Karnataka High Court allows Anjali Devi to continue as Prosecution Director, stays KAT order

The Karnataka High Court has stayed an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that had questioned the continuation of Anjali Devi as in-charge Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation [Anjali Devi v. State of Karnataka].

A Division Bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice K Manmadha Rao on August 28 stayed the August 13 order passed by the KAT.

“There shall be an interim order of stay of the impugned order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bengaluru till the next date of hearing," the High Court said.

The petition was filed by Anjali Devi, challenging the KAT's interim order passed on a plea filed by the Prosecution Department’s deputy director Anjana Chavan.

The dispute related to the appointment of the Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation.

Anjali Devi submitted that the KAT had on January 5 disposed of applications filed by Anjana Chavan and another officer Laxmibai Yelasangikar, by setting aside the orders under challenge and remitting the matter to the State to constitute the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) afresh.

KAT had directed the State to consider the complete information regarding officers eligible for appointment as Director of Prosecution in accordance with law and the applicable Cadre and Recruitment Rules. It had further directed that the process be completed within two months.

Pending completion of the process, the Tribunal had directed that the then incumbent be continued as in-charge Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR). Accordingly, Anjali Devi was placed in-charge of the post.

However, after Devi proceeded on child-care leave, the State issued a notification on February 4 handing over additional charge of the post to Chavan under Rule 68 of the KCSR.

Devi later sought to resume charge after returning from leave. She alleged that Chavan did not hand over charge and subsequently submitted a representation to the Additional Chief Secretary of Home Department.

The Additional Chief Secretary, through a communication dated April 6, directed that Chavan continue as in-charge Director of Prosecution, while Devi continue as Deputy Director of Prosecution.

Later, on July 16, the State once again issued an order placing Devi as in-charge Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation under Rule 32 of the KCSR until further orders.

Chavan challenged the July 16 order before the KAT.

The Tribunal, on August 13, prima facie held that the two-month period granted for completion of the DPC proceedings had expired and since the State had not completed the process, the July 16 order placing Devi as in-charge Director could not have been issued.

The High Court, however, disagreed with the contention that the expiry of the deadline automatically entitled Chavan to claim the post.

“Merely because the DPC proceedings were not completed within the stipulated time, the second respondent cannot claim to be placed as in-charge Director,” it said.

The Bench observed that permitting Chavan to claim the post merely on account of the delay in completing the DPC process would effectively require the Court to enter into the merits of the competing claims at an interim stage.

“The grievance of the second respondent that the first respondent failed to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal... will not entail the second respondent to seek to be placed in the position of Director or in-charge Director without there being an adjudication process or without the completion of the DPC proceedings," the Court opined.

It noted that there was prima facie no dispute that Devi had earlier been placed as in-charge Director pursuant to the KAT's directions.

It consequently stayed the August 13 KAT order until the next date of hearing.

The High Court clarified that the stay would not prejudice the parties' respective cases in the contempt of court proceedings. It also made clear that the DPC process directed by the KAT could proceed.

[Read Order]