Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahendra C N vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2020
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Pradeep Singh Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
W. P. No.10086 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI MAHENDRA C.N.,
S/O NANJAPPA K.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS CHILD DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT OFFICER,
OFFICDE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT OFFICER,
CHINTHAMAMNI, CHIKKABALLAPUR,
RESIDING AT CHIKKAHULLURU
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND
CHILD EMPOWERMENT OF DIFFERENTLY
ABLED AND SENIOR CITIZEN
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001.
2
3. D. VINOD RAJU,
AGED MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
KOLAR TALUK,KOLAR - 563 101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 & 2 AND
SRI VIJAYA SIMHA REDDY.D., ADVOCATE)
***
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS RELATING TO THE ORDER DT.08.09.2020
PASSED BY THE KSAT, BENGALURU IN A.NO.3531/2020
VIDE ANN.A IN SO FAR AS REFUSING THE INTERIM
ORDER TO THE PETITIONER AND DIRECTING HIM TO
WORK AS ACDPO AND POSTING OF THE R3 AS CDPO AS
BAD IN LAW AND ERRONEOUS AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS CDPO,
CHINTHAMANI, ON HIS OWN PAY AND GRADE IN TERMS
OF 9.7.2020 (ANN.A1 IN A. No.3531/2020) SUBJECT TO
RESULT OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL,
ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING -
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, ARAVIND
KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
IA No.1/2020 for dispensation is allowed.
2. Though matter is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, by consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3
3. Petitioner was working as a Superintendent Grade II in the Department of Women and Child Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizen and having passed departmental examinations prescribed for the post of Assistant Child Development Project Officer (for short 'ACDPO') he came to be promoted to the said post on 09.07.2020 Annexure-A1 and transferred to work in the said post at Chinthamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District vide Annexure-A1. Since, he was posted as ACDPO in the vacant post, he reported for duty in the said capacity and pay scale and worked for one day and as has been directed in order dated 09.03.2020 he started functioning as Child Development Project Officer (for short 'CDPO') in the same Office on his own pay scale. Having been relieved from his earlier post at Bengaluru on 01.07.2020 and after having worked for one day as ACDPO, petitioner had been functioning as CDPO, Chinthamani from 14.07.2020.
4. Direct recruitment to the post of ACDPO was held during the year 2016 which resulted in an order dated 06.03.2019 - Annexure-A6 being passed and respondent No.3 herein was selected as ACDPO and posted to work at Kolar Taluk as ACDPO.
4
5. Out of blue, an order came to be passed on 02.09.2020 vide Annexure-A5 whereunder order of posting the petitioner as CDPO, Chinthamani was cancelled and to his place respondent No.3 was posted.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 02.09.2020, petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'tribunal') by filing Application No.3531/2020, raising several contentions and sought for an interim order of stay dated 02.09.2020 (Annexure-A5). Tribunal by its order dated 08.09.2020 (Annexure-A) refused to grant the interim prayer on the ground that petitioner has been permitted to continue in the original post, ie., ACDPO at Chinthamani Taluk and by the impugned order post of CDPO has been filed up by posting respondent No.3 who has already taken charge. Hence, the writ petition.
7. We have heard Sri Ranganatha S. Jois, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt. Shilpa S.Gogi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Vijaya Simha Reddy, 5 learned counsel appearing on behalf of Caveator - respondent No.3.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that order dated 02.09.2019 relieving petitioner from the post of CDPO is premature and with a malafide intention to accommodate respondent No.3 same has been passed. He would submit that on 14.07.2020 when petitioner had taken charge as CDPO, respondent No.3 could not have been posted within a period of two months from the date on which petitioner took charge as CDPO as respondent No.3 was already working as ACDPO at Kolar. He would also contend that respondent No.3, is still on probation and yet to pass the requisite examinations and even before completion of probationary period he has been posted to a higher post. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the order passed by the tribunal and prays for grant of interim order as sought for in the application filed before the tribunal.
9. Per contra, learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order and she would contend that petitioner cannot have any vested right to a post and even otherwise, order dated 02.09.2020 (Annexure-A5) has received the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and 6 as such there is no error, which would call for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. Sri. Vijaya Simha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Caveator - respondent No.3 would reiterate the contentions raised by the learned Government Advocate and submits that respondent No.3 has already taken charge as CDPO, Chinthamani and has been working at the said place by virtue of order dated 02.09.2020 with effect from 04.09.2020 and as such, he need not be disturbed.
11. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, we notice that undisputedly petitioner was working as Superintendent Grade II in the Department of Women and Child Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizen and he came to be promoted as ACDPO and was transferred by an order dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure-A1) and was posted to work in the Office of the CDPO at Chinthamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District in the post of ACDPO for one day and thereafter to function as CDPO in the same Office in the same pay scale. Accordingly, petitioner was working in the post of CDPO, Chinthamani 7 Taluk from 14.07.2020 after having reported duty on 13.07.2020 and after having worked as ACDPO for one day.
12. In the meanwhile, process for direct recruitment to the post of ACDPO had been commenced and by an order dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure-A6), respondent No.3 herein was selected and appointed as ACDPO along with other candidates and was posted as ACDPO, Kolar Taluk and District under order dated 06.03.2019. He took charge of said post and has been working in the said post. Within a short period or in other words, even before completion of probation period, he has been posted to work as CDPO, Chinthamani, which is an higher post and where petitioner has been working after having taken charge on 14.07.2020.
13. Though learned Government Advocate has drawn our attention to the order dated 02.09.2020 (Annexure-A5) to contend that said order has received the approval of the Chief Minister, we are not persuaded to accept the said ground to hold order of posting respondent No.3 as justifiable for the simple reason that by order dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure-A6), third respondent had 8 been posted as ACDPO at Kolar and he was working at said place. Whereas petitioner who had been promoted on 09.07.2020 taken charge as CDPO at Chintamani and had worked only for two months. In fact, petitioner had worked in the said Department and he had been promoted and posted to work as ACDPO for one day and thereafter in the same pay scale as CDPO at Chintamani. Whereas, respondent No.3, who does not have experience of having worked in the Department and he having been directly recruited on 06.03.2019 and having been posted as ACDPO at Kolar, could not have been posted to work as CDPO at Chintamani, which is an higher post, that too even before his probation period being declared. As such, we are of the considered view that tribunal was not justified in refusing to grant the interim order as sought for by the petitioner.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed and order dated 08.09.2020 (Annexure-A) passed by the tribunal is set aside. The interim prayer as sought for by the petitioner before the tribunal in his Application No. 3531/2020 is granted and notification dated 02.09.2020 bearing No. MaMaE 133 SJD 2020 (Bha-1), 9 stands stayed till disposal of Application No.3531/2020 pending before the tribunal. Tribunal is requested to dispose of the Application expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Government shall also pass necessary consequential orders pursuant to this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE VK