GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA versus C. DINAKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVERNMENTOFKARNATAKA 
v. 
C. DINAKAR AND ORS. 
MAY 14, 1999 
B 
. 
' 
[K. VENKATASWAMI ANO A.P. MISRA, JJ.]. 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Retrospective promotion-High Court quashed promotion 
C of employee-But held that since he was already promoted, he had acquired 
a right to. be considered along with other eligible candidates-Effect of-
Held: High Court's view, upheld-However, State Government may promote 
the said employee with retrospective effect after reconsideration in accordance 
with the guidelines then in force-Jn the meanwhile, the said employee 
permitted to continue to functi9n in the same post. 
D 
The first respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal challenging the promotion and appointment of the fourth respondent 
as Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG and IGP) by a 
Notification issued by the appellant-State. The Tribunal dismissed the petition. 
However, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned 
E Notification promoting and appointing the fourth respondent as DG and IGP. 
F 
But the High Court made it clear that the fourth respondent having been 
promoted as DG and IGP had acquired a right to be considered along with 
other eligible candidates. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was right in holding 1that the impugned 
Notification could not be sustained on the facts of this case. But the respondent 
has acquired a right to be considered along with other eligible candidates 
in view of his having been promoted as Director General and Inspector 
G General of Police. Hence, in spite of the quashing of the impugned Notification, 
nothing stands in the way of the State Government from promoting the fourth 
respondent with retrospective effect from the date of the impugned Notification 
in accordance with the guidelines in force at the time of his reconsideration. 
In the meanwhile the fourth respondent who was already promoted and 
appointed as DG and IGP will continue to function in the same post. 
H 
(718-B-EJ 
708 
' 
( 
,, 
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA v. C. DINAKAR [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 
709 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3115 of 1999 A 
Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.98 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 4264 of 1998. 
S. Vijay Shankar, Advocate General, K.R. Nagaraja and K.K. Tyagi for B 
the Appellant in C.A. No. 3115/99. 
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant in C.A. No. 3116/99. 
C. Dinakar, Cav-in-person for the Respondent. 
c 
N.qanapathy for the Respondent in C.A. No. 3115/99. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Special leave granted. 
D 
Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 23.10.98 of the Kamataka 
High Court in W.P. No. 4264/98. Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No .. 
17043/98 was preferred by the Government of Karnataka while the other 
appeal arising out of S.L.P. (c) No. 17842/98 was preferred by the fourth 
respondent in the first mentioned appeal. 
E 
The reference to the parties hereinafter will be as in the appeal filed by 
the Government of Kamataka. The first respondent in the appeal challenged 
the promotion and appointment of fourth respondent as DG and IGP by a 
Notification dated 6.3.97. by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal 
by preferring O.A. No. 200/97. The Tribunal by its order dated 15.1.98 dismissed F 
the 0.A 200/97. Aggrieved _by that, the first respondent preferred W.P. No. 
4264/98. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the appeal and quashed 
the impugned Notification promoting and appointing the fourth respondent 
as DG and IGP. 
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, Both the Government G 
of Karnataka and the Fourth respondent have preferred these appeals. 
The learned Advocate General for Karnataka extensively argued the 
matter to sustain the Notification impugned before the Tribunal and also 
before the High court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant (fourth H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 3 S.C.R. 
A respondent in the appeal filed by the Government) adopted the arguments 
advanced by the learned Advocate General. Hence, these appeals are disposed 
of by this common judgment. 
After carefully perusing the judgment under appeal and after hearing 
learned arguments of the counsel appearing ,in both the appeals and also the 
B first respondent, who is appearing in-person, we are. of the view that on the· 
admitted facts as found by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.