THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI ISMAIL NADAF
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
544-DB
of 2025
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
IN THE HIG
GH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
TH
IS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
DATED TH
PRESENT
THE HON'B
BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'
BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT PETI
ITION NO. 109518 OF 2025 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF K
REP. BY THE AD
FOREST ECOLOG
ENVIRONMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 0
KARNATAKA,
DDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
GY AND
DEPARTMENT,
,
01.
2. THE PRINCIPAL
OF FOREST AND
ARANYA BHAVA
TH
18 CROSS
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU – 5
CHIEF CONSERVATOR,
D CHIEF OF FOREST FORCE,
N ,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
,
560003.
3. THE CHIEF CON
CANARA CIRCLE
SIRSI – 581401
SERVATOR OF FORESTS,
E,
.
4. THE DEPUTY CO
KARWAR DIVISI
KARWAR – 5813
ONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
ION,
301.
TIONERS
…PETIT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. H
HIREMATH, HCGP)
- 2 -
544-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
AND:
SRI. ISMAIL NADAF
S/O. KASIMSABNADA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEA
OCC: BEAT FORESTE
R/O: HALIYAL RANGE
DIST: UTTAR KANNA
AF,
ARS
ER,
E,HALIYAL,
ADA – 581359.
ONDENT
…RESPO
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D
THIS WRIT PET
. UPADHYE, ADVOCATE)
TITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A
AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUT
TION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTIO
ON IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH
THE ORDER DATED
04.02.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
A STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLI
ICATION
NO.10883/2024 ANN
NEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PET
TITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARIN
G, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MA
ADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HO
ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
H
- 3 -
544-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'B
BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
e order
The State is
s before us, calling in question the
Tribunal
passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative T
eby the
(hereinafter referre
ed to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short), where
ondent,
Tribunal has allow
ed the application filed by the respo
Police
holding that the
service rendered by him in the
oned as
Department and th
he Forest Department is to be recko
ng all
continuous servic
ce for the purpose of extendi
consequential servi
ce benefits.
2. Heard t
t. Girija
the learned Government Advocate Smt
learned
S. Hiremath appe
earing for the petitioner and the
ndent.
counsel Sri. Aravind
d D. Upadhye appearing for the respon
3. Facts in
n brief germane are as follows:
3.1. The r
Police
respondent-applicant joined the
ble on
Department as a
an Armed Reserve Police Constab
ntment,
10.06.2008. During
g the subsistence of the said appoin
ent and
the respondent app
plied for a post in the Forest Departme
relieved
was selected and a
appointed as a Forest Guard. He was r
- 4 -
544-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
from the Police De
epartment by extending the benefit
of Rule
252(b) of the Karna
ataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR), rela
ating to
technical resignatio
on, and joined the services of the
Forest
Department. Howev
ver, his service in the Police Departme
ent was
not taken into con
nsideration. Therefore, the responde
ent and
others were const
trained to approach the Tribunal by
y filing
separate applicat
ions. It transpires that one G
Giridhar
Narayasing Agarw
wale, who was appointed in the
Forest
Department along
with the respondent, had also appr
roached
the Tribunal and th
e Tribunal dismissed his application.
4. The sa
id order was challenged by the ap
pplicant
before a Co-ordina
ate Bench of this Court. By an order
r dated
11.10.2023, the Co
o-ordinate Bench allowed the applicati
ion, set
aside the order pa
assed by the Tribunal and directed th
hat the
said employee be e
extended all service benefits, by the fo
ollowing
order:
“2. Th
petitioner filed
the impugned
of past service
contended tha
Police Constab
was subseque
Guard by ord
Objection Cert
he material on record discloses that th
he
ng
ng
the aforesaid application seeking quashin
order dated 14.07.2022 denying countin
e in his favour and for other reliefs. It wa
at the petitioner appointed as an Arme
ble in the Police Department on 30.05.200
as
ed
08
est
ently appointed to the post of a Fore
er dated 19.06.2018 pursuant to a “N
ificate” (NOC) issued in his favour from th
No
he
- 5 -
544-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
Superintenden
petitioner was
30.06.2013 un
Civil Services
heimmediately
01.07.2013 an
was the grieva
been relieved
Rule 252(b)
resignation wh
for the purpose
of the Karnata
1957 (for sho
that past ser
account for th
petitioner who
the State of Ka
in another de
error in issu
14.07.2022 de
seniority in fav
nt of Police, Belagavi. Accordingly, th
he
on
ka
s relieved from the Police Department o
nder Rule 252 clause (b) of the Karnatak
s Rules (KCSRs), pursuant to whic
y joined the Forest Department o
nd has been working there ever since.
