Karnataka High Court
Shri K.S. Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 July, 2016
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WPs.283-295/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.283-295/2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI K.S.BABU,
S/O LATE SHIVAPPA.K.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC:SENIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.129,
BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 091.
2. SHRI BOMMANNA
S/O LATE KAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC:SENIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
J.C.OFFICE, BYATRAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 092.
3. SHRI P.N.BHARGAV,
S/O LATE P.N.NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC:SENIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.150,
BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 058.
4. SHRI JAYAKUMAR.B.M.
S/O MUGURE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC:SENIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.159,
BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE-560 098.
WPs.283-295/2016
2
5. SHRI N.ERANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.42, BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE-560 096.
6. SHRI N.G.RAHAMATHULLA KHAN,
S/O N.G.GAFFAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC:JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.65, BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 096.
7. SHRI SHASHIKUMAR
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC:JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.184, BANGALORE BRUHATA MAHANAGARA
PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 096.
8. SHRI D.M.RAMESH
S/O MUDALAGIRIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.40, BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 091.
9. SHRI H.RAMESH
S/O LATE HUCHHAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.39, BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 091.
10. SHRI M.DEVARAJ
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.82, BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU.
11. SHRI R.RAMESH
S/O RANGASWAMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WPs.283-295/2016
3
OCC:JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.69, BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 096.
12. SHRI SIDDAGANGAPPA
S/O NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC:JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.12,
BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 096.
13. SHRI MUTHEGOWDA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC:JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR,
WARD NO.183,
BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560 096. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.VIGHNESHWAR S.SHASTRI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER-2
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
WPs.283-295/2016
4
4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
(BBMP)
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 027. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1-R3;
Dr.R.RAMACYHANDRAN, ADV. FOR R4;
Sri V.SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR IA 3/16)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICATION/ORDER DATED 24.11.2015 PASSED BY THE R-4
VIDE ANN-H AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioners are working as Junior/Senior Health Inspectors under Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'BBMP') on deputation. All of them are regular employees of Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka. Their services were deputed to BBMP on different dates as BBMP had felt the need for services of additional staff in the cadre of Junior & Senior Health Inspector.
2. It is necessary to point out here that having due regard to the problem faced by BBMP in the matter of management of garbage so as to ensure public health and taking note of experience gained by the petitioners in their respective wards as WPs.283-295/2016 5 Junior/Senior Health Inspectors under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, BBMP had requested the parent department to make available services of the Junior and Senior Health Inspectors on deputation. Accordingly, on deputation petitioners have been serving as such under the BBMP. Services of the petitioners have been continued on deputation from time to time as BBMP felt continued need of such services.
3. In the month of July, 2015, some of the employees, who were directly recruited to BBMP as Junior Health Inspectors, approached this Court in W.P.Nos.29970-30022/2015 seeking a direction to BBMP to consider their representation given through their association for promotion to the next higher cadre as Senior Health Inspectors. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions vide order dated 22.07.2015 directing BBMP and its authorities to pass appropriate orders on the request made by the directly recruited Junior Health Inspectors on or before 15.08.2015. Thereafter, BBMP considered the case of the petitioners therein and issued an endorsement dated 14.08.2015 informing them that as number of vacancies were there in the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors and as there was dearth of Senior Health Inspectors in several wards, question WPs.283-295/2016 6 regarding repatriation of services of petitioners and other similarly placed to their parent department would be considered once regular recruitment to the said posts were made.
4. It appears BBMP had also corresponded with the State Government to continue the services of Junior and Senior Health Inspectors in BBMP in the light of the problem faced by them for managing the menace caused by garbage.
5. On 17.10.2015, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department convened a joint meeting of the authorities of BBMP, Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Directorate of Municipal Administration to discuss the question regarding repatriation/deputation of services of employees borrowed from other departments. In the said meeting, a decision had been taken to repatriate the services of such Junior and Senior Health Inspectors who had served for more than five years under BBMP and in their place to depute other persons from the Department of Health and Family Welfare and also from the Department of Municipal Administration. Accordingly, it was resolved as such. It can be also noticed from the said decision taken which is produced at Annexure-G that there was indeed need for more hands in WPs.283-295/2016 7 BBMP with regard to the posts of Junior and Senior Health Inspectors. It is, therefore, contended by learned counsel for petitioners that when petitioners have been working under BBMP on deputation for last more than five years, there was absolutely no justification to disturb them at this stage in the middle of the academic year by repatriating them to their parent department to pave way for other officials to be taken on deputation. In this background, order dated 24.11.2015 - Annexure-H has been called in question by which petitioners who had put in more than five years service on deputation in BBMP have been ordered to be repatriated.
6. I have heard the counsel for all the parties. I find from materials on record that petitioners have admittedly served for more than five years on deputation in BBMP. They have no vested right to continue on deputation and it is always open for the parent department as also the BBMP to decide on repatriating them. If both the parent department and the BBMP have taken a decision in the meeting convened by the Additional Chief Secretary to replace the petitioners by other officials from the same department, it cannot be said that such a decision is unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary. There are no WPs.283-295/2016 8 allegations of malafides on the part of the respondents. The authorities have kept in mind the administrative convenience and the need of different departments involved in taking a decision to repatriate the petitioners who have put in more than five years service in BBMP. Such decision taken, in the absence of unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary action on the part of the authorities, cannot be interfered with by this Court.
7. Hence, writ petitions are dismissed. However, at this stage, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that many of the petitioners have admitted their children to nearby schools/colleges where they are residing and if they are disturbed from the place where they are now working, it would cause serious prejudice to their interest. If that is so, it is open for the petitioners to make necessary representations bringing to the notice of the authorities/respondents their difficulties. Whereupon, respondent - authorities shall take note of the same and in appropriate cases, defer the posting to their parent department for such period as would be considered just and necessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS