A promotion-cancellation challenge is dismissed as covered by coordinate-bench precedent.

The petitioner, a conductor appointed in 1983, was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings.

The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service, and the High Court upheld that order.

After his transfer to the Sirsi Division, the Corporation included him at serial number 2 in a promotion list for Traffic Controller and posted him to Kumta.

The Corporation subsequently cancelled his promotion, stating that it was subject to reversion if a person senior to him was identified in the promotion list.

The petitioner challenged that cancellation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Corporation’s order cancelling the petitioner’s promotion to Traffic Controller should be quashed

2. Whether the petitioner’s challenge was governed by the Coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 100334/2025

The Court treated the dispute as covered by the Coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 100334/2025, without setting out an independent legal test concerning cancellation of promotions.

The referenced decision discussed the effect of a request transfer on seniority and Circular No. 775 dated 9 February 1990; it held that repeated representations do not create a vested right and that the circular applies to request transfers.

The Court stated that the lis was no longer res integra because it was covered by the Coordinate Bench decision, reproduced that decision, and concluded that the present petition required no further consideration.

It did not separately examine the terms of the petitioner’s promotion, the stated basis for cancelling it, or the applicability of the cited decision’s request-transfer and seniority principles to those facts.

No separate relief or direction was granted.