h,
on
It
ng
ance of the petitioner that despite havin
from the Police Department in terms
of the KCSRs without tendering an
hich entitled his past service to be reckone
of
ny
ed
6A
e of his seniority and in the light of Rule 6
aka Government Servants Seniority Rule
ort, ‘the Seniority Rules’) which stipulate
es
es
rvice is to be reckoned and taken in
he purpose of seniority in relation to th
o was a civil servant of one department
to
he
in
ce
an
ed
nd
arnataka and joined the State Civil Servic
partment, the respondents committed a
uing the impugned endorsement date
eclining to grant continuity of service an
vour of the petitioner.
3. Th
the responde
theimpugned
ground that ne
of the Seniorit
who is before t
he said application having been opposed b
ents, the Tribunal proceeded to pa
by
ss
he
6A
order dismissing the application on th
either Rule 252(b) of the Rules nor Rule 6
ty Rules were applicable to the petition
this Court by way of the present petition.
er
4. A
the impugned
which the Tri
neither Rule 2
Seniority Rule
General Recru
petitioner. In
recorded by t
material on re
Court in the
Karnataka an
the subsequen
State of Karn
27.11.2013, w
Court in Petiti
4749/2015 d
perusal of the material on record includin
order will indicate that the sole ground o
bunal has dismissed the petition is th
252(b) of the Rules nor Rule 6A of th
es were applicable and that it was KCS
ng
on
at
he
SR
itment Rules which was applicable to th
he
ng
he
ex
our considered opinion, the said findin
the Tribunal is not only contrary to th
ecord, but also the judgment of the Ape
of
as
case of G. Rabinathan Vs. State o
nd Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1474, as well a
nt judgment of this Court in the case
nataka Vs. Dr. K.S. Kiran Kumar, date
which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Ape
of
ed
ex
CC
ion for Special Leave to Appeal (C)… C
ated 23.03.2015which is sufficient
to
- 6 -
544-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
establish that
applicable to
working in
Department t
Services as a
the same cadr
the Tribunal fe
the erroneous
entitled to the
Rules. The fin
252(b) of the
petitioner is a
record but als
Judge of this C
The State of
dated 13.10.
undisputed fac
resignation fro
of getting him
and the pet
Department pu
with ‘NOC’ issu
Under these ci
the Rules wh
having taken
permission (N
treated as re
seeking senior
is entitled to
impugned orde
set aside.
5. It
identically situ
other departm
in the respond
have been ext
seen from Ann
the said public
applying the
considered opi
the benefit of
considering his
In the result, w
t Rule 6A of the Seniority Rules a
re
as
ce
vil
the petitioner who, undisputedly, wa
the State Civil Services i.e., Polic
ill he was appointed in the State Civ
Forest Guard in the Forest Department
e, class and scale. It is therefore clear th
ell in error in dismissing the application o
in
at
on
s premise that the petitioner was n
e benefit under Rule 6A of the Seniori
nding recorded by the Tribunal that Ru
ot
ty
ule
Rules will not apply to the case of th
also contrary not only to the material o
he
on
gle
Vs.
so to the judgment of the learned sing
Court in the case of Dr. Arundhathi S. V
Karnataka & Others, W.P. No.8136/202
2020. In the instant case, it is a
ct that the petitioner did not tender h
om the Police Department for the purpos
mself appointed in the Forest Departmen
0,
an
his
se
nt,
est
titioner was appointed in the Fore
ursuant to an application filed by him alon
ued in his favour by the Police Departmen
ng
nt.
rcumstances, in the light of Rule 252(b)
ich clearly stipulates that the petition
up another appointment with pri
NOC), the same cannot be construed
of
er
or
or
om
esignation so as to disentitle him fro
rity in the Forest Department for which h
he
he
be
and under these circumstances also, th
er passed by the Tribunal deserves to b
is also relevant to state that in respect
of
ated persons, who were earlier working
ent and who were subsequently appointe
ent Forest Department, the said applican
ended to the benefit of seniority as can b
nexure-A14 dated 04.08.2017 in relation
in
ed
nts
be
to
by
he
c servants. Viewed from this angle also, b
“Doctrine of Parity”, we are of th
inion that the petitioner will be entitled
to
by
seniority in the forest department also b
s past service in the Police Department.
we pass the following:
6.
