Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivaling Kondaguli vs State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2016
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S. PATIL
Writ Petition No.25502 of 2015 (S-TR)
C/W
Writ Petition No.44992 of 2016 (S-TR)
Writ Petition No.25502 of 2015
Between:
Sri. Shivaling Kondaguli,
S/o. Revana Siddappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Working as Chief Officer-Grade-II
Town Panchayat, Sargur,
H.D.Kote Taluk,
Mysore District.
... PETITIONER
(BY Shri. B.B.Bajentri, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Director,
Department of Municipal Administration,
V.V.Tower, 9th Floor,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Mysore District,
Mysore-570 004.
2
4. Sri. A.Shivappa,
Community Affairs Officer,
Arakalgudu Pattana Panchayat,
Arakalagud Taluk,
Hassan District-573102.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. H.C.Kavitha, HCGP for R1 to R3,
Sri. S.V.Narasimhan, Addvocate for R4 )
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to call for records relating to
issue of the impugned notification bearing No.
Na.aa.E.88:TME:2015 dated 18.6.2015 vide Annexure-E issued
by the 1st respondent and after perusal, set aside the same and
to direct the respondents to continue the services of the
petitioner in the present post till he completes the minimum
period of five years in terms of the transfer guidelines dated
7.6.2013.
Writ Petition No.44992 of 2016
Between:
Sharavana, S/o. Shamuvelu,
Aged about 34 years,
Chief Officer, Sargur,
Town Panchayath, Sargur,
H.D.Kote Taluk,
Mysore District-571 121.
PETITIONER
(By Sri. A.Nagarajappa, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
3
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Director,
Department of Municipal Administration,
9th Floor, V.V.Tower,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
3. Sri. Shivaling Kondaguli,
S/o. Revana Siddappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Working as Chief Officer-Grade-II
Town Panchayath, Sargur,
H.D.Kote Taluk,
Mysore District.
RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. H.C.Kavitha, HCGP for R1 and 2;
Sri. B.B.Bajentri, Advocate for R3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order bearing
No.Na.Aa.Ee.136.TME.2016 (Part-1) dated 20.8.2016 as per
Annexure-C, in so far as the petitioner whose name is at Serial
No.4 is concerned and to direct the respondent No.1 to restore
the order dated 18.8.2016 in No. Na.Aa.Ee.136:TME:2016 (Part-
1) as per Annexure-A, in so far as petitioner, whose name is at
Sl.No.43 is concerned, transferring the petitioner from CMC
Chamarajanagar to chief Officer, Grade-II, Sargur.
These writ petitions coming on for Orders on IA this day,
the Court made the following:
:O R D E R:
Both the writ petitions are heard together as they are inter connected.
4
2. In W.P.No.25502 of 2015, petitioner is an employee of the Mysore City Corporation. He was working as a Senior Health Inspector in Mysore. By order dated 19.7.2014 produced at Annexure-A, he was sent on deputation to work as Chief Officer of Saragur Pattana Panchayat. However, by the impugned order dated 18.6.2015, Annexure-E, 4th respondent has been posted to the post of petitioner and petitioner has been ordered to be repatriated to his parent department. This order has been passed by the State Government, Department of Urban Development. Petitioner is calling in question this order of his repatriation, contending, inter-alia, that he has been repatriated without the consent of the parent department even before he could complete three years of service in the place where he was deputed and only to accommodate the 4th respondent.
3. In support of his contention that he could not have been repatriated without any justifiable reason, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India through Government of 5 Pondicherry and another Vs. Sri. V. Ramakrishnan and others reported in (2005)8 Supreme Court Cases 394. He also placed reliance on Rule 15 (3) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, to contend that petitioner was entitled to stay in the place where he was deputed for a period of five years.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents have strongly refuted these contentions.
5. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 362 to contend that a deputationist has no right to continue on deputation or to claim permanent absorption in the borrowing department.
6. State Government has also filed statements of objection justifying the action of posting the 4th respondent and repatriating the petitioner to the parent department. 6
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for all the parties, short question that falls for consideration is:
Whether the impugned order repatriating the petitioner to his parent department suffers from any illegality?
