Karnataka HC Upholds Forest Guard’s Seniority Credit for Police Service After Technical Resignation

The respondent joined the Police Department as an Armed Reserve Police Constable on 10 June 2008 and later applied for and joined the Forest Department as a Forest Guard.

He was relieved from the Police Department under Rule 252(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR), following which his past service was not counted.

The respondent sought recognition of that service for seniority and consequential benefits.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal allowed his application on 4 February 2025, following a decision concerning a similarly situated employee.

The State challenged the Tribunal’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Rule 252(b) of the KCSR was treated as governing an employee’s move to another appointment with prior permission, such that the resulting technical resignation does not, by itself, forfeit past service.

Rule 6A of the Karnataka Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1957, was relied on in the earlier decision concerning a similarly situated employee for counting past service for seniority when a State civil servant moves between departments in the same cadre, class and scale.

That decision also referred to G. Rabinathan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 1474; State of Karnataka v. Dr. K.S. Kiran Kumar (27 November 2013), whose order was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 23 March 2015; and Dr. Arundhathi S. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 8136 of 2020 (13 October 2020).

The present Court relied on the earlier coordinate-bench decision concerning a similarly situated employee.

The Tribunal had allowed the respondent’s application by following the High Court’s decision granting a similarly situated employee recognition of past Police Department service for seniority in the Forest Department.

That earlier decision held that relief under Rule 252(b), following an appointment obtained with the Police Department’s NOC, did not disentitle the employee from having past service counted.

Finding the respondent’s case governed by that decision, the Court saw no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.

Thus, the State’s challenge to the Tribunal’s decision granting the respondent relief in respect of his past service was rejected.