THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KNNL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
974-DB
of 2025
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
D
IN THE HIGH
H COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
S THE 24 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
DATED THIS
PRESENT
THE HON'B
BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'
BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT APP
PEAL NO. 100693 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF ENG
MALAPRABHA PR
COLLEGE ROAD
2. THE SUPERINTE
KNNL MLBCC CI
NAVILU THEERT
DIST: BELAGAV
INEER, KNNL,
ROJECT ZONE,
, DHARWAD – 580 001.
ENDING ENGINEER,
IRCLE,
THA, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
I – 591 116.
ELLANTS
…APPE
E, ADVOCATE)
(BY SRI. S.M. TONNE
AND:
1. STATE OF KARN
REP. BY ITS SEC
DEPARTMENT O
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBED
BENGALURU – 5
NATAKA,
CRETARY
F IRRIGATION,
,
DKAR VEEDHI,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
560 001.
2. THE ENGINEER
DEVELOPMENT O
ANAND RAO CIR
3. SRI. SURESH S/
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OFFICE OF THE
KNNL MLBCC CI
TQ: SAUNDATTI
-IN-CHIEF WATER RESOURCES,
ORGANISATION,
RCLE, BENGALURU 560 009.
/O. HANUMANTAPPA JAMBAGI,
, OCC: GROUP D EMPLOYEE,
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
IRCLE, NAVILU THEERTHA,
I, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 116.
NDENTS
…RESPON
HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
HAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. H
SRI. MADANMOH
- 2 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
THIS WRIT A
COURT ACT, PRAYIN
4/9/2025 PASSED
W.P.NO. 106328/201
KINDLY BE DISMISS
COST IN THE INTERE
THIS WRIT AP
THIS DAY, JUDGMEN
CORAM:
PPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAK
A HIGH
R DATED
G TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUD
14 AND FURTHER THE W.P.NO.106328/20
GE IN
014 MAY
SED BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEA
EST OF JUSTICE.
L WITH
PPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY H
EARING
T WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANN
NA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARN
NI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'B
The appellan
BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
Limited
nts - Karnataka Neeravari Nigam
nd the
(hereinafter referr
ed to as ‘the Nigam’ for short) a
s Court
Superintending Eng
gineer of the Nigam are before this
e Judge
calling in question
an order passed by the learned single
eby the
in W.P.No.106328/
/2014, disposed on 04.09.2025, where
petition comes to b
be allowed.
s, Smt.
2. Heard Sri
S.M.Tonne, learned counsel appellant
ader for
Girija S. Hiremath,
learned High Court Government Plea
hannur,
respondent Nos.1
and 2 and Sri Madanmohan M. Kh
learned counsel for
r respondent No.3.
- 3 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
3. Facts, in br
rief, germane are as follows:
The issue com
mmences when respondent No.3 is ap
pointed
as a daily wage c
coolie under the appellants, for Mala
aprabha
Project Zone, Dha
rwad, on 13.01.1984. By an order
r dated
02.09.1994, the s
services of respondent No.3 comes
to be
regularized in Grou
up ‘C’ cadre of Literate Assistant with
h effect
About two years later i.e., on 22.03
from 02.05.1993.
3.1995,
the order dated 02
.09.1994 comes to be modified by ab
sorbing
respondent No.3 in
a Group ‘D’ post instead of Group ‘C’
post of
Literate Assistant o
on the ground of alleged tampering
of the
records with regard
d to his original appointment. This is
s called
in question by resp
pondent No.3 in W.P.No.13686/2000 a
and the
learned single Judg
ge disposed the writ petition by settin
g aside
the order of modif
fication dated 22.03.1995 and reman
nds the
matter back to th
he authorities for fresh consideratio
n after
affording an oppor
tunity to respondent No.3. Pursuant
t to the
directions of the le
earned Single Judge, an order comes
s to be
passed on reconsi
deration by the appellants on 20.12
2.2000,
regularizing the se
ervices of respondent No.3 in the Gr
roup ‘C’
cadre of Literate
Assistant, with effect from 02.06
6.2000.
Therefore, respond
ent No.3 continues as a Literate Assist
tant.
- 4 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
3.1. The iss
sue then crops up when responden
nt No.3
claims time bound
advance for the services rendered by
y him in
terms of the go
overnment circular dated 23.10.201
10, by
preferring an applic
cation No.1379/2010, including the be
enefit of
such regularization
with effect from 02.06.2000. It tra
anspires
that the representa
ation comes to be withdrawn by resp
pondent
No.3 on 17.01.201
13. Again on 01.04.2014, responden
nt No.3
submits a represen
ntation to appellant No.2 seeking ben
nefits of
his regularization o
of his services with effect from 02.0
05.1993
and not 20.12.2000
0. Appellant No.2 - Superintending E
ngineer
issues a notice to r
respondent No.3 in connection with hi
is claim
for regularization a
nd time bound advancement referring
g to the
verification of his
original appointment records and n
nominal
muster roll and tha
at appointment was in Group ‘D’ cadre
e. It is
then, on verificatio
n of the service records of responden
nt No.3,
appellant No.2 pass
ses an order on 26.04.2014, regulariz
zing the
services of respond
dent No.3 in the Group ‘D’ Heavy La
abourer
with effect from
m 02.05.1993 and grants time
bound
advancement from
02.05.2003 and not as a Group ‘C’ in
n cadre
of Literate Assistan
nt and the earlier orders dated 20.1
12.2000
- 5 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
and 01.03.2013 w
ere withdrawn. This is filed in ques
stion by
respondent No.3 b
before this Court in W.P.No.106328
8/2014.
The learned single
Judge disposes the writ petition in te
erms of
the order dated
04.09.2025, sets aside the order
dated
26.04.2014, uphold
ds the order dated 20.12.2000, by af
ffirming
the regularization o
of the services of respondent No.3 as
s Group
‘C’ in Literate Assis
stant cadre and remitted back the ma
tter for
es i.e.,
fixation of the da
ate of regularization of the service
whether with effect
t from 02.05.1993 or 02.06.2000. Ag
grieved
by the order dated
d 04.09.2025, passed by the learned
d single
Judge, the appellan
nts are before us in the subject appeal
.
4. Learned c
counsel for the appellants would s
seek to
contend that the o
order of the learned single Judge wo
ould be
contrary to the re
ecords available by the department,
where
respondent No.3 w
was appointed only as a Group ‘D’ em
mployee
on nominal muster
r roll basis. Therefore, he would subm
mit that
the order be set a
aside and respondent No.3 be permi
itted to
continue in Group ‘
C’ cadre of Literate Assistant.
5. Learned H
igh Court Government Pleader appea
ring for
respondent Nos.1
and 2 would submit that the
service
- 6 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
conditions of respo
ondent No.3 are governed by the ru
les and
regulations of the
Nigam, which is a separate juristic
entity,
and that the orde
ers regularising the services of resp
pondent
No.3 and modifyin
g such regularisation are the orders
of the
appellants and not
t of respondent Nos.1 and 2. She
e would
submit that respon
dent Nos.1 and 2 have no role in the
dispute
and leave the matt
ter to the Court to pass appropriate or
rders in
accordance with law
w.
6. Learned
counsel for respondent No.3
would
vehemently refute
the submissions contending that the
e cadre
was changed not on
nce, but twice as Literate Assistant, si
nce the
petitioner was app
pointed as Group ‘D’ employee. It
is the
further submission
n that the learned single Judge
is not
erroneous and an
intra-court appeal on these grounds
should
not be entertained.
7. We have
e given our anxious consideration
to the
submissions of the
e respective learned counsel for the
parties
and have perused t
the material on record.
8. The afore-
narrated facts, dates and link in the c
chain of
events are all a m
atter of record. The impugned order
r of the
- 7 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
learned single Judg
ge is called in question in the subject
appeal.
It reads as follows:
“3. A pe
the petitioner
on 13.01.198
02.09.1994,
regularized in
effect from
regularization
cadre of Litera
respondents is
payable in f
consonance
respondent N
22.03.1995, re
petitioner only
post.
4. Aggri
the petitione
No.13686/200
remitted back
reconsideration
erusal of material on record will indicate th
hat
d 4
was appointed to respondent Nos.3 and
84, as a daily wages employee.
the services of the petitioner we
the post/cadre of Literate Assistant w
02.05.1993. In pursuance of the s
On
ere
with
aid
the
the
ary
of the petitioner to Group ‘C’ post in t
ate Assistant in respondent Nos.3 and 4, t
ssued a statement indicating that the sala
favour of the petitioner should be
in
tly,
ted
the
with Group ‘C’ post. Subsequent
Nos.3 and 4 passed an order dat
ecalling its earlier order and absorbing t
y to Group ‘D’ post and not against Group
‘C’
ieved by the said order dated 22.03.199
er approached this Court in W
0, which was allowed and the mat
k to the respondent Nos.3 and 4
95,
WP
tter
for
n afresh in accordance with law.
5. The
under:
said order dated 22.03.1995, is reads
as
“Th
Group C w
order dat
Thereafter
22.3.1995
order of re
the petitio
under chal
e services of the petitioner in the post of
was regularized by the 2nd respondent by
ed 2.9.1994 with effect from 2.5.1993.
r, respondent-4 by his order dated
, produced as Annexure-D, modified the
egularisation by regularising the services of
oner in the post of ‘barakooli’. This order is
lenge by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2.
regularisin
modifying
of record
Whether, i
is a mat
opportunit
opportunit
The reason assigned by respondent-4 for
g the petitioner in the post of ‘barakooli’ by
the earlier order is that there is tampering
ds regarding his original appointment.
in fact, there is tampering of records or not
tter to be decided after affording an
y to the petitioner. In the instant case, no
y appears to have been afforded to the
- 8 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
petitioner
my opinion
before passing Annexure-D. Therefore, in
n, the matter requires reconsideration.
3. I
In the result, I pass the following order:-
) Writ petition is allowed;
i) The order dated 22.3.1995
passed by respondent-4
produced as Annexure-D is
quashed;
i
i
ii) Matter is remitted to the
respondents to reconsider the
matter afresh after due notice to
the petitioner.”
i
6. In pu
passed by t
respondent N
20.12.2000,
petitioner to t
from 02.06.20
appointment.
rsuance of the said order dated 02.06.20
this Court in WP No.13686/2000, t
Nos.3 and 4 passed an order dat
regularizing the appointment of t
the post of a Literate Assistant with effe
000 and not from the date of earlier/origi
000
the
ted
the
ect
nal
7. Being
20.12.2000, t
directed his a
02.06.2000 a
submitted a
respondent No
the date of reg
g aggrieved by the aforesaid order dat
ted
to the limited/restricted extent that
appointment as a Literate Assistant fro
it
om
ner
the
om
nd not from 02.05.1993, the petition
representation dated 01.04.2014, to t
o.4 seeking grant of time bond scale fro
gularization.
8. It is t
of considering
of appointmen
the year 199
passed the
26.04.2014, p
dated 20.12.2
before this Cou
the grievance of the petitioner that inste
ead
the claim of the petitioner for regularizat
nt and payment as a Literate Assistant fro
93, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 inste
ion
om
ead
impugned order at Annexure-J dat
urporting to withdraw/recall its earlier ord
2000, aggrieved by which the petitioner
ted
der
r is
urt by way of the present petition.
9. A p
26.04.2014 at
conclusion tha
perusal of the impugned order dat
t Annexure-J, is sufficient to come to t
at the reasons assigned therein are tota
ted
the
ally
- 9 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
illegal and inv
petitioner had
Coolie and no
impugned orde
valid inasmuch as except stating that t
d entered service in the year 1984 as
the
s a
o further reasons are forthcoming in t
er.
the
10. In t
fact that the
Coolie in the y
by the respond
him to be regu
their order d
correspondenc
passed by th
considered by
of considering
of the post to a
his context, it is pertinent to note that t
petitioner had earlier been appointed as
year 1984 and has been taken into accou
the
s a
unt
dent Nos.3 and 4 themselves while direct
ularised to the post of a Literate Assistant
dated 20.12.2000, in which the vario
ce, documents etc., including the ord
his Court in WP 13686/2000 have be
ing
t in
ous
der
een
the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purpo
ose
the claim of the petitioner for regularisat
a Literate Assistant.
ion
11. It is
20.12.2000 is
after a lapse o
since the same
Hon’ble Apex C
Others Vs. Ha
Representativ
(2018) 12 SC
also pertinent to note that the order dat
s sought to be reviewed/recalled/revisit
ted
ted
of 14 years, which is impermissible in l
e is beyond reasonable time as held by t
Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav a
aw
the
nd
gal
9 =
ari Kishore Yadav (dead) through Leg
ves and Others [2017 (6) SCALE 459
CC 527] , held as under;
“1
of the Di
Patna wh
passed b
restoratio
admeasu
provision
to Raiyat
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgm
ent
e at
ivision Bench of the High Court of Judicature
hereby the High Court had reversed the ord
by the Additional Collector, Supaul, direct
on of possession of the disputed la
uring about 10.47 ac to the appellants under
ns of the Bihar Kosi Area (Restoration of Lan
der
ting
and
the
nds
ts) Act, 1951 (for short “the Act”).
2.
parties a
dispose
delay in
dates nec
We have heard the learned counsel for
at length. Having done so, we are inclined
the
to
able
of the appeal on the ground of unreasona
applying for restoration of the land. The f
cessary for deciding this issue are as follows.
few
3.
auction i
was the
predeces
one Bab
appeared
On 13-8-1942, the suit land was sold
in execution of the rent decree. The suit la
en put in possession of the appellant
ssor. In execution, the land was purchased
in
and
(s)'
by
and
bu Md. Abdus Samad. Thereafter, the la
d to have changed hands four times.
- 10 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
4.
The Act
farmers
or from
between
Decembe
Kosi Ri
impossib
In 1951, the State of Bihar enacted the A
Act.
provided for restoration of certain lands
i.e. raiyats, which were sold for arrears of r
to
ent
ent
which they were ejected for arrears of r
1st day of January 1939, and 31st day
er, 1950. This was operational due to floods
of
s in
iver which made agricultural operatio
le.
ons
5.
restoratio
Gonar Ya
filed a pe
Section 3
when the
Nos. 540
9-1980.
dismissed
The appellants did not take any steps
on of the land till 4-5-1975. On that date, o
adav, son of recorded tenant Chanchal Yad
etition for restoration of the disputed land un
3 of the Act. Eventually, after an earlier rema
for
one
av,
der
nd,
eals
n 7-
e matter was pending in appeal, being Appe
0 of 1978-1979, it was dismissed in default on
It was again restored on 23-12-1980, but ag
d for default on 23-3-1983.
ain
6.
16 years
the respo
27-12-20
in favour
An application for restoration was moved af
fter
e to
on 9-8-1999 and was allowed without notice
ondents. Eventually, the Additional Collector
000, allowed the restoration of the disputed la
r of the appellants.
on
and
7.
dismissed
letters pa
however,
at the in
the resto
time me
passed
restoratio
period of
filed by
appellant
period of
A writ petition filed by the respondents w
d by the learned Single Judge on 25-3-2004
atent appeal preferred by the respondents w
, allowed. That judgment is in appeal before
nstance of the appellants who had been den
oration of land. It is obvious from the periods
entioned above that even after the Act w
was
4. A
was,
us
nied
s of
was
in 1951, the appellants filed a petition
on of the disputed land on 4-5-1975 i.e. afte
f about 24 years. Thereafter, when the app
for
er a
peal
them was dismissed on 23-8-1983,
ts applied for restoration on 9-8-1999 afte
f 16 years of such dismissal.
