Karnataka High Court
Sri T Gopalakrishna vs Sri G S Nagendra on 21 March, 2013
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
W.P.NO.43977 OF 2012 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI T GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O C. THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRIYUTHS. M S BHAGWAT & D PAVANESH, ADVs.)
AND
1. SRI G S NAGENDRA
S/O G.N. SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR
NOW ON COMPULSORY WAITING PERIOD
R/AT NO.257, 7TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, NGEF
LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(REGISTRATION AND STAMPS)
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
2
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
REGISTRATION AND
COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
NO.720, SIMSHA BHAVAN
B.W.S.S.B BUILDING, 46TH CROSS
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 082 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI VERMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL &
SRI.V R SARATHY, ADV. FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.5381/12 AND QUASH THE
ORDER DT.9.10.12 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.5381/12,
VIDE ANN-A & DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R1
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal wherein the transfer order dated 30.08.2012 transferring the 3rd respondent as a Sub-Registrar to Raja Rajeshwari Nagar is quashed and directed to give effect to the transfer order dated 10.05.2012.
2. The applicant before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Sri.G.S.Nagendra was working as Sub-Registrar, Tavarekere Office. By order dated 3 10.05.2002, he was transferred to Raja Rajeshwari Nagar. By the same order, the third respondent T.Gopala Krishna was also transferred to Madhugiri. Subsequently, the said order was modified by an order dated 30.08.2012. The applicant G.S.Nagendra was transferred to the Head Office of Registration and Stamps Department in public interest and administration exigencies, whereas the third respondent T.Gopala Krishna was transferred to his place at Raja Rajeshwari Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred an application before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal secured the records. After going through the contents of the same, it was of the view that the subsequent order passed was not for any administration purpose but on the interference by a politician. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gobardhan Lal's case, where such transfers are disapproved, it quashed the order at A1. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent is before this Court. 4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 is working as a senior Sub-Registrar. The office of the Sub- Registrar at Madhugiri is not an office to be held by a senior Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the said order is illegal and realizing the said mistake, the said order was modified and he was posted to Raja Rajeshwari Nagar Sub-Registrar office which is a post to be held by a Senior Sub-Registrar which was infact held by one Smt.Jayamma, till her retirement. Therefore, he submits that the order of transfer as per Annexure-A2 is illegal and order at Annexure-A1 is legal. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have set aside these orders.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that this point was not canvassed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the order solely on the ground of political interference. He further submitted that there exist senior Sub-Registrars in the cadre. Raja Rajeshwari Nagar is not held to be an office to be presided over by a senior Sub-Registrar. There 5 is only a proposal which is yet to be confirmed. Therefore, he submits no case for interference is made out.
6. From the impugned order, it is clear the impugned order of transfer came to be passed on the basis of note by the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for revenue department to post the respondent No.3 in place of Smt.Jayamma, Sub-Registrar of Raja Rajeshwari Nagar since the latter was going to retire on 31.08.2012. The records further discloses that a note was prepared stating that already the applicant has been posted to the said post. Despite that 3rd respondent has been posted to Raja Rajeshwari Nagar and transfer order has been passed. These facts are not in dispute. It only shows that transfers are made and postings are given not on the basis of any criteria prescribed for such persons but to please the politicians. The politicians will not change. But a civil servant should be careful. If he wants to depend on the politicians for postings and transfers, such postings and transfers will be coterminous with the term of the post held by the politician and he cannot be given any 6 protection. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order of transfer holding that the transfer is not made in accordance with law. A person who is a civil servant is expected to be neutral in discharging his functions and stick on to the rules and perform his duties. If he is yielding to the powers of the politicians and prostrating before them for benefits, then, such a conduct disentitles him from any relief at the hands of this court. In that view of the matter, we see no merits. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE Vg/-