High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 11 KAR CK 0154

G.S. Siddaraju vs The Managing Director KSRTC Central Offices Transport House Shanthinagar K.H. Road Bangalore-560027

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 9 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Mohan Reddy, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 11088 of 2011 (S-KSRTC)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 246 words

Ram Mohan Reddy

1.

Petitioner claiming, to be the senior most officer in the cadre of Divisional Works Superintendent - Class II Officer in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation, has preferred this writ petition to quash the order dt. 25/6/2009, Annex. A, promoting his juniors to the post of Divisional Mechanical Engineer - Class I Junior, and for a mandamus to promote the petitioner to the said post.

2.

Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections interalia contending that the petitioner''s case for promotion was considered by the departmental promotion committee on 8/5/2C09 and as the annual appraisal reports disclosed several cases of misconduct pending against the petitioner, in the light of promotion policy dt. 4/4/2005, as set out in the circular No. 1328, promotion under the sealed cover procedure was adopted.

3.

In the light of the averments set out in the statement of objections in paragraph 2 that the petitioner''s case for promotion was considered and a procedure of sealed cover promotion adopted, it is needless to state that if after the disciplinary proceeding exonerating the petitioner, and on opening the sealed cover, if the petitioner is entitled to promotion, would be extended to the petitioner and in case on opening the sealed cover the petitioner is informed of not being extended the promotion, petitioner is reserved the liberty to question that order in an appropriate legal proceeding.

Petition is accordingly disposed of

I.A. 3/11 and I.A. 4/11 are unnecessary and are accordingly rejected.