the
r a
8.
and unju
firstly, m
a period
accrued t
restoratio
was dism
We find that there is inordinate, unexplain
ustified delay on the part of the appellants
making an application for restoration of land af
ned
s in
fter
ave
of 24 years after such a right is said to ha
to them and, then in making an application
on after a period of 16 years when the mat
missed in default.
for
tter
9.
appellant
The learned counsel appearing for
ts vehemently submitted that the delay must
the
be
- 11 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
overlooke
legislatio
been dis
reliance w
India Ass
held that
1989, a
1995, af
statute w
could be
1963 eve
According
not be
limitation
166 of th
a period
regard to
that the
present c
not prov
the statu
ed because the Act is a beneficial piece
of
had
The
New
n intended to bring relief to farmers who h
spossessed during the proscribed period. T
was placed on a judgment of this Court in N
surance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma, where this Co
t in a motor accident which took place on 18-
ourt
12-
11-
claim petition barred by time but filed on 2-1
fter limitation itself was removed from
was maintainable. This Court held that th
the
ere
Act,
no resort to Article 137 of the Limitation A
en though no period of limitation was prescrib
ed.
ould
gly, the Court held that the claim petition co
rejected at the threshold on the ground
n, after the deletion of sub-section (3) of Sect
he Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which had provid
of
tion
ded
ving
of six months. This view was taken hav
o the purpose of the statute. We, however, f
find
judgment relied on has no application to
case. It is a settled law where the statute do
the
oes
s of
ide for a period of limitation, the provisions
te must be invoked within a reasonable time.
10
Aiyar, 3
follows:
0. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanat
rd
3 Edn., “reasonable time” is explained
tha
as
s to
“That is a reasonable time that preserves
ach party the rights and advantages he possesses a
rotects each party from losses that he ought not
uffer.”
and
t to
ea
pr
su
Th
only in o
possesse
losses he
has been
viewed f
suffer los
hus, time must be reckoned reasonably,
order to preserve rights and advantages a pa
es, but equally to protect each party from t
not
arty
the
tion
e ought not to suffer. Thus, whether an act
n taken within a reasonable time, must also
be
ght
rom the point of view of the party who mig
sses.
11
Court had
1. In the instant case, we find that the H
igh
d observed as follows:
the
ade
“The auction-sale took place in 1942,
pplication for restoration of the lands was first ma
ap
in
de
ch
ap
lon
co
st
for
nds
1975 and the appeal from it was dismissed
efault in 1983. In the meanwhile, the disputed la
hanged hands twice and were in the possession of
the
ch a
very
mely
ppellant-writ petitioners from 1962 and 1986. Suc
ng-settled position could only be upset for some v
ompelling reasons and on making out an extrem
e is
rong case for restoration of the appeal. There
- 12 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
no
th
re
ap
co
Th
taken.
othing on record to suggest anything remotely
like
r in
at. Secondly, the action of the Additional Collecto
storing the appeal even without any notice to
ppellant-writ petitioners was clearly illegal and
ontravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.”
the
in
he High Court was clearly right in the view it h
had
12
power of
could ha
limitation
delay in
presuppo
motu, su
The subm
Court in
affirmed
Para ‘17’
Rao case
2. It is argued on behalf of the appellants t
f the Additional Collector for restoration of lan
ave been exercised suo motu and since
n was prescribed for exercise of such power, t
hat
nds
no
the
sion
this case may be overlooked. This submiss
oses that where the power can be exercised s
suo
me.
uch exercise may be undertaken at any tim
mission is directly contrary to a decision of t
this
ourt
Collector v. D. Narsing Rao where this Co
the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Cou
’ of the judgment reads as follows: (D. Nars
e, SCC p. 706, para 17)
urt.
sing
“17.… that the suo motu revision underta
ter a long lapse of time, even in the absence of a
eriod of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to
oncept of rule of law.”
ken
any
aft
pe
co
the
on.
