ORDER : 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: " i) Call for the entire records of the Petitioner on the file of the Respondents. ii) Issue a Writ order of direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner as First Division Clerk working since 01.11.2007 as per Annexure-B3. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to fix the salary of the Petitioner as per the Government Order dated 19-05-2009 Annexure-C and Further direct the Respondents to pay the Salary to the Petitioner from the date of due with Banking interest and pay Retirement benefits such as Pensions, Gratuity, Earned Leave Encashment commutation etc.. iv) Pass such other orders necessary thereon as deemed just and expedient along with the costs of the above petition in the interest of Justice & Equity. v) Issue the Writ of Certiorari or any order quashing the order dated 7-4-2010 Vide No. ED 111/UNE/2010/Bangalore passed by Respondent No.1 Vide Annexure-D. vi) Issue of Certiorari or any order quashing the order date 28-02-2011 vide No.Shitha 3/Anudana 32/2009-10 passed by the Director of Department of State Educational Research and Training Vide Annexure-E." 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows. 3. The petitioner is appointed as a Second Division Clerk ("SDC") working at respondent No.6-College since 1987, drawing a salary of Rs.7000/- per month and later, his appointment was confirmed by respondent No.4 vide orders at Annexures "A" and "B" respectively. After the retirement of D.Sathyanarayana Swamy, First Division Clerk, on 31.10.2007, the petitioner gave representations to respondents Nos.8 and 6, seeking promotion to the said vacant post in 2007, highlighting his 20 years of service to the College since 1987, vide representations dated 21.09.2007 and 22.09.2007. Accordingly, he was promoted to First Division Clerk vide order dated 01.11.2007 as per Annexure "B3". 4. Respondent No.6-College, which was earlier an unaided Institution, later admitted to the Government Grant since 2009 as per Annexure "C". Subsequently, under another Government Order, all the permanent staff members of respondent No.6- College (Teaching and Non-teaching staff) including the petitioner have been admitted to the Government Grant vide Order dated 07.04.2010 vide Annexure "D" and the name of the petitioner is found at Sl.No.2 under the Non-teaching staff. 5. Subsequently, under another Government Order, all the permanent staff members of respondent No.6- College (Teaching and Non-teaching staff) including the petitioner have been admitted to the Government Grant vide Order dated 07.04.2010 vide Annexure "D" and the name of the petitioner is found at Sl.No.2 under the Non-teaching staff. 5. It is contended that, under an order dated 28.02.2011, the salary fixation of the petitioner was withheld even though the salary of all other permanent staff have been fixed in the Government scale by showing the remark that his salary was withheld due to an enquiry. 6. It is further contended that one more employee, by name Iqbal Hussain (Sl.No.3 under Teaching Staff), who was similarly placed facing withholding of salary due to enquiry, has been regularly drawing salary as any other permanent employee of the College. 7. Further, respondent No.6 has not allowed the petitioner to attend his duty since 14.10.2010 itself by issuing an endorsement to obtain the permission from respondent No.5, even though he made a number of representations to that effect vide Annexures "G" and "H" respectively. It is submitted that on the representation dated 18.01.2011 vide Annexure "G", respondent No.5 passed an order on 01.02.2011, permitting him to attend his duties. However, respondent No.6 ignoring the order of respondent No.5, issued an endorsement dated 03.01.2012 to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, intimating that his request for duty is referred to respondent No.4. 8. Due to the non-compliance of the order of respondent No.5, the petitioner filed a W.P. No.16337 of 2011, and it was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2012 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for joining duty. Pursuant to the Writ Petition, the petitioner was allowed to join the duty, however, since then he has not been paid the salary till date. Hence, this writ petition. 