Karnataka High Court
Sri Purushothama vs The Union Of India on 14 December, 2012
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA
Writ Petition No. 49835 of 2012 (S-CAT)
Between:
Sri. Purushothama,
S/o. Late C. Krishna Swamy,
Aged about 47 years,
Working as Junior Technical Officer,
O/o. The Controller,
Controllerate of quality Assurance (Radars),
J.C.Nagar Post,
Bangalore-6.
R/at. No.344/7, 3rd Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-10.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. M.S.Anandaramu, Advocate)
And :
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production
And supplies, Nirman Bhawan,
South Block,
New Delhi-110 011.
2
2. The Director General,
Directorate General Quality Assurance,
Ministry of Defence (DGQA),
Room No.234, South Block,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 011.
3. The Additional DGQA (L),
Directorate General Quality Assurance,
Ministry of Defence (DGQA),
Room No. 234, 'G' Block,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 011.
4. The Controller,
Controllerate of Quality
Assurance (Electronics),
J.C.Nagar Post,
Bangalore-6.
... Respondents
(By Sri. M.Swayam Prakash, Advocate for C/R1 to R4)
This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Order dated
05/11/2012 made in Original Application No.213/2012 vide
Annexure-A issued by the CAT, and to allow the application
filed by the petitioner granting all the consequential benefits.
This W.P. coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
N.K.PATIL J., made the following:
:O R D E R:
The petitioner, questioning the correctness of the Order dated 05/11/2012 passed in Original Application No.213/2012 vide Annexure-A by the Central 3 Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, and to allow the application filed by the petitioner granting all the consequential benefits, has presented this petition.
2. The case of the petitioner in this petition is that, he has filed OA No.213/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, assailing the correctness of the transfer order transferring him from Bangalore to Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The said application had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 5/11/2012. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, after perusing the materials available on file and taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner in Bangalore which is for more than 22 years and as he is working in technical Department and his services are required in the transferred place, has declined to entertain the prayer sought by him and dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the 4 said order, the petitioner-applicant has presented this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Anandaramu, at the outset, is that, the Tribunal is not justified in declining to grant the prayer sought by the petitioner as he has sought time till May 2013, on the ground that his daughter is studying in 6th standard, his wife is working at BSNL, Bangalore and therefore, he has requested to permit him to continue in Bangalore till the end of academic year. Therefore, he submitted that, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
5.. Per contra, learned counsel for 4th respondent, inter-alia, contended and substantiated the order impugned passed by the Tribunal as just and proper and after taking into consideration that in the earlier 5 round of litigation, petitioner has sought for time till December 2012 and that has been considered. Further, he submits that, the Tribunal has dismissed the said application taking into consideration that as the petitioner is working in technical department, his services are required in transferred place and therefore, interference by this Court by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is not called for. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, it is manifest on the face of the order that, there is no error or illegality, or material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice, for the reason that, petitioner is working in Bangalore for 22 years as fairly submitted by him and now he has been transferred to Secunderabad taking into consideration that, his services is required there as he is working in Technical 6 department. Further, it is significant to note that, the daughter of the petitioner is studying in 6th standard, his wife is working in BNSL at Bangalore and the presence of the petitioner is not required as her mother will be in Bangalore and she will take care of her daughter and that is not a ground to continue his services in Bangalore till the end of May 2013. The Tribunal, taking all these factors into consideration and after assigning valid reasons is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. The reasoning given by the Tribunal for dismissing the application is well considered and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE tsn*