JUDGMENT : VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J. W.P.No.9090/2022 is filed by the State of Karnataka and others challenging the order dated 02.09.2021 passed in Application Nos.6659-6663/2020 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') wherein the applications filed by the respondents were allowed, impugned order dated 29.08.2020 passed by the petitioner No.3 was quashed, petitioner No.3 was directed to re-do the seniority list of the Deputy Range Forest Officers- cum-Surveyors (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRFO') in accordance with the Special Committee report dated 23.02.2020 and the letters issued by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 dated 27.05.2020 and 06.06.2020. 2. W.P.No.13897/2022 is filed by four of the applicants challenging the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in HC-KAR Application Nos.4134, 4137, 4138 and 4140 of 2020 by the Tribunal wherein their applications were partly allowed, impugned seniority list dated 29.08.2020 issued by petitioner No.3 was set aside sofar it relates to assigning of rankings to the respondents over applicant No.1 in the said proceedings, Petitioner No.3 was directed to consider revising of the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 by assigning appropriate ranking to applicant No.1 above the private respondents therein subject to extant rules relating to quota, reservation and verification of the actual dates on which the applicants and respondents therein come to occupy the posts of DRFO. 3. The State Government filed objections to the applications before the Tribunal contending that the seniority list prepared and published by Chikmagalur Circle is as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.Pavitra Vs. Union of India , [ AIR 2019 SC 2723 ] . It was averred that there is no material change in the eligibility date assigned to the applicants, the authority has considered the ratio as prescribed for direct recruitment and promotion and published the final HC-KAR seniority list after considering the objections filed to the provisional seniority list. It was further averred that the applicants have not filed any objections to the provisional seniority list and the final seniority list was prepared considering the recommendation of the Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.Pavithra Vs. Union of India . It was further averred that the applicants have not filed any objections to the provisional seniority list and the final seniority list was prepared considering the recommendation of the Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.Pavithra Vs. Union of India . It was also averred that as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Forest Department, 50% posts have to be filled by way of direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion in the cadre of DRFO. It was contended that the final seniority list dated 11.10.2019 was revised considering the representations / objections of many DRFOs. It was further contended that the State Government constituted a Committee headed by the Prl. Chief Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru to consider the anomalies in the final seniority list dated 11.10.2019. The Committee submitted its report on 23.03.2020 along with recommendation and based on such recommendation, revised seniority list was published vide order dated 29.08.2020. They sought for dismissal of both sets of applications. 4. The Tribunal allowed Application Nos.6659- 6663/2020 directing the respondent No.3 to re-do the seniority list in accordance with the Special Committee Report dated 23.03.2020 and letters of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Tribunal partly allowed the Application Nos.4132-4140/2020 by setting aside the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 sofar it relates to assigning of ranks to respondents over applicant No.1 and directed to re-do the same. Being aggrieved, the State Government as well as some of the applicants in Application Nos.4132-4140/2020 have filed these writ petitions. 5. Sri.Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in allowing Application Nos.6659 to 6663/2020 solely on the ground that the final seniority list dated 29.08.2020 was prepared neglecting the Committee's report. It is submitted that the Tribunal, in its order dated 02.09.2021 at paragraph 5 extracted five paragraphs stating them to be the Committee's finding. Whereas, they were not the findings of the Committee, but the objections filed by the DRFOs before the Authority. Based on such incorrect extraction, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the final seniority list is prepared and published on 29.08.2020 ignoring the Committee's recommendation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is required to be set at naught. Whereas, they were not the findings of the Committee, but the objections filed by the DRFOs before the Authority. Based on such incorrect extraction, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the final seniority list is prepared and published on 29.08.2020 ignoring the Committee's recommendation. