Karnataka High Court
Krishna Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2021
Bench: S.Sujatha, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
W.P.No.18489/2021 c/w
W.P.No.19793/2021 (S - KSAT)
IN W.P.No.18489/2021:
BETWEEN :
SRI M.REVANNASIDDAPPA
S/O LATE MYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
(ADMINISTRATION) (UNDER TRANSFER)
MADHUGIRI EDUCATION DISTRICT
TUMKUR-572 132 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY D.V., ADV.)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI KRISHNA MURTHY
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE RESPONDENT, MAJOR
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ADMINISTRATION)
-2-
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV. FOR R-2.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RELEVANT RECORDS PERTAINING TO IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 21.09.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3907/2021
VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND
TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIOARI TO QUASH THE AFORESAID
IMPUGNED ORDER AS THE SAME IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND
CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF LAND, AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.19793/2021:
BETWEEN :
KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O LATE KARIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS (ADMINISTRATION)
MADHUGIRI EDUCATION DISTRICT
TUMKUR-572132
R/AT SHRI SIDDESHWARA NILAYA
2ND MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS
VIJAYANAGAR, TUMKUR-572132. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.SUBRAHMANYA BHAT, ADV.)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI M.REVANNASIDDAPPA
S/O LATE MYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
-3-
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS (ADMINISTRATION)
MADHUGIRI EDUCATION DISTRICT
TUMKUR-572132
AND R/AT SAPTHAGIRI HOUSE
3RD CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT
MADHUGIRI
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R-1.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT
IN APPLICATION NO.3907/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D,
TO THE EXTENT THE SAME PERTAINS TO THE DIRECTION
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TO DEMIT THE OFFICE OF DDPI,
MADHUGIRI DISTRICT WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM 21.09.2021,
AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERRORS APPARENT ON THE
FACE OF THE RECORDS, BESIDES BEING WITHOUT
JURISDICTION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
W.P.No.18489/2021 is filed by the petitioner - applicant challenging the order dated 21.09.2021 passed in Application No.3907/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore ('Tribunal' for short) whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been disposed of, declining to interfere with the order of transfer dated 04.08.2021 passed by the -4- respondent No.1 inter alia giving opportunity to the respondent No.2 to make a representation to the respondent No.1 for an alternative posting, if the respondent No.2 belongs to the district where he is posted as DDPI and further continue in the post until alternative posting is accorded to the respondent No.2.
2. W.P.No.19793/2021 is filed by Sri. Krishna Murthy - respondent No.2 in Application No.3907/2021 challenging the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Tribunal to the extent the same pertains to the direction issued to him to demit the office of DDPI, Madhugiri District within one month from 21.09.2021.
3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was transferred as Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Administration) (DDPI) Madhugiri Education District, Madhugiri on 12.10.2019. Pursuant to which, the petitioner reported for the duty as per CTC on 16.10.2019, whereas the impugned Notification -5- dated 04.08.2021 was issued by the respondent No.2 displacing the petitioner prematurely without giving any posting to the petitioner by the posting of respondent No.2 - Sri Krishna Murthy to the said post. The petitioner has challenged the said transfer order before the Hon'ble Tribunal in Application No.3907/2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of the Court to the Rules framed by the Government of Karnataka in the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfers of Block Education Officers/Deputy Directors and other Officers in the Department of Public Instruction) Rules, 2015 ('Rules' for short) argued that 'minimum period' means completion of two years of continuous service in the post of Deputy Director or Block Education Officer or equivalent post as the case may be.
5. As could be seen from the earlier transfer order dated 12.10.2019 and the impugned transfer -6- order dated 04.08.2021, the petitioner indisputedly has not completed minimum period of two years of continuous service in the post of Deputy Director or Block Education Officer or equivalent post as the case may be. Having regard to these aspects, the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the applicant/petitioner has substantially completed his tenure at the post, 21.50 months out of 24 months representing about 90% of the 'minimum period'. As such, there is no violation of the Rules in passing the impugned transfer order dated 04.08.2021 which in our opinion is unsustainable.
6. It is trite that the Rules framed by the Government has to be strictly adhered to and the same cannot be relaxed on percentage basis for computing the minimum period for the purpose of analyzing or examining the validity of the transfer order. On this ground alone, the impugned order cannot be approved. Further, it is significant to note that in the said -7- impugned transfer order, no posting was given to the petitioner and no approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was taken for the premature transfer. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have interfered with the transfer order.
7. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 21.09.2021 passed in Application No.3907/2021 as well as the order of the transfer dated 04.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.1.
8. Now, it is submitted at the bar by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has been posted to Kolar and respondent No.2 has reported to duty at Madhugiri and hence, seeks for an order of status-quo to be maintained until any order is passed by the respondent No.1.
-8-
9. However, we are of the considered view that any consequential posting orders passed by the respondent No.1 is insignificant in view of this Court setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 04.08.2021.
W.P.No.18489/2021 stands disposed of accordingly.
In view of disposal of W.P.No.18489/2021, W.P.No.19793/2021 stands disposed of as having rendered infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PMR