Karnataka High Court
Anandasheel vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 5 November, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB
WP No.202593 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO.202593 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SHRI ANANDASHEEL
S/O LAXMAN RAO,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: TAHASILDAR GRADE-II,
NOW AS SECRETARY KUDA, KALABURAGI,
TALUKA : KALABURAGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB
WP No.202593 of 2024
4. SMT. NAGAMMA K.
W/O MANAPPA M.,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
TAHASILDAR GRADE-I,
KALABURAGI TAHASIL OFFICE,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 103.
R/O 13TH CROSS NEAR
ADARSH YUVAKARA SANGHA TARFILE,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, PGA, FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI R.J.BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2024 IN A.NO.20818 OF
2024 A/W A.NO.20857 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE KSAT
KALABURAGI WHICH IS PLACED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Learned Principal Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB WP No.202593 of 2024
2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi Bench in Application Nos.20818/2024 clubbed with Application No.20857/2024.
3. The fourth respondent herein had filed the said two applications before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal being aggrieved of the transfer order dated 31.07.2024 and consequential order dated 01.08.2024 whereby the petitioner herein took charge as Tahasildar Grade-I, Kalaburagi and at the same time, the fourth respondent herein was posted as Tahasildar Grade-II, Protocol, Kalaburagi. The fourth respondent contended before the Tribunal that she was transferred and posted as Tahasildar Grade-I, Kalaburagi on 28.07.2023 and before the minimum term of two years would elapse, order of transfer was passed on 31.07.2024. It was also contended that the petitioner herein is Grade-II Tahasildar and the post where fourth respondent herein was working is Grade-II Tahasildar and therefore, the petitioner herein -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB WP No.202593 of 2024 could not have been transferred and posted at the place where the fourth respondent was working.
4. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal upheld the contention of fourth respondent that disturbing a government servant without providing posting is illegal. Posting of a government servant to a place of another government servant without there being no transfer or posting given to the said person is also illegal. The Tribunal noticed that this Court had held in several cases that mentioning the name in the order or direction to report before the concerned authority to get posting is not a transfer order. It was also held that the posting of the fourth respondent herein as Protocol Tahasildar is a temporary post created for two years and it is a Grade-II Tahasildar post while fourth respondent herein is a Grade- I Tahasildar. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the post of a Protocol Tahasildar is a Grade-II post meant to be filled by a person who holds a Grade-II Tahasildar post and on the other hand, if a Grade-I Tahasildar is posted to such -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB WP No.202593 of 2024 post, it would amount to demotion and it would affect the service conditions of the fourth respondent which would not be permissible.
5. Having regard to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of T. Sunil Kumar vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4564, wherein it was held that if a Court comes to a conclusion that the order issued is contrary to law and it should put back the person to the original post, then the courts should necessarily issue such orders, accordingly, the Tribunal passed the impugned order setting aside the transfer order dated 31.07.2024 insofar as parties before the Court are concerned. The Tribunal has directed that fourth respondent is entitled to continue as Grade-I Tahasildar, Kalaburagi, till her transfer is necessitated in accordance with law. It was also directed that the respondent-State is permitted to provide separate posting to the petitioner herein without loss of time. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB WP No.202593 of 2024
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that this Court passed an order on 01.10.2024 directing maintenance of status quo, till the next date making it clear that the order is open for variation upon submissions by the State as well as fourth respondent. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the Tribunal itself had earlier passed an order in favour of the petitioner herein in Application No.20517/2024 dated 24.06.2024 while directing the respondent-State to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 19.10.2023 to permit the petitioner to join as the Secretary to the Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority, in terms of the notification dated 11.10.2023. However, instead of permitting the petitioner to join as Secretary of Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority, notification was once again issued on 31.07.2024, posting the petitioner as Tahasildar Grade-I, Kalaburagi. Learned counsel would therefore submit that for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner has now been penalized, although the transfer -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB WP No.202593 of 2024 order was passed on 11.10.2023 posting the petitioner herein who was then working as Tahasildar, Grade-II at Lakshmeshwar Taluk, Gadag District to be posted as Secretary, Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority, Kalaburagi. It was pointed out that in terms of the notification dated 11.10.2023, where the petitioner was transferred as Secretary, Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority, he was required to report to Urban Development Department and accordingly, the petitioner gave representation on 19.10.2023 to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department seeking permission to take charge as the Secretary Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority. Despite the petitioner following all the requirements of law, permission was not given to the petitioner to take charge as the Secretary, Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority. On the other hand, one more transfer order was passed on 31.07.2024 posting the petitioner as Tahasildar, Grade-I Kalaburagi. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB WP No.202593 of 2024
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also add that fourth respondent has requested the Government to give her a posting.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for fourth respondent learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State and perused the petition papers.
9. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that fourth respondent raised two strong grounds before the Tribunal. She contended that since her earlier posting order was issued on 28.07.2023 and the minimum tenure in the said post was two years, she could not be disturbed till completion of the said minimum tenure. Secondly, it was contended that petitioner herein was admittedly Grade-II Tahasildar and therefore, he could not be posted as Grade-I Tahasildar at Kalaburagi.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that along with the grounds on which the Tribunal has passed -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB WP No.202593 of 2024 the impugned order, the fourth respondent is also right in her contention that the respondent authorities have not followed the requirements of the transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024. It is also noticeable that no prior permission or consent of the Hon'ble Chief Minister has been taken insofar as disturbance of the fourth respondent is concerned. However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the notification dated 31.07.2024, wherein it is stated that the notification has been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. We are, however, not impressed of the fact that the notification dated 31.07.2024 provides that the notification has been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister.
11. This Court in the case of Rajshekar M. vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2019(1) AKR 489 has held having regard to the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 that the extra ordinary power conferred on the Hon'ble Chief Minister will have to be exercised sparingly
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8066-DB WP No.202593 of 2024 while assigning sufficient reasons for such premature transfer. Such reasoning is not forthcoming in the notification dated 31.07.2024.
12. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi in Application No.20818/2024 A/w Application No.20857/2024.
13. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 Ct:VK