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is required to be set at naught. It is further submitted that the respondents in W.P.No.9090/2022 have not filed any objections to the provisional seniority list published on 22.07.2020 and now they cannot turn around and say that the final seniority list is in violation of the recommendation of the Special Committee. It is also submitted that the respondents are unable to demonstrate as to how the seniority list prepared by the Authority affects their seniority. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have rejected the applications for non- joinder of the necessary parties as the respondents have not arrayed other DRFOs who are above the applicants. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that sofar as W.P.No.13897/2022, the Tribunal has recorded detailed reasons that the petitioners admittedly joined the services later than the contesting respondents except the applicant No.1. It is averred that the petitioners claim to consider their seniority retrospectively has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal relying on various judgments. He seeks to allow the writ petition filed by the State and dismissal of W.P.No.13897/2022. In support of his contentions he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v State of Maharashtra & Others , [ (1990) 2 SCC 715 ] 6. Sri.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.No.9090/2022 submits that the case of the contesting respondents before the Tribunal was that they were working as DRFOs in the Forest Department and they were fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as DRFOs. It is submitted that they were appointed as DRFOs by direct recruitment on 20.08.2010 with unblemished service records from the last 10 years. It is further submitted that the State Government vide notification dated 22.10.2001 carved out Chickmagalur Circle from Shivamogga Circle for better administration without creating new post. The Chickmagalur Circle was formed and it became functional w.e.f 01.12.2001. At the time of carving the Chickmagalur Circle there were 161 posts of DRFOs in Shivamogga Circle which were taken out to form Chickmagalur HC-KAR Circle. The Chickmagalur Circle was formed and it became functional w.e.f 01.12.2001. At the time of carving the Chickmagalur Circle there were 161 posts of DRFOs in Shivamogga Circle which were taken out to form Chickmagalur HC-KAR Circle. Out of which, 35 direct recruit candidates, 97 promoted candidates and 29 vacant posts were transferred to newly created Chickmagalur Circle. It is also submitted that 29 vacant posts which were transferred to Chickmagalur Circle belonged to direct recruitment quota and did not belong to promotion quota. The Department initiated the process of appointment of DRFOs on different dates from 2002 to 2010 and filled the posts respectively. It is contended that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavithra's case , the State Government has constituted a Committee to look into the irregularities in preparation of the seniority list. The said Committee submitted the report with its finding. The respondent-Department, without properly considering the said recommendation, prepared the provisional seniority list dated 22.07.2020 and suddenly published final seniority list dated 29.08.2020 without considering the Committee's report and the letters dated 27.05.2020 and 06.06.2020 of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is further contended that the fourth applicant before the Tribunal has submitted representation dated 02.09.2020 to respondent No.3 therein and requested to re-do the seniority list as per the Committee recommendation. It is also contended that as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules published on 29.08.1997, the ratio of 50:50 posts were earmarked for direct recruitees and promotees and after forming of new Chickmagalur Circle, 161 posts were transferred from the Shivamogga Circle and the aforesaid ratio of 50:50 is not maintained in preparing the final seniority list. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.B.Badami and others Vs. State of Mysore and others , [ (1976) 2 SCC 901 ] . He seeks to dismiss both the writ petitions. 7. Sri.Raghavendra Gayatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.13897/2022, submits that the petitioners were the applicants before the Tribunal and their primary contention was that they were initially appointed as Forest Guards between 1995 and 2003 and they were eligible to be promoted as DRFOs during the years 2005 to 2010 as there were clear promotional vacancies in the Department. It is further submitted that they were posted by orders dated 11.11.2005, 23.10.2008, 27.05.2009, 14.09.2009 and 30.09.2009 on independent charge of the post of DRFOs under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules , 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCSRs'). It is also submitted that as per order dated 05.03.2016, officiating promotion to the said post was given to applicant Nos.1 to 7 and vide order dated 25.06.2016 to applicant No.9 and themselves were holding the said posts on substantive basis. It is contended that the respondent-Department prepared the provisional seniority list of DRFOs on 19.09.2019 and final seniority list on 11.10.2019 considering the date of their eligibility as 08.01.2007, 31.03.2012, 