9. The respondents filed a statement of objections denying the contentions of the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner has been promoted by the College Authorities as FDA with effect from 01.11.2007. Admittedly, as of the date on which he was purportedly been promoted as FDA, respondent No.6 was a non-grant College and was not receiving any grant from the Government. Respondent No.1- Government, as per order dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure "C") admitted 21 B.Ed. Colleges into the purview of Grant-in-Aid. Admittedly, as of the date on which he was purportedly been promoted as FDA, respondent No.6 was a non-grant College and was not receiving any grant from the Government. Respondent No.1- Government, as per order dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure "C") admitted 21 B.Ed. Colleges into the purview of Grant-in-Aid. Respondent No.6/Institution was one among the said 21 Institutions, which were brought under Grant-in-Aid. In the said order, 05 Teaching (1+4) and 05 Non-teaching posts were brought under Grant-in-Aid. Thereafter, respondent No.1-Government passed another order on 07.04.2010 (Annexure "D") by admitting five teaching staff and five non-teaching staff into the purview of Grant-in-Aid. The petitioner is one among the five non-teaching staff who were brought under the purview of Grant-in-Aid for the post of SDA. It is further contended that the petitioner, without raising any objections to the order dated 07.04.2010, has accepted the same and also received the salary as SDA for Four years after issuance of order dated 07.04.2010, and filed this Writ Petition during 2014 seeking for a direction to consider him as FDA, which is not at all tenable. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in respondent No.6/Institution for more than 20 years from 1987 and retired in 2019 after attaining the age of superannuation, while in service he had applied for the promotion to the vacant post of FDA in 2007 vide representations dated 21.09.2007 and 22.09.2007 and the same was accepted as per Annexure "B3". Respondent No.6/Institution was admitted for grant- in-aid by respondent No.1 in 2009 and vide order dated 07.04.2010, the petitioner was brought under the purview of Grant-in-Aid. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that he was promoted as FDA by respondent No.8 vide order dated 01.11.2007 as per Annexure "B3". Thus, he was put in charge of FDA and he has discharged his duties as FDA not as SDA. However, vide order dated 28.02.2011, the salary fixation of the petitioner was withheld on the ground that the enquiry is pending against the petitioner. It is contended that he is entitled for the salary and pension benefits towards his service rendered by him as FDA. However, vide order dated 28.02.2011, the salary fixation of the petitioner was withheld on the ground that the enquiry is pending against the petitioner. It is contended that he is entitled for the salary and pension benefits towards his service rendered by him as FDA. Though, there is an order by this Court dated 31.01.2012 passed in WP No.16337 of 2011, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, and conclude the enquiry pending against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. However, the respondents did not pay the salary to the petitioner. 13. It is further submitted that there is no provision under the Karnataka Civil Service Rules for withholding of salary of any employee during the enquiry. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Petitioner without raising any objections to the order dated 07.04.2010 has accepted the same and also received the salary as SDA for four years and filed this Writ Petition during 2014. The petitioner, at no point of time, was working as FDA from 01.11.2007. In the Government Order dated 07.04.2010, the designation of the petitioner has been shown as SDA, which Was neither objected to by the petitioner nor by the College Authorities who have promoted him. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as SDC working at respondent No.6-College since 1987. After retirement of one D.Sathyanarayana Swamy, the First Division Clerk on 31.10.2007, the petitioner gave representations to respondent Nos.8 and 6, seeking for the promotion to the said vacant post, highlighting his 20 years of service to respondent No.6-College, vide Representations dated 21.09.2007 and 22.09.2007. Respondent No.8 promoted the petitioner as FDA vide order dated 01.11.2007 as per Annexure "B3". 17. Respondent No.6-College was admitted to the Government Grant, since 2009 as per Annexure "C" and subsequently, under another Government Order dated 07.04.2010, all the permanent staff members of the respondent No.6-College (Teaching and Non-teaching Staff) including the petitioner, have been admitted to the Government grant-in-aid vide Annexure "D". 17. Respondent No.6-College was admitted to the Government Grant, since 2009 as per Annexure "C" and subsequently, under another Government Order dated 07.04.2010, all the permanent staff members of the respondent No.6-College (Teaching and Non-teaching Staff) including the petitioner, have been admitted to the Government grant-in-aid vide Annexure "D". However, vide an order dated 28.02.2011 as per Annexure-E, the salary fixation of the Petitioner was withheld on the ground that the enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No.16337 of 2011, and it was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2012 directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, and complete the enquiry pending against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than three months from the date of said order. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents did not pay the salary to him till date. It is the case of the petitioner that he was promoted to the post of FDA vide order dated 01.11.2007 as per Annexure "B3" and is entitled to the monetary benefits applicable to the post of FDA in the grant-in-aid Institutions, as respondent No.6- College has been admitted to the Government grant in 2009 vide Annexure "C". 18. A perusal of the records disclose that the petitioner's post of SDA was admitted to the Government grant- in-aid vide order dated 07.04.2010 and the petitioner did not raise any objections to the said order till 2014. Further, the petitioner had filed the writ petition in WP No.16337 of 2011, aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2011 vide Annexure "E" i.e., withholding the salary fixation of the petitioner as per the grant-in-aid sanction, where the petitioner prayed for the quashing of the said order dated 28.02.2011 or in the alternative for suitable direction regarding the fixation of salary as per the order dated 07.04.2010 passed by the State Government. 19. In paragraph No.1 of the memorandum of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded as follows: “1. The Petitioner is appointed as Second Division Clerk (SDC) working at Karnataka State Education Federation (KSEF) College of Education/Respondent No.6, Tumakuru, since 1987 drawing a salary of Rs.7000/- per month ....." 20. Initially, the writ petition was filed in 2011. 19. In paragraph No.1 of the memorandum of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded as follows: “1. The Petitioner is appointed as Second Division Clerk (SDC) working at Karnataka State Education Federation (KSEF) College of Education/Respondent No.6, Tumakuru, since 1987 drawing a salary of Rs.7000/- per month ....." 20. Initially, the writ petition was filed in 2011. If the petitioner was promoted on 01.11.2007, he could have pleaded that he was promoted as FDA in the original writ petition itself. There is no reference about the promotion of the petitioner from SDC to FDA and the petitioner did not produce Annexure "B3" at the time of filing the present writ petition. 21. Further, a perusal of the order dated 07.04.2010 vide Annexure "D" discloses that the petitioner was admitted to the grant-in-aid as SDA, not as FDA, and the same was not challenged by the petitioner, though he had approached this Court in W.P. No.16337 of 2011 and in WP No.49374 of 2012. 22. If at all the petitioner was promoted to the post of FDA vide order dated 01.11.2007 as per Annexure "B3" he could have brought the same to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said writ petitions. Though the order vide Annexure "B3" was passed on 01.11.2007, the petitioner did not disclose the same till 27.07.2022. The petitioner brought the alleged promotion order on record in the present writ petition by way of the amendment to the original memorandum of the present writ petition and he did not explain the sufficient cause for not bringing the said document on record in the earlier stages of litigation. The order at Annexure "B3" has not seen the light of the day till it is produced along with the amended memorandum of writ petition. Hence, the act of the petitioner creates a doubt in the mind of this Court regarding the order at Annexure "B3". Further, respondent no.6 has not filed the statement of objections contending that the petitioner was promoted as FDA. 23. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.04.2010 vide Annexure "D" till date. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he was promoted to the post of FDA from the post of SDC, vide order dated 01.11.2007 as per Annexure "B3", is not acceptable. 23. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.04.2010 vide Annexure "D" till date. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he was promoted to the post of FDA from the post of SDC, vide order dated 01.11.2007 as per Annexure "B3", is not acceptable. Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish that he was promoted as FDA as per Annexure "B3" and he has drawn his last salary as an FDA not SDC. 24. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the order dated 31.05.2013 passed in W.P. No.49374 of 2012 recorded that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner has already been completed and a report has also been submitted to the State Government on 30.03.2013. 25. Further, on 07.04.2025, the respondents have produced the reply dated 04.04.2025, forwarding the final enquiry report dated 30.03.2013 to the petitioner, wherein the said report discloses that all the charges against the petitioner stood proved. 26. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER: (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, I.A. No.1 of 2025 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of.