- 7 -
544-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
ORDER
he petition is hereby allowed.
i) Th
ii) Th
pa
Tr
th
iii) Th
is
re
fo
as
iv) Re
se
D
se
D
be
ex
a
re
5. The Co-
he impugned order dated 17.01.202
assed in Application No.10981/2022 by th
ribunal is hereby set aside only insofar a
he applicant-petitioner is concerned.
23
he
as
he impugned order dated 14.07.202
ssued by respondent No.3 insofar as
22
it
ce
set
elates to denial of counting his past servic
or the purpose of seniority is hereby s
side.
espondents are directed to count pa
ervice of the petitioner in the Polic
ast
ce
his
est
epartment for the purpose of fixing h
eniority in the respondent-Fore
epartment and grant him all consequenti
enefits in accordance with law, a
xpeditiously as possible, at any rate, with
ial
as
hin
period of three months from the date
eceipt of a copy of this order.”
of
-ordinate Bench observed that the pe
etitioner
therein was entitle
d to the benefit of Rule 252(b) of the
e KCSR
and that technical
l resignation from one department
of the
State Government
to another would not result in the fo
rfeiture
of past service. Th
e respondent herein, being similarly
placed,
approached the T
Tribunal in Application No.10883 of
f 2024.
Following the orde
er passed by the Co-ordinate Benc
ch, the
Tribunal allowed th
e application by the following order:
“9. On
dispute that th
the rival contention urged, it is not
he applicant tendered his resignation to th
in
he
- 8 -
544-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
earlier post in
Constable. The
accepting the
under Rule 252
has joined the
serving in the
that when th
KCSRs, the pa
for pay protec
circumstances
the resignatio
Department hi
pay protection
the case of on
his case was
rendered in th
Tribunal by
rejected his c
When the said
Court by fili
Hon’ble Hight
has not tend
Department fo
the Forest Dep
Department p
NOC issued by
that the petit
appointment w
same cannot b
as to disentitle
Department fo
petition by qua
the order pass
respondents to
therein in the
the seniority i
grant all the c
from the date
the Police Department as Armed Reserve
e Superintendent of Police Belagavi, aft
ed
ter
resignation has relieved the applica
2 (b) of KCSRs. Its thereafter the applica
nt
nt
Forest Department as Forest Guard and
Forest Department. The applicant’s Case
e applicant is relieved under 252(b)
ast service rendered has to be considere
ction as well as for seniority. Under simil
is
is
of
ed
ar
ng
est
in the case Sri. V. N. Joni, after tenderin
on when he reported in the Fore
s case is considered by the respondents f
and for extending the seniority. Further
e Sri. Giridhar Narayasingh Agarwale whe
s rejected for considering past servic
for
in
en
ce
his
nal
on.
e Police Department when approached th
filing A.No.10981/2022, this Tribun
contention and dismissed the applicatio
d applicant approached the Hon’ble Hig
ng W.P No.105342/2023 (S-KAT), th
gh
he
ein
court on considering the petitioner there
dered his resignation from the Polic
or the purpose of getting appointment
ce
in
est
partment and was appointed in the Fore
ursuant to an application filed along wi
y the Police Department and clearly holdin
th
ng
tioner therein having taken up anoth
with the prior permission (NOC) and th
be construed and treated as resignation s
er
he
so
est
e him from seeking seniority in the Fore
or which he is entitled has allowed the w
rit
as
he
ashing the rejection order passed as well a
sed by this Tribunal. Further directed th
o count the past service of the petition
er
ng
Police Department for the purpose of fixin
in the Forest Department and directed
consequential benefits within three month
to
hs
of receipt of copy of this order.”
6. The St
tate is again before the Court cal
lling in
question the said
order of the Tribunal. The Tribun
nal has
directed considerat
tion of the representation by taking
note of
- 9 -
544-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WP No. 109518 o
CNR: KAHC0202504320
025
the case of his colle
eague as quoted supra and passed nec
cessary
orders. This is no
ot challenged by the employee but
by the
State.
7. In the
light of the Co-ordinate Bench
already
deciding the issue
in favour of a co-employee of the pet
titioner,
we do not find any
y warrant of interference to the order
passed
by the Tribunal da
ated 04.02.2025. The petition, thus,
stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
RSH / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4