31.03.2012, 30.04.2012, 31.05.2012, 14.07.2012, 31.08.2012, 31.03.2013 and 29.12.2013. The said seniority list was never challenged, hence that attained finality. Therefore, the question of preparing another seniority list dated 29.08.2020 would not arise and such exercise has drastically altered the seniority of the petitioners compared to the private respondents. He seeks to allow the writ petition by directing the authorities to re-do the seniority list considering the petitioners' date of eligibility and also taking into consideration the date of their placement in independent charge of the said post under Rule 32 of the KCSRs. In support of his contentions he relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court: 1. State of Karnataka And Others Vs. Sri.Seenappa Gowda And Others , [W.P.No.6218/17 decided on 6.7.21] 2. State of Karnataka And Another Vs. Tharanatha S And Others , [W.P.No.17336/21 decided on 4.4.22] 3. State of Karnataka And Another Vs. Sri Roopesh Kumar P And Others , [W.P.No.8163/21 decided on 13.6.22] 4. State of Karnataka And Others Vs. K M Kuttappa And Others , [W.P.Nos.9135/18 & 9263-9655/98 decided on 15.4.98] 5. A Janardhan Vs. Union of India And Others , [ (1983) 3 SCC 601 ] 6. K.T. Veerappa Vs. State of Karnataka And Others , [(2006) 9 SCC 406] 7. Nagappa V State Of Karnataka , [ILR 1986 KAR 3093] 8. On careful evaluation of submissions of both side and the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the impugned orders in both the petitions are sustainable in law?" 9. K.T. Veerappa Vs. State of Karnataka And Others , [(2006) 9 SCC 406] 7. Nagappa V State Of Karnataka , [ILR 1986 KAR 3093] 8. On careful evaluation of submissions of both side and the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the impugned orders in both the petitions are sustainable in law?" 9. In Application Nos.6659-6663/2020, the applicants have challenged the final seniority list dated 29.08.2020 Annexure-A8 prepared and passed by the respondent No.3- Chief Conservator of Forest, Chikmagalur Circle for the period from 01.02.2002 to 31.12.2019. The applicants further prayed to re-do the seniority list in accordance with the Special Committee report dated 23.03.2020 and the letters dated 27.05.2020 and 06.06.2020 of respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein. The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions recorded the finding that respondent No.3 has prepared and published the final seniority list on 29.08.2020 neglecting the Committee's report. The Tribunal has extracted the recommendation of the Committee at paragraph 5 of its order. Admittedly, the extract of the Tribunal at paragraph 5 of its order is not the recommendation of the Committee but it is extracted from the objection filed by the DRFOs. The Tribunal, on such incorrect premise, set aside the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 and directed the authorities to re-do the same. 10. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that the contesting respondents have been appointed as DRFOs by direct recruitment on 20.08.2010. It is also not in dispute that the State Government vide notification dated 22.10.2001, carved out Chikmagalur Circle from Shivamogga Circle for better administration without creating new posts. The material on record indicates that the new Chikmagalur Circle was formed which was functional w.e.f 01.12.2001 and at the time of carving out the new Circle, posts of 161 DRFOs were drawn from Shivamogga Circle and assigned to Chikmagalur Circle. The records further indicate that at the time of carving out new Circle, 35 DRFO posts were from the direct recruitment, 97 DRFO posts from the promoted candidates and 29 DRFO posts were vacant. The respondent-Department initiated the process for appointment of DRFOs from different dates between 2002 and 2010 and the vacant posts were filled. 11. The records further indicate that at the time of carving out new Circle, 35 DRFO posts were from the direct recruitment, 97 DRFO posts from the promoted candidates and 29 DRFO posts were vacant. The respondent-Department initiated the process for appointment of DRFOs from different dates between 2002 and 2010 and the vacant posts were filled. 11. The records also indicate that after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavithra's case , referred to supra, the State Government has constituted a Committee to look into to the anomalies in preparing the seniority list. The said Committee has submitted its report on 23.03.2020 and the same was approved by the State Government on 27.05.2020. It is evident from the records that based on the recommendation of the Committee, the State Government has issued certain directions to the respondent No.3-CCF Chikmagalur, to prepare the seniority list. Based on the report of the Committee and the directions of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.3-petitioner herein, the provisional seniority list was prepared and published on 22.07.2020. It is also not in dispute that none of the applicants have filed objections to the provisional seniority list dated 22.07.2020 and thereafter, final seniority list came to be published on 29.08.2020. The final seniority list dated 29.08.2020 is prepared strictly in consonance with the recommendation of the Committee and the communications dated 27.05.2020 and 06.06.2020. Respondent No.3- CCF, Chikmagalur prepared the final seniority list by showing detailed vacant posts in accordance with block wise, commencing from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2019. 