Karnataka High Court
Mahesh Ningaraddy vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 3 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB
WP No. 203048 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 203048 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESH NINGARADDY
S/O SANGANABASAPPA,
AGE. 47 YEARS,
OCC: INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
VIJAYAPURA RANGE,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
R/O BHUSAR NAGAR,
DHARGA ROAD,
Digitally signed BACK SIDE, TANGA HOSPITAL,
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR VIJAYAPURA - 586103.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
MS BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB
WP No. 203048 of 2023
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
II FLOOR, TTMC, A BLOCK,
BMTC, KH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
4. SRI. MAHANTESH DEVENDRA KABADE
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
KSBCL DEPOT,
VIJAYAPURA-585 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T R, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. R J BHUSARE, ADVT. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
KALABURAGI, IN APPLICATION NO.20807/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.20807/2023 AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY RAJESH RAI K J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB
WP No. 203048 of 2023
ORDER
This writ petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Kalaburagi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Application No.20807/2023 dated 06.11.2023, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts that arise for consideration as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise in the second respondent-Department.
Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Excise. By an order dated 04.03.2021, he was posted to the present place and he was issued with a reposting order on 05.03.2021 as per Annexure-'A1' to the place of fourth respondent and he reported for the duty on the same day.
Subsequently, the second respondent by an impugned Transfer Notification dated 06.09.2023, transferred the petitioner to the place of fourth respondent to KSBCL Depot, Vijayapura District and fourth respondent is being -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 posted in petitioner's place as per Annexure-'A3'. In the said order, the names of the petitioner and the fourth respondent appear at Sl.Nos.7 and 6 respectively.
Aggrieved by the said Notification, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Application No.20807/2023 and the Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as stated supra.
Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel Sri M Madhusudhan for petitioner so also learned HCGP Smt.Maya T.R. for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri R.J. Bhusare for respondent No.4.
4. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being Group 'C' employee, his minimum tenure is four years. The petitioner was posted to the present place on 05.03.2021 and the impugned Notification issued prematurely on 06.09.2023, which is against the Transfer Guidelines, 2013 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 issued by the Government dated 07.06.2013. He would further contend that the impugned transfer order issued by the second respondent is premature and the same is against the guidelines issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M. Rajashekar vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3777 wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court clearly held that without there being any sufficient reason, a Government servant cannot be prematurely transferred by overriding the Transfer Guidelines issued by the Government dated 07.06.2013. He would further contend that, though the impugned transfer order is passed with the prior approval of the Chief Minister, nevertheless, there is no such reason forthcoming for the transfer of the petitioner. With these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Notification dated 06.09.2023 insofar as it relates to petitioner and the fourth respondent are concerned.
-6-NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the fourth respondent would vehemently contend that though the transfer of the petitioner is a premature one, the same depicts that prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister has been obtained. As per Clause 9 of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013, there is no bar to the Government to transfer any Government Official before completion of his/her tenure in a particular place on the ground of Administrative Exigency and in Public Interest.
Since the transfer order of the petitioner is a bulk transfer order, the detailed reasoning of the Chief Minister is not required as per the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Veena H.S vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.24786/2023. He would further contend that the petitioner is transferred within the same District as such, there is no hardship caused to him by the said transfer order. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
-7-NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties so also on perusal of the documents placed before us including the impugned transfer order passed by the Tribunal, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.20807/2023 dated 06.11.2023 suffers from perversity and requires any interference by this Court?"
7. As could be seen from records, the petitioner being Group 'C' employee, transferred to the present place vide order dated 05.03.2021 as per Annexure-'A1' and he has been working in the said place ever since then.
Subsequently, on 06.09.2023, the impugned Transfer Notification issued by the Government by transferring as many as 41 Officers on the ground of Administrative Exigency and in Public Interest. Admittedly, the said transfer was made after the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that, as per the law laid -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M Rajashekar's case supra, a detailed reasoning is required for premature transfer, however the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Veena H.S. vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.24786/2023 held in Para Nos.6 to 8 as under:
6. It is on this legal footing, the petitioners are before this Court and jostling this Court that the impugned Transfer Notifications does not bare any reasons as cogitated under provisions of Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines and the Tribunal has erred in not noticing the same while passing the impugned Order. The petitioners also contend that this Court being consistent in holding the cases of premature transfers in the line of Rajashekar M's case supra cannot now turn its back on the petitioners, only on the ground that the transfers are in bulk and if intervened, would affect the public interest.
