G. ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. M. Nagaprasanna on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1, learned senior counsel Sri. S.S. Naganand on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4 and the learned senior counsel Sri. V. Lakshminarayana on behalf of the third respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the appointment of the third respondent as a nominated Director (Technical) on the Board of the fourth respondent Corporation in his place and the consequent appointment of the petitioner as Managing Director of KAVIKA under the impugned order dated 22.07.2019. The act of nomination is titled as a transfer-cum-nomination (Annexure-H).

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the services of the second respondent on 05.04.1984 as an Assistant Engineer and subsequently was promoted to the cadre of AEE on 29.11.1999 and to the cadre of Executive Engineer with effect from 22.08.2007. Thereafter, to the cadre of Superintending Engineer with effect from 30.04.2016. That on account of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of B.K. Pavithra, a review of the promotions of certain candidates was necessitated and consequently the promotions accorded to them were revoked and they were relegated to the lower cadre and one such candidate was the third respondent. That on account of the demotion the petitioner moved up in the order of seniority and consequently the petitioner stood promoted as a Chief Engineer with effect from 30.06.2014 by order dated 16.04.2018 and the third respondent was reverted to the Superintendent Engineer. That thereafter the State Government legislated and promulgated a special enactment called the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the posts in Civil Services of the State) Act, 2017. That a challenge was mounted calling in question the virus of the Act before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said petitions came to be rejected and the validity of the Act of 2018 was upheld resulting in one more round of churning and consequent to the same the persons who had been reverted and relegated to a lower cadre were once again restored to the original seniority.