55 Raichur Police Personnel Lose Article 371J Promotion Bid As Karnataka HC Says 2014 Circular Challenge Fails Without Challenge To 2013 Order

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation disclosed an error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no error in the Tribunal’s order and declining to interfere.

It also directed

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioners, police personnel serving in Raichur and belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka (now Kalyana Karnataka) region, sought promotion and seniority benefits under Article 371J.

pp. 13–17

Petitioners 1–22 had been promoted as Head Constables under the non-H-K region quota.

pp. 13–17

They challenged a 2014 departmental circular requiring options concerning allotment to local or residual cadres, as well as the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 29 March 2022, which directed the authorities to consider their representation dated 11 August 2020.

pp. 13–17

The State maintained that the option process implemented the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, and that it had issued an endorsement on 16 June 2022 in response to the representation.

pp. 19–21

The petitioners also sought to quash that endorsement, but the Court noted that they had not challenged it.

pp. 25–26

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s order directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation disclosed an error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 16–17, 25–26

ii.2. Whether the 2014 departmental circular implementing the 2013 Order could be challenged without challenging the 2013 Order itself, and whether the circular was contrary to Article 371J.

pp. 20–25

03Law Applied

Article 371J authorises identification of posts or classes of posts in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons belonging to that region, including through promotion or other specified means.

p. 22

The Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 provides for allotment to local cadres; Order 4(2) permits local persons to be given an opportunity to opt for allotment to a local cadre.

pp. 23–24

The Court also referred to Order 10 as authorising government directions or clarifications for implementing the 2013 Order.

p. 24

It accepted the principle in A.J. Rana that “consider” entails careful examination of a matter, while finding the other cited authorities distinguishable or inapplicable.

pp. 26–30

04Reasoning

The Court found that the 2013 Order had not been challenged and had attained finality; the petitioners therefore could not, without challenging that underlying Order, establish that the implementing circular was invalid.

pp. 24–26

They had also not demonstrated how the circular was inconsistent with Article 371J, and the Court noted that they had waited several years before making their representation.

p. 25

The Tribunal had directed consideration of that representation, and the State had issued the 16 June 2022 endorsement in response.

pp. 25–26

Because the endorsement was not challenged, the Tribunal’s direction had been complied with and no basis remained to interfere.

pp. 25–26, 28