EªÀgÀ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 13 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
14 JAzÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÁV ¤UÀ¢üUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. EzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀVAvÀ
QgÀÄAiÀĪÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß eÉõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀVAvÀ ªÉÄïÉ
¤UÀ¢üUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ C£ÁåAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

11. The grievance of the applicant is that though he
had scored more marks and more meritorious, he was
placed below Respondent No.3 in the merit list or select list

- 10 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


of Head Warden when they were appointed in the year
1999. Applicant contended that in terms of Circular dated
02.07.2003, the respondents ought to have corrected the
select list of the year 1999. If that is so, the applicant ought
to have approached the Tribunal or Court immediately
thereafter. Having slept over for more than fifteen years,
over his right, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction to
consider his representation made in the year 2022 to
unsettle the settled position of seniority. There is an
inordinate delay on the part of the applicant in approaching
the Tribunal for seeking rectification of select list of the year
1999. The Tribunal, under impugned order having refused
prayer to quash the seniority list as prayed by applicant
could not have directed or issued mandamus to consider
representation dated 06.02.2020 at Annexure-13.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
1
P.S.Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu has
specifically held that in service matters, a person shall
approach the Court within a reasonable time and no

1

(1975) 1 SCC 152

- 11 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


person can approach under Article 226 with a prayer to
unsettle the settled position after a very long time.
Relevant portion reads as follows:
"A person aggrieved by an order of promoting
a junior over his bead should approach the Court at
least within six months or at the most a year of
such promotion. It is not that there is any period of
limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers
under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a
case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter
after the passage of a certain length of time. But it
would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for
the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary
powers under Article 226 in the case of persons
who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and
who stand by and allow things to happen and then
approach the Court to put forward stale claims and
try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's
petition should, therefore have been dismissed in
limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of
time of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and
impedes the work of the court in considering
legitimate grievances as also its normal work".

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down principle
that while the High Courts exercising discretion under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of

- 12 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and
who stand by and allow things to happen and then
approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to
unsettle the matters shall not be entertained. It is further
observed that entertaining such petition is a waste of time
of the Court.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions
has also held that making repeated representations would
not extend the period of limitation. In that regard, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation
2
Limited and another Vs. K.Thangappan and another at
paragraph Nos.6, 9 & 10 has held as follows:
"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors
which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when
they exercise their discretionary powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate
case the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or
omission on the part of the applicant to assert his
right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time
and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the
opposite party. Even where fundamental right is

2

(2006)4 SCC 322

- 13 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


involved the matter is still within the discretion of
the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports (AIR 1970 SC
769). Of course, the discretion has to be exercised
judicially and reasonably.

9. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal
(AIR 1987 SC 251), that the High Court in exercise
of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy
and the indolent or the acquiescent and the
lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of
the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily
explained, the High Court may decline to intervene
and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It
was stated that this rule is premised on a number
of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily
permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy
because it is likely to cause confusion and public
inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices,
and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after
unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of
inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but
also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out
that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained
delay coupled with the creation of third party rights
in the meantime is an important factor which also
weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or
not to exercise such jurisdiction.

- 14 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


10. It has been pointed out by this Court in
a number of cases that representations would not be
adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was
first stated in K.V.Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of
Mysore (AIR 1967 SC 993). This was re iterated in
Rabindranath Bose case AIR 1970 SC 470 by stating
that there is a limit to the time which can be
considered reasonable for making representations
and if the Government had turned down one
representation the making of another representation
on similar lines will not explain the delay. In State of
Orissa v. Pyarimohan. Samantaray (AIR 1976 SC
2617) making of repeated representations was not
regarded as satisfactory explanation of the delay. In
that case the petition had been dismissed for delay
alone. (See State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik
(AIR 1976 SC 1639 also).

15. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 prescribed limitation of one year from the date of
cause of action to approach the Tribunal for any relief. In
the instant case, as could be seen from the representation
of the applicant, the cause of action arose in pursuance to
Circular dated 02.07.2003 (Annexure-A5). However, the
petitioner approached the authorities by representation
dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure-A13). The Tribunal, contrary

- 15 -
WP No. 14017 of 2021


to Section 21 of the Act, 1985 could not have entertained
the application of the petitioner to direct consideration of
his representation. No application for condonation of delay
was filed explaining the delay. In the said circumstances,
without going into the merits, we are of the considered
opinion that the petitioner would not be entitled for
direction to consider his representation solely on the
ground of delay and latches. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition stands allowed .

ii) Consequently, order dated 24.06.2021 in
Application Nos.3124 and 3764 of 2020
passed by the Tribunal stands quashed
and applications are dismissed.


Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms