Karnataka High Court Refuses To Pass Interim Order Permitting KSAT Member To Continue In Office After Expiry Of Tenure Next Week
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (June 5) declined to pass interim order for now in a PIL seeking a direction to allow an Administrative Member of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) to continue in the office after expiry of his tenure on June 13.
The Division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha orally said that a memo extending the tenure can be notified by the government, which makes any mandamus at this point not necessary.
“…you are saying there is already a memo under which term is deemed to be extended. The state govt has to send a proposal…this is not automatic…there is an appointment letter fixing the term…then there is a government notification extending the term”, the court orally remarked.
It further asked the State's counsel to seek instructions on the issue of extending the terms of members post the end of current tenure.
The Plea sought a direction for filling up all vacant posts of Chairperson, Judicial Members, and Administrative Members in the KSAT Benches at Bengaluru, Belagavi, and Kalaburagi, within six months. Along with this prayer, the plea also sought a direction that the existing judicial and administrative members of the tribunal continue to function in their respective roles despite the expiry of their tenure until fresh appointments are made to the posts.
In the interim, the plea sought a direction that one of the administrative members, Raghavendra Auradkar whose tenure is set to expire on June 13, may be directed to continue to function until a new member assumes the said role, in order to ensure uninterrupted functioning of the tribunal.
The petitioner's counsel informed the court that this direction was necessary in light of two KSAT members retiring this year.
“Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms (DPAR) can send a proposal to the government…As far as one member [Auradkar] is concerned, the court may direct him to continue”, the counsel for the petitioner argued.
However, the court made it clear that there won't be any interim order and listed the matter on June 30.
“…There is no retirement, only term expiry [of the member concerned]. On 13th June, it will get extended…There is already a deemed extension according to you [petitioner]”, the court orally said.
Case Title: Shri A Venkataswamy v. Union of India & Ors
Case No: WP 16168/2026