Karnataka High Court
Sri G B Marappa vs State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:37083
WP No. 24847 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 24847 OF 2024 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G.B. MARAPPA
S/O. LATE BETTAPPA,
AGED 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS RECEIVING OFFICER,
ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF THE
POST OF CO-ORDINATING OFFICER,
CENTRAL RELIEF COMMITTEE,
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-91
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
Digitally signed
by BENGALURU - 560001.
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH 2. THE SECRETARY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CENTRAL RELIEF COMMITTEE,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560091.
3. SRI. M. MALLIKARJUN,
WORKING AS MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560010.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37083
WP No. 24847 of 2024
(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC ,ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
STATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.SA.KA.EE.286 PA.KA.SE.2024 DATED 03.09.2024 VIDE
ST
ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT AND AFTER PERUSAL
SET ASIDE THE SAME IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO POSTING OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN PLACE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate writ to quash the notification bearing No.Sa.Ka.Ee.286 Pa.Ka.Se 2024 dated 03.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.1, in so far as it relates to transferring and posting the respondent No.3 to his place.
2. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 27 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975 framed rules called the Central Relief Committee (Cadre -3- NC: 2024:KHC:37083 WP No. 24847 of 2024 Recruitment) and conditions of service of the employees of the Central Relief Committee Rules, 2021 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules 2021' for short). As per Rules 2021, the post of a Coordinating officer had to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Office Superintendent. There is no provision for deputation to the post of Coordinating Officer.
3. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Warder by the respondent No.2 on 27.12.2002. He was promoted as Head Warder on 02.01.2017 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Receiving Officer on 19.12.2013 and posted at Nirashrithara Parihara Kendra, Tumkuru. By an order dated 19.12.2013, he was also given additional charge of the post of Superintendent. Since then, he is discharging duties as Superintendent. On 02.08.2024, the respondent No.2 issued an order assigning the petitioner to be in additional charge of the post of Coordinating Officer due to administrative reasons. The petitioner took charge of the said post on 02.08.2024 -4- NC: 2024:KHC:37083 WP No. 24847 of 2024 and he is discharging duties as a Coordinating officer since then. He contends that by the impugned notification dated 03.09.2024, the respondent No.1 deputed the respondent No.3 an employee of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation to work as Coordinating Officer in place of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The petitioner contends that the post of Coordinating officer could be filled up only by promotion from the cadre of Office Superintendent and that there is no provision for deputation to the said post. Therefore, the impugned notification is bad and contravenes the Rules, 2021. He further contends that he being the senior most person