8. The terms and conditions based on which petitioner was deputed to work as Chief Officer of Town Panchayat, Saragur are specifically mentioned in Annexure-A, order of deputation. It is specifically made clear that such posting of petitioner was purely temporary in the administrative interest and that Government had the power to transfer/repatriate the petitioner to his parent department or to any other place. Indeed, it has been mentioned in Annexure-A that the transfer/deputation was on the request made by petitioner. It is thus clear that, the deputation of petitioner to discharge his duties as Chief Officer of Town Panchayat was effected by the Department of Urban Development, Government of Karnataka, making it clear 7 that such deputation was temporary and Government was entitled to repatriate petitioner at any time.
9. In the statement of objections filed by the State Government, it is stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 that, pay scale attached to the Community Affairs Officer is higher than the pay-scale of Health Inspector. It is also stated that, by virtue of the scheme "Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rojagar Yojana", a scheme introduced by the Central Government, it was recommended that Community Affairs Officer shall be appointed till regular Chief Officers were appointed to the Pattana Panchayat; accordingly, the State Government was required to pass the impugned order posting 4th respondent who was holding the post of "Community Affairs Officer' to man the post of Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayat; in such circumstance, it cannot be state that action of the State Government in posting 4th respondent as Chief Officer was illegal or arbitrary.
10. There are no allegations of mala fides directed against any particular officer. As the petitioner does not 8 have any vested right to continue in the post where he is deputed purely on temporary basis, he cannot make any legal grievance by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Ramakrishnan's case referred to above has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, while reiterating the well established principle that ordinarily, a deputationist had no legal right to continue in the post when the tenure of the deputationist was specified although he did not have an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of the deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds, as for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance and that an order of reversion could be questioned when the same was mala fide.
11. As already adverted, in the order of deputation, no tenure or term has been fixed, nor is there any allegation of mala fides directed against any authorities. In such circumstance, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
9
12. Rule 15 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, does not also come to the aid of the petitioner inasmuch as, sub- clause 3 only states that deputation shall not ordinarily extend beyond five years, except under special orders of Government. Such a clause cannot be interpreted to mean that for a period of five years deputationist cannot be disturbed from his place. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. This petition therefore deserves to be dismissed.
13. In the connected writ petition bearing W.P.No.44992/2016, petitioner was working as Senior Health Inspector at City Municipal Council, Chamarajanagar. He was posted as Chief Officer (Grade-II) to report at Saragur in H.D. Kote Taluk, Mysore district. Pursuant to the said order of posting, petitioner claims to have approached the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, seeking a movement order so that he can report at Saragur as Chief Officer of Pattan Panchayat Saragur. However, by another order dated 18.8.2016, his transfer and posting to Saragur was cancelled vide order dated 10 20.8.2016. It is this order that has been called in question by the petitioner. Petitioner has not been given posting to any other place.
14. It is urged by petitioner that though in Annexure-H, order, he is shown to have been transferred to the post of Senior Health Inspector at Town Municipality, Gundlupet, there is no vacancy in the said place. It is therefore, contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, in view of the dismissal of writ petition No.25502/2015, there will be no impediment for the Government to continue the petitioner herein as Chief Officer, Pattan Panchayath, Saragur.
15. It is true post of Chief Officer, Pattan Panchayath Saragur, remains now vacant in view of the order passed dismissing the writ petition bearing No.25502/2015. It is also true that the impugned order now passed against petitioner displacing him from Saragur and posting him as Senior Health Inspector at Gundlupete was necessitated on account of the interim order obtained by the petitioner in 11 W.P.No.25502/ 2015, who continued to occupy the post of Chief Officer, Pattan Panchayat at Saragur. No-doubt, as the said writ petition has been dismissed, the order cancelling the posting of petitioner to Saragur, as Chief Officer deserves to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, W.P.No.44992 of 2016 is allowed to the above extent and W.P.No.25502 of 2015 is dismissed.
It would be open to the State Government to pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the interest of the administration and the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*