7. The arguments addressed antithetical to the arguments of the petitioners by the respondents was that the transfers made, which are now being called-in-question in the current writs, cannot be termed as premature transfers, as all the petitioners have rendered their services in the same place for more than their minimum tenure. It was also contended by the respondents that, some of the petitioners have not only worked in the same place for a considerable period, -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 but also in the same building for a considerable period of more than their minimum tenure. In order to enunciate this contention addressed by the respondents, we now ponder upon the decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.S. Purushottam reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Ors in W.P.No.20158/2015 decided on 01.06.2015 wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with similar question in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 has held as under -
"11. From the above facts, it is clear, since the date of appointment i.e. from 01-06-1995 till 18-07- 2000, he had been working as FDA at District Training Institute, Kolar. From 19-07-2000 till 30-06- 2011 he had been working as FDA in the Office of the DDPI, Kolar. From 30- 06-2011 till 11-02-2013, he was working as FDA in the Office of District Training Institute, Kolar and again from 11-02-2013, till now he has been working in the Office of the DDPI, Kolar. So, from the date of appointment till day, he has been working in one or the other office situated at Kolar only and he has never gone out of Kolar since the date of his appointment. Further, under the present transfer order, he is transferred from the Office of the DDPI, Kolar to the Government High School, Mudderi in Kolar taluk. Thus, he is transferred from Kolar town to a village Mudderi situated
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 within Kolar taluk. As per the latest Government order dt. 20-05-2014 relating to transfer of Government officials, minimum period of stay in respect of Group `C' officials is two years. Even if that is taken into consideration, the applicant was transferred from the Office of the District Training Institute, Kolar, to the Office of the DDPI, Kolar, on 08- 02-2013 and he worked there till now. By the time the present transfer was made on 08- 01-2015, which is yet to be given effect to, he has completed two years at the previous place. It is not only the applicant who has been working in one or the other Office located at Kolar, since the date of his appointment, his wife has also been working in an Office situated at Kolar, as could be seen from the statement of objections of the respondents. Further under the transfer order - Annexure A.2, the applicant is transferred from Kolar town to a village Mudderi situated within Kolar taluk only and there is no merit in the any of the contentions of the applicant.
12. The Tribunal considering the above material aspect of the matter was justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner and declining to interfere with the transfer orders - Annexure - A.2 and A.4."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 (Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied) If the cases on hand is juxtapose the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is quite clear that, even the petitioners in these writ petitions have worked for multiple tenures in the same place i.e., in the city of Bengaluru. Though, they may have worked in the different capacity during their tenure, but it is not in dispute that the petitioners have worked in Bengaluru for more than one tenures. To further articulate, we deem it necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.8, 9 and 15 held as under -
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 55] , SCC p. 406, para 7).
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023
9. The Courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar [1991 Supp (2) SCC 659: 1992 SCC (L&S) 127 : AIR 1991 SC 532] this Court held:
(SCC p. 661, para 4) "4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
15. The only question required to be seen was whether transfer of Respondent 5 was actuated with mala fides or otherwise in violation of statutory rules. The transfer of Respondent 5 was not found to suffer from any of these vices. The High Court went into the competence and suitability of Respondent 5 for such posting. It is here that the High Court fell into a grave error. As a matter of fact, the impugned order of the High Court casts stigma on the service of Respondent 5 which may also act prejudicial to his interest in the pending appeal against the adverse remarks."
(Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied) Hence, it is now a settled position that a Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to be remained in the same post where he desires. The decision also further articulates that any Government Servant who is holding a transferable post also cannot seek as a matter of right, to remain in the same place where he is earlier posted. The position is further enunciated by this Court in Sri. N. Venkatesh Vs The State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No. 23998/2023 decided on 12.12.2023, wherein this Court in paragraph No.12 has held as under -
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 "12. The Petition on hand is one that lays down challenge to legality of impugned Transfer Notification dated 13.10.2023. The petitioner who was working as Senior lecturer in DIET, Bengaluru City was transferred from the current place-in- question vide impugned Transfer Notification supra, has challenged the said transfer order, on it being premature and without posting. To answer the first limb of the argument advanced by learned Senior counsel, we deem it necessary to refer to Annexure- R1 to the interim application filed by the respondent No.3, which displays the service tenure of the petitioner. The petitioner was initially posted to DDPI Office, Bangalore South on 06.04.2002 and he has served in the said place till 27.08.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Karnataka Public School admittedly to a nonexecutive post on 08.08.2011 till 30.11.2011 and again he has served in the DDPI Office, Bangalore South from 01.01.2013 till 11.08.2016. Further, he was again posted as Block Education Officer, Bangalore South on 02.08.2016 wherein he has held the office till 13.08.2016 and subsequently, he was posted to DIET on 04.08.2018 and subsequently, he has reported to place-in-question on 24.06.2022. Admittedly, among 7 postings in Bangalore South, he has worked in 5 posts as Executive Officer and it is well-settled principle through various decisions of this Court that any officer is permitted to grow roots by placing him in different post but in one place, then he shall develop vested interest in the said place and if that is made, the same will ultimately hamper the very
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 intention and object of transfer itself. (See - M.S.Purushottam reddy vs State of Karnataka in W.P.No. 20158/2015 decided on 01.06.2015, C.Madhu Vs Stat of Karnataka & Ors decided on 25.11.2015 and Sri. G.B. Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No. 22499/2022 decided on 16.11.2022). Hence, we are prima facie not in concurrence with the submission made by the learned Senior counsel that the impugned Transfer Notification passed is premature on the part of the petitioner is concerned, as it is evident that the petitioner is in Bangalore South since 2002 and the same cannot be brushed aside while considering the legality of this impugned order."
(Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied) Further this Court in Sri. K.M. Prashanth Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No.21643/2023 decided on 20.12.2023 relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh's Case supra in paragraph No.17 has held as under -
"17.......On perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that no employee of the Government can claim a right over a post or a right to be posted to a particular place. Incidents of transfer, flows through the service conditions of the employees. Moreover, the very object of transferring a Government employee is to make sure that the employee should not grow roots in the said place or should not develop any vested interest in the said place
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 or even the post where he is being transferred. This Court reiterating the versions of the decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches, has on numerous occasions opined that, any person who has served in a place for a continuous period of more than what is prescribed by the Transfer Guidelines, 2013, shall be transferred to some other places. If not, the chances of him developing vested interest in the said place is more than usual and the same would defeat the very purpose of transfer itself...."
(Underlined by Us, Emphasis supplied)
8. Furthermore, on thorough perusal of the decisions of this Court in M.S.Purushottam Reddy's Case, N. Venkatesh's Case and K.M.Prashanth Kumar's case supra and are also if exhaustively read, then this Court has clearly clarified that any person who is being posted in a particular place, cannot be allowed to continue in the same place for more than the tenure which is prescribed upon. If done, then the chances of him growing roots and also vested interest are more probable then definite. In this legal background, if the case of the petitioners are to be considered keeping in view the findings recorded in Rajasehkar M's case supra, then it would be difficult for the State Government to refer to each and every individual and assign the reasons stipulated as against their transfers. Moreover, in a given peculiar circumstances of the case on hand, we find it relevant to state that Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines cannot be read in isolation the Transfer Guidelines, 2013, as the same, if read in conjuncture with the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 very principles and object of the Transfer then the present transfer seems to be one that is covered under the ambit of Rule 9(a) of the Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013. Hence, it is on this ground we opine that, under peculiar circumstances, like the case on hand, it is not mandatory for the respondent-State to script the reasons as contemplated under Rule 9 (a)(i) to (viii) of the Transfer Guidelines supra, provided the same shall be reflected in the records that are made available before obtaining prior- approval from the Chief Minister. In the present case on hand, if the impugned Transfer Notifications are read along with the service records of these petitioners, then it can be clearly seen that the petitioners are holding one or the other post in one place itself for considerable period. Such being the scenario, we find no requirement to interfere with the order of the Tribunal so also the order passed by the respondent-State, as Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material made available before it and has held that, the respondent- State has passed the impugned Transfer Notification in the interest of General public and administrative exigencies. Accordingly, we hold the primary contention raised as against the petitioners.
8. Now the facts stated are looked into from the facts of the above order, we are in congruence with the findings of the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the petitioner was transferred within the city of Vijayapura where he was working. As per the law laid by the Co-ordinate Bench of
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3542-DB WP No. 203048 of 2023 this Court in the case of R.D Ramadas vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.11934/2022, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any hardship caused to him by the impugned transfer order.
9. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there is a substance in the contention canvassed on behalf of the fourth respondent and accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT;BN