The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that promotion quotas under service regulations must be strictly adhered to before filling vacancies through alternative routes like compassionate appointments. In a significant ruling, the Court directed GESCOM to first consider the promotion claims of Junior Assistants under the 75% seniority-cum-merit quota before implementing orders that sought to fill these posts through compassionate grounds. This judgment underscores the primacy of statutory promotion frameworks over discretionary appointments, ensuring fairness in public employment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, five Junior Assistants employed with Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited (GESCOM), challenged two impugned orders dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-H) and 23.02.2026 (Annexure-H1) passed by the Director (A & HR), KPTCL, and other respondents. These orders purported to fill vacancies in the Assistant cadre through compassionate appointments, bypassing the 75% promotion quota reserved for Junior Assistants under the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 2019 (hereinafter, Regulations, 2019).
Key Facts
- The petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants through direct recruitment in GESCOM.
- On 03.02.2022, the petitioners cleared the Assistant Grade Division-A exams/Departmental Exams, qualifying them for promotion to the post of Assistant.
- Under Chapter-7, Regulation 7(a)(i) and 7(b) of the Regulations, 2019, 75% of Assistant posts are reserved for promotion on a seniority-cum-merit basis from the cadre of Junior Assistants.
- 15% of posts are filled through direct recruitment based on aptitude tests, and 10% through interviews for in-service candidates.
- Despite their eligibility, the petitioners’ promotions were overlooked, and the respondents issued orders to fill the 75% quota posts through compassionate appointments.
- The petitioners submitted multiple representations (dated 07.10.2024, 10.03.2026, 10.03.2026, and 27.04.2026) seeking redressal, but these were ignored.
Procedural History
- 19.05.2025: Respondent No.1 issued the first impugned order (Annexure-H) attempting to fill promotion quota posts through compassionate appointments.
- 23.02.2026: Respondent No.1 issued the second impugned order (Annexure-H1), furthering the same objective.
- 2026: The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 202193 of 2026 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned orders and seeking enforcement of their promotion rights.
Relief Sought
The petitioners prayed for:
- Quashing of the impugned orders dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-H) and 23.02.2026 (Annexure-H1).
- A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to maintain the Assistant cadre as per Chapter-7, Regulation 7(a)(i) and 7(b) of the Regulations, 2019, and the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment of Kalyan Karnataka Region) Order, 2013.
- Consideration of their representations dated 07.10.2024, 10.03.2026, 10.03.2026, and 27.04.2026.
- Stay on appointments under the impugned orders until their promotion claims were adjudicated.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was: Whether the respondents could bypass the statutory 75% promotion quota reserved for Junior Assistants under the Regulations, 2019 by filling these posts through compassionate appointments, without first considering the eligible candidates’ claims for promotion?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners relied on Chapter-7, Regulation 7(a)(i) and 7(b) of the Regulations, 2019, which mandates that 75% of Assistant posts must be filled through promotion on a seniority-cum-merit basis from the cadre of Junior Assistants.
- They argued that the impugned orders (Annexure-H and H1) were illegal and arbitrary, as they sought to fill the promotion quota posts through compassionate appointments, which is impermissible under the Regulations.
- The petitioners contended that their representations were deliberately ignored, and the respondents acted in violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
- They submitted that the impugned orders had already been implemented, and the posts reserved for them had been filled, necessitating their quashing.
For the Respondents
- Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the respondents would address the petitioners’ grievances and consider their promotion claims in accordance with the Regulations, 2019 and the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment of Kalyan Karnataka Region) Order, 2013.
- The respondents assured the Court that they would re-examine the representations and proceed in accordance with law.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Regulations, 2019 clearly stipulate a 75% promotion quota for Junior Assistants to the post of Assistant on a seniority-cum-merit basis. This statutory framework cannot be bypassed by filling these posts through compassionate appointments, which are exceptional in nature and not a substitute for regular promotion channels.
"It is an undisputed fact that as per the said Regulations, the petitioners would be entitled to promotion quota of 75%. However, since the respondents have subsequently issued the impugned orders at Annexure-H and H1, the respondents would necessarily have to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion as sought for in their representation and only thereafter give effect to and implement the impugned orders in accordance with law and in terms of the aforesaid Regulations."
The Court emphasized that statutory promotion quotas must be strictly enforced before resorting to compassionate appointments. The respondents’ failure to consider the petitioners’ representations and their attempt to circumvent the promotion quota through impugned orders was contrary to law and arbitrary.
The Court further noted that the impugned orders had already been acted upon, and posts reserved for the petitioners had potentially been filled. This necessitated immediate intervention to prevent irreversible prejudice to the petitioners.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to address the petitioners’ grievances for promotion under the 75% quota as per the Regulations, 2019 and the Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment of Kalyan Karnataka Region) Order, 2013.
- The respondents must consider the petitioners’ representations and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
- No further appointments shall be made under the impugned orders (Annexure-H and H1) until the respondents take a decision on the petitioners’ promotion claims.
- Liberty was reserved for the petitioners to seek further remedies, including approaching the Court again if necessary.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Promotion Quotas Are Non-Negotiable
This judgment reinforces that statutory promotion quotas under service regulations cannot be bypassed through alternative routes like compassionate appointments. Public employers must:
- Strictly adhere to the promotion framework prescribed in recruitment regulations.
- Consider eligible candidates for promotion before filling vacancies through other means.
- Avoid arbitrary actions that undermine seniority-cum-merit principles.
Representations Must Be Addressed Before Implementing Orders
- Ignoring representations from employees seeking promotion constitutes a violation of natural justice.
- Employers must examine grievances and pass reasoned orders before implementing decisions that affect employees’ career progression.
- Failure to do so may invite judicial intervention, as seen in this case.
Compassionate Appointments Cannot Override Statutory Quotas
- Compassionate appointments are exceptional and cannot be used to fill regular promotion quota posts.
- Such appointments are not a substitute for statutory promotion channels and must be limited to their intended purpose.
- Employers must ensure that compassionate appointments do not dilute the rights of employees entitled to promotion under seniority-cum-merit or other statutory criteria.
Judicial Oversight Ensures Compliance
- Courts will intervene where statutory promotion frameworks are ignored or circumvented.
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 remains a potent remedy for employees aggrieved by arbitrary administrative actions.
- Employers must document compliance with promotion regulations to avoid legal challenges.