12. Annexure-1 to the official memorandum dated 29.08.2020 clearly indicates that 50% seats of DRFOs were ear marked for direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion. In other words, out of 161 DRFOs, 80 posts were for direct recruitment and 81 posts for promotion. Considering the said ratio and various recruitments from time to time, seniority list is prepared by the respondent No.3. We are of the considered view that the seniority list prepared by the respondent No.3 is strictly in consonance with the Committee's recommendation and instructions of the State Government and also on following quota rule. Hence, same does not call for any interference. 13. We are of the considered view that the seniority list prepared by the respondent No.3 is strictly in consonance with the Committee's recommendation and instructions of the State Government and also on following quota rule. Hence, same does not call for any interference. 13. The applicants in Application No.6659 to 6663/2020 failed to specify who were the candidates actually junior to them and found place above them in the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 and how they are adversely affected by the said seniority list, such particulars were not found in their pleadings and submissions. The Tribunal ought to have rejected the applications solely on the ground that the applicants have failed to point out that their juniors have been placed above them in the seniority list and they were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings. It is trite law that the application is liable to be rejected in the cases of non-joinder of the parties/persons who would be affected by the judgment when there is a challenge to the seniority list. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal has clearly erred in setting aside the seniority list dated 29.08.2020 issued by the respondent No.3 by wrongly placing reliance on the objections filed by the DRFOs and not on the recommendations and on this ground alone, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 02.09.2021 passed on Application Nos.6659 to 6663/2020 is liable to be set aside. 14. V.B.Badami's case relied on by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as the applicants before the Tribunal failed to establish as to how their seniority has been affected and which junior candidates were placed above them. Insofar as quota rule is concerned, Annexure-1 to the memorandum dated 29.08.2020 clearly indicates that 50:50 ratio as contemplated in Cadre and Recruitment Rules has been followed by respondent No.3 in preparing the final seniority list and there is no break in quota rule as contended. 15. It would be useful to extract the Para 29 of the V.B.Badami's case referred supra. "29. In working out the quota rule, these principles are generally followed. First, where Rules prescribe quota between direct recruits and promotees, confirmation or substantive appointment can only be in respect of clear vacancies in the permanent strength of the cadre. Second, confirmed persons are senior to those who are officiating. "29. In working out the quota rule, these principles are generally followed. First, where Rules prescribe quota between direct recruits and promotees, confirmation or substantive appointment can only be in respect of clear vacancies in the permanent strength of the cadre. Second, confirmed persons are senior to those who are officiating. Third, as between persons appointed in officiating capacity, seniority is to be counted on the length of continuous service. Fourth, direct recruitment is possible only by competitive examination which is the prescribed procedure under the rules. In promotional vacancies, the promotion is either by selection or on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. A promotion could be made in respect of a temporary post or for a specified period but a direct recruitment has generally to be made only in respect of clear permanent vacancy either existing or anticipated to arise at or about the period of probation is expected to be completed. Fifth, if promotions are made to vacancies in excess of the promotional quota, the promotions may not be totally illegal but would be irregular. The promotees cannot claim any right to hold the promotional posts unless the vacancies fall within their quota. If the promotees occupy any vacancies which are within the quota of direct recruits, when direct recruitment takes place, the direct recruits will occupy the vacancies within their quota. Promotees who were occupying the vacancies within the quota of direct recruits will either be reverted or they will be absorbed in the vacancies within their quota in the facts and circumstances of a case." In the instant case, the applicants have not raised specific contention of breach of quota in their application before the Tribunal and no objections were filed to the provisional seniority list, if such plea of breach of quota rule is allowed at this stage, it would cause great prejudice to the persons in the list, without making them a party to the proceedings. 16. Insofar as W.P.No.13897/2022 is concerned, the Tribunal, taking note of the pleadings and rival submissions, recorded clear finding that the private respondents therein have come to occupy the post of DRFO prior to applicant Nos.2 to 9 and thereby they are clearly senior to applicant Nos.2 to 9. The Tribunal directed to re-consider the seniority of applicant No.1 as the appointment of applicant No.1 was prior to some of the contesting respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed to re-consider the seniority of applicant No.1 as the appointment of applicant No.1 was prior to some of the contesting respondents before the Tribunal. The provisional seniority list of DRFOs published on 23.02.2020 and the final seniority list published on 29.08.2020 state the dates of eligibility of the applicants as 08.01.2007, 31.03.2012, 31.03.2012, 30.04.2012, 31.05.2012, 14.07.2012, 31.08.2012, 31.03.2013 and 29.12.2013. The case of the petitioner is that the date of eligibility must be the earlier dates as per the order dated 12.06.2012. However, the respondent No.3 passed an order dated 05.03.2016 wherein earlier orders including the order dated 12.06.2012 have been modified resulting in the modification of the dates of eligibility of the applicants. The order dated 05.03.2016 has attained finality and there is no challenge to the said order by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners cannot contend that their promotion is required to be considered retrospectively. 17. Further, the respondent-State, considering the objections filed by number of DRFOs constituted the Committee and prepared the final seniority list on 29.08.2020 keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Pavithra's case . Admittedly, the petitioners joined as forest guards and were placed incharge under Rule 32 of the KCSRs to the post of DRFOs and vide order dated 12.06.2012, they were stated to be eligible for promotion on the earlier dates of being appointed under independent charge with retrospective effect. However, the said order came to be withdrawn by respondent No.3 on 05.03.2016 and the same has attained finality without any challenge. Whereas the private respondents before the Tribunal were the direct recruitees to the post of DRFOs in the year 2010 much before the applicants became eligible to be promoted as per the order dated 05.03.2016. Hence, they cannot claim seniority over the private respondents. Sofar as the claim of the petitioners to seek the date of eligibility from the date of appointment under Rule 32 of the KCSR's, the same would be against the settled principles of law as such appointment under Rule 32 does not confer any substantive right on them as that is only on ad hoc basis. 18. This view is supported by the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench in W.P.No.29307/2023 in the case of Sri.Ravi Prakash and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others disposed of on 06.03.2025. 18. This view is supported by the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench in W.P.No.29307/2023 in the case of Sri.Ravi Prakash and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others disposed of on 06.03.2025. It would also be useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , [ (1990) 2 SCC 715 ] , wherein paragraph 47 reads as under: "47. To sum up, we hold that: (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. (C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly. (D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down. (E) to (K) xxxxx (Emphasis supplied) 19. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding that noticing the anomalies in the final seniority list dated 11.10.2019, the respondent No.3 published the revised seniority list on 29.08.2020. The Tribunal considered the date of appointment of the petitioners, date of promotion as DRFOs and date of appointment of private respondents as DRFOs and came to the conclusion that the petitioners are juniors to the private respondents except applicant No.1 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the date of appointment of the petitioners, date of promotion as DRFOs and date of appointment of private respondents as DRFOs and came to the conclusion that the petitioners are juniors to the private respondents except applicant No.1 before the Tribunal. The said finding of the Tribunal is strictly in consonance with the pleadings and material available on record and the same does not call for any interference. The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking retrospective promotion would not help the petitioners for the simple reason that the order altering the date of eligibility was done by respondent No.3 vide order dated 05.03.2016 and the said order was never challenged by the petitioners. Hence, the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners referred supra have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) W.P.No.9090/2022 is allowed. Order dated 02.09.2021 passed on Application Nos.6659- 6663/2020 by the Tribunal is set aside. ii) I.A.No.1/2024 filed in W.P.No.9090/2022 stood disposed of. iii) W.P.No.13897/2022 is dismissed.