(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or order setting aside the impugned order dated 13/02/2026 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at Bengaluru in Application No.3680/2025 (Annexure-A) in so far as petitioner is concerned and consequently dismiss the application No.3680/2025 filed by the 3rd respondent herein before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (Annexure-B).)

Oral Order

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2, learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.3.

2. On perusal of the records, Annexure-A would disclose that respondent No.3 herein had approached the Tribunal challenging the promotion given to respondent Nos.3 and 4 before the Tribunal invoking Rule 32 of KCSR. The Tribunal comes to the conclusion that not giving promotion in respect of the respondent No.3 in the present petition is only on the ground of non-availability of Confidential reports of the applicant on the date of the DPC meeting held on 19.07.2025 is not correct. Hence, allowed the Application No.3680/2025 and while allowing the same, an observation is made that impugned Part II of Notification bearing No.PDS 45 SSM 2025 dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure-A4) sofar as it relates to the promotion of respondents No.3 and 4 at Sl.Nos.4 and 9 respectively, to the cadre of Joint Director under Rule 32 of KCSR stands quashed. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court stating that quashing of the same is not correct.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that consequent upon the order passed by the Tribunal dated 13.02.2026, the respondents No.1 and 2 are considering the case of the applicant in Application No.3680/2025 i.e., respondent No.3 in the present writ petition. He also would submit that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in respect of respondents No.3 and 4 at Sl.Nos.4 and 9 respectively to the cadre of Joint Director under Rule 32 of KCSR is not correct insofar as the petitioner in the present writ petition is concerned.

4. Learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent No.3 would submit that if the respondent-State considers the claim of the respondent No.3 in the present writ petition and she has to be restored in the original place for having invoked Rule 32 of KCSR.

5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent No.3, sofar as consideration in respect of respondent No.3 is concerned, the present petitioner is not having any grouse and only grouse is against the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal with regard to quashing the promotion given to the petitioner is concerned.

6. So also, there is a force in the contention of learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent No.3 in the petition that considering Rule 32 of KCSR, the original status of respondent No.3 also to be restored.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 also made a fair submission that the operative portion with regard to respondents No.3 and 4 in Application No.3680/2025 is not in accordance with law. When such being the case, writ petition requires to be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.3680/2025 in respect of the present petitioner is concerned. The invoking of Rule 32 of KCSR is sustainable in respect of petitioner in the writ petition if the same is in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.