Gram Panchayat must consider employees’ promotion claims under applicable government orders and staffing rules.

The petitioners were employed by Gram Panchayat, Jidaga, as two Pump Operators and a Peon.

They challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Bill Collector, approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, alleging that the Government Order dated 10 September 2014 required eligible Watermen, Pump Operators and Peons to be promoted to that post.

During the proceedings, the respondents produced an order dated 2 February 2026 removing respondent No. 5 as Bill Collector.

The petitioners also sought consideration of their promotion claims and challenged an earlier order in W.P. No. 200037/2023.

1. Whether the challenge to respondent No. 5’s appointment remained live after his removal as Bill Collector

2. Whether the petitioners’ grievance seeking promotion to Bill Collector should be considered under the Government Order dated 10 September 2014 and the applicable 2020 Amendment Rules

The Court considered the Government Order dated 10 September 2014, which the petitioners relied on as prescribing promotion of eligible Watermen, Pump Operators and Peons to the post of Bill Collector, and the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Staffing Pattern, Scale of Pay, Method of Recruitment and other Conditions of Service of Employees of Grama Panchayat) (Amendment) Rules, 2020.

The Court directed that the petitioners’ grievance be considered in accordance with law and with those instruments in mind; it did not determine that any petitioner was entitled to promotion.

No judicial precedents were relied on.

The Court treated the removal order as rendering the challenge to respondent No. 5’s appointment infructuous.

It did not decide the petitioners’ eligibility or comparative entitlement.

Instead, noting their claim that the 2014 Government Order governed appointment to the Bill Collector post, the Court considered it appropriate for the Panchayat Development Officer to examine their grievance on its merits, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

Respondent No. 5’s objection to the removal order was left for him to pursue separately under law.

The petitioners were permitted to submit a representation within one month of receiving the order.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to consider any such representation in light of the Government Order dated 10 September 2014 and the 2020 Amendment Rules, and to decide it within three months of receipt.

No costs were awarded.