Karnataka High Court
M Naveen vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 1325
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
W.P. NO.8797/2019 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
M. NAVEEN
S/O LATE R. MAHADEVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR
JALA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 562 157 ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT/MISS. M. L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(REGISTRATION & STAMPS)
M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
8TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002
3. BHASKAR S. CHOUR
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA CHOUR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR
MULBAGAL, KOLAR DIST. -563 131
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SATISH, ADV. FOR
SRI. M. S. BHAGWAT, ADV. FOR C/R3;
SRI. THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCILE 226
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED
08.01.2019 AND TO QUASH ORDER DATED 08.01.2019
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7784 OF
2018 (UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND
GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY,
J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-Mr. Naveen being aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'KAT') in Application No.7784/2018 (Annexure-A), has approached this court, seeking for quashing of the said order and for issuance of any other order or direction as this court deems fit.
2. The facts of this case discloses that, the 3rd respondent-Mr. Bhaskar was working as Sub-Registrar at Jala, Bengaluru North Taluk, since 04.07.2015 and before he completing the minimum tenure, he was transferred to 3 Mulabagilu, in the place of the petitioner-Mr. Naveen and vice versa. The grievance of Respondent No.3 is that, he is a Group 'C' official and the minimum period of stay at a place available to him is four years, but before the said period he is transferred, and the petitioner is working as Sub-Registrar on independent charge basis and for that reason, the petitioner is not qualified to be posted in place of the 3rd respondent, therefore, the posting of the petitioner to the alleged post and place, is mala fide.
3. The grounds urged by the 3rd respondent before the KAT was in two fold. First is, the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 is premature in as much as the applicant is displaced within a period of 3 years 3 months, as he is working in the cadre of Sub-Registrar, which is a Group 'C' Post and the term fixed for the said Cadre is four years, and the impugned order is passed posting the petitioner in the place of the 3rd respondent and vice versa. The second ground is, the petitioner is not entitled to displace the 3rd respondent since he is holding the post of Sub-Registrar under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules and the 3rd respondent being the regular Sub-Registrar, he cannot be displaced by the petitioner, who is a First Division 4 Assistant and holding the post of First Division Assistant under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules. On the said grounds, he sought for quashing of the notification dated 30.10.2018 at Annexure-A6 on the file of Respondent No.1-State (Department of Revenue (Registration & Stamps), M.S. Building, Bengaluru. The petitioner filed objections to the said application. Considering the grounds of the counsel on both sides, the KAT allowed the application and quashed the Notification No. Kam.E.56.Mu.No.Se.(1) 2017 dated 30.10.2018 (Anneuxre- A6) on the file of Respondent No.1, in so far as it relates to transfer and quashed the posting of Applicant and Respondent No.3.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged his contentions in two folds. One is, the transfer of the 3rd respondent is premature as he had not yet completed four years notwithstanidng the order being approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, no reasons are assigned. Another ground is, the petitioner being an officer under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules in the cadre of Sub- 5 Registrar, the concerned Respondent-authority cannot displace a person working in that cadre on regular basis in terms of the law declared by this Hon'ble Court in Reghuram Shetty Vs. State and Another (Writ Petition No.14393/2012 disposed of on 7.6.2012). He further submits that, moreover, the 3rd respondent, at present, is under suspension and right now he is not working in the said post and there is no guarantee that his suspension would get revoked, and more over, the 3rd respondent's tenure to the said post is for four years and that would suppose to complete on 01.07.2019. He further submits that, the KAT could not have granted any relief to the 3rd respondent solely on the ground that the petitioner is an officer under Rule 32 of the KCSRs and that would become untenable, the moment the 3rd respondent completes his tenure of four years on 01.07.2019 and the petitioner would be entitled to assume charge of the said post with effect from 02.07.2019, and even there is no guarantee of revocation of suspension of the 3rd respondent within that period ie., before 2nd July, 2019.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 resisting the submissions of the 6 petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is a promotee under Rule 32 of the KCSRs only for a period of six months and that period is over. Hence, this petition is not maintainable as there is no valid ground available to the petitioner.
7. On hearing the learned counsels on both sides, it is undisputed that, the 3rd respondent, at present, is under suspension, and there is no guarantee that his suspension would get revoked by 02.07.2019, because hardly few days are remaining to reach that period.
8. In the said circumstances, though the 3rd respondent having some grounds, they are not substantive in any manner. Therefore, we hold that, the post in which Respondent No.3 was working, at present is vacant, in view of his suspension. Even, if we assume that, his suspension is revoked, since only few days are remaining for completion of tenure of the 3rd respondent to continue in the said post and place, he can request the competent authority for appropriate postings.
9. In view of the above, we pass the following: 7
ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 01.01.2019 passed by the KAT in Application No.7784/2018 under Annexure-A is modified.
The petitioner is permitted to report in the Sub- Registrar's Office at Jala, to the place of Respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 is permitted to make an appropriate application for fresh posting, in case his suspension is revoked.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE KGR*