Thus, we
e have no hesitation in rejecting this contentio
13
prescribe
or on the
time. Un
depend
purpose
clear that
reasonab
land was
obviously
rights.
14
legislatio
the right
and proc
delay as
Jharkhan
SCC 340]
3. In our view, where no period of limitation
ed, the action must be taken, whether suo m
n is
otu
able
ould
application
e of the parties, within a reasona
ndoubtedly, what is reasonable time wo
on the circumstances of each case and
the
are
ond
of the statute. In the case before us, we
t the action is grossly delayed and taken beyo
ble time, particularly, in view of the fact that
the
od,
any
s transferred several times during this peri
y, in the faith that it is not encumbered by a
4. We are of the view that merely because
the
ed,
htly
able
n is beneficial and no limitation is prescrib
s acquired by persons cannot be ignored ligh
ceedings cannot be initiated after unreasona
observed by this Court in Situ Sahu v. State
nd [Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004
e of
) 8
].
- 13 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
15
However
compens
5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismiss
, the appellants may apply for return of
ed.
the
ation and damages deposited by them.”
12. A
26.04.2014 at
is absolutely
unexplained, u
respondent No
after a lapse
illegal and arb
in the present
perusal of the impugned order dat
t Annexure-J will clearly indicate that the
ted
ere
ate,
no whisper as to the long inordina
unjustified delay and laches on the part
os.3 and 4 in passing the impugned ord
of
der
arly
of almost 14 years and which is clea
itrary, warranting interference by this Co
urt
petition.
13. Ins
seeking regula
not from 02.06
matter would
respondent No
reasonable opp
The learned
sofar as the claim of the petitioner
for
and
arization with effect from 02.05.1993 a
6.2000 is concerned, the said aspect of t
the
the
and
”
necessarily have to be reconsidered by t
os.3 and 4 after providing sufficient a
portunity to the petitioner in this regard.”
single Judge in the afore-quoted ord
der has
observed that in th
e order dated 26.04.2014 impugned t
therein,
the appellants ha
ave not whispered about the inor
rdinate,
unexplained and u
unjustified delay and laches in passi
ing the
order after lapse of
f 14 years. Therefore, it is set at nau
ght the
order. Insofar as
the issue of claim for regularization
of the
services of respond
dent No.3, with effect from 02.05.19
93 and
not from 02.06.20
000 is concerned, the learned single
e Judge
directed the appe
ellants to reconsider the issue and
d pass
appropriate orders.
- 14 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
9. Even befor
re us, there is not a spec of paper pr
roduced
with regard to the
reasons for keeping quiet for 14 yea
rs after
the order dated 20
0.12.2000, pursuant to the order pas
ssed by
the learned Single J
Judge restoring the order of regulariza
ation of
respondent No.3 in
n the cadre of Group ‘C’ Literate As
sistant.
Therefore, there ca
an be no qualm in the reasoning rende
ered by
the learned single J
Judge in the impugned order. Therefo
ore, the
delay has vitiated t
the prayer of the appellants.
10. Insofar a
s the directions issued by the learned
d single
Judge with regard t
to fixation of the date of regularization
n of the
services of respon
ndent No.3 in Group ‘C’ cadre as L
Literate
Assistant, whethe
r with effect from 02.05.1993 o
r from
02.06.2000, the is
ssue deserves to be remitted back
to the
hands of the appell
ants.
11. A perusa
al at the order of the learned single
e Judge
would not brood an
ny perversity as it is foundationed upo
n delay
and laches. Delay
undoubtedly takes away equity either
r of the
employer or the em
mployee. The fact that pursuant to th
e order
dated 02.06.2000,
passed by the learned single Judge
in W.P.
No.13686/2000, an
n order dated 20.12.2000 is passed
by the
- 15 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
appellants regular
izing the services of respondent N
No.3 in
Group ‘C’ cadre
as Literate Assistant. The order
dated
20.12.2000 reads a
as follows:
12. The issue
e crops up when respondent No.3 claim
ms that
he is entitled to
time bound advancement in the ca
adre of
Literate Assistant, i
it is then after 14 years of the passage
e of the
afore-quoted order
r, which by itself was pursuant to the
orders
of the learned s
single Judge. The orders passed,
being
withdrawn or annu
ulled as the case may be, would v
virtually
annul the directions
s issued by the learned Single Judge.
13. In that
light, we do not find any error for
r us to
interfere in the su
ubject intra-court appeal, as interfere
ence is
warranted only wh
here the order suffers from perversit
ty or is
contrary to law. Ne
either perversity nor illegality is found
d in the
impugned order p
passed by the learned Single Judge
e. It is
apposite to refer to
o the judgment of the Apex Court rend
dered in
- 16 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
the case of BIH
PMENT
AR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOP
1
COPE SALES PRIVATE LIMITED , w
wherein,
AUTHORITY v. SC
it holds as follows:
“13. We
extent of juris
of a high cou
conferred eith
relevant statu
that both -
exercise the
the Constitut
court appella
the judgme
demonstrably
Such jurisdic
because anot
facts, particu
Single Judge
other words,
not to substit
Bench consid
taken by the
taken by th
interference s
e must also bear in mind the nature a
sdiction that an intra-court appellate Ben
urt exercise. Such appellate jurisdiction
her under the Letters Patent or by t
and
nch
is
the
ote
h -
tory provisions. It is pertinent to no
Single Bench and Division Bench
same jurisdiction under Article 226
tion. In our view, the exercise of intr
ate jurisdiction is warranted only whe
of
ra-
ere
ent or order under challenge
y erroneous or suffers from perversi
ction ought not to be invoked mere
is
ty.
ely
ther view is possible on the same set
ularly where the view adopted by t
of
the
is a plausible and reasonable one.
, an intra-court appellate Bench oug
In
ght
uch
one
tute its own view, merely because su
ders its view to be better than the o
e Single Bench; so long as the vie
he Single Bench is a plausible on
ew
ne,
should stay at a distance.
Xxxxxx
pplying the principles governing the exerc
15.1 Ap
of intra-court
aforesaid prece
observe tha
deference to
of first insta
was exercis
Single Judge
on a ground
Division Benc
the writ pet
intra-court a
cise
appellate jurisdiction, as laid down in t
edents, to the facts of the present case, w
at judicial discipline demanded d
the
we
ue
urt
the exercise of discretion by the cou
nce, particularly when such discreti
sed on relevant considerations. T
e having refused exercise of discreti
on
The
on
the
d which, in our opinion, is valid, t
ch ought to have been loath to allo
tition, and that too in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction. The judgment a
ow
its
and
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC
C 112
- 17 -
974-DB
of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15
WA No. 100693 o
CNR: KAHC0202195420
025
order of the
incorrect or pe
Single Judge was far from being who
erverse.”
olly
(Emphasis supp
lied)
In the light o
of the judgment of the Apex Court as
quoted
hereinabove, this i
ntra-court appeal cannot be entertain
ned, as
we do not find an
ny error apparent on the face of the
e order
passed by the learn
ned single Judge.
14. The appe
eal thus, stands dismissed. The app
pellants
are directed to com
mply with the impugned order passed
by the
learned single Judg
ge with regard to the issue of fixation
n of the
date of regularizat
tion of the services of respondent N
No.3, in
Group ‘C’ cadre as
Literate Assistant, whether with effe
ct from
02.05.1993 or from
m 02.06.2000, as expeditiously as poss
sible.
Ordered acco
rdingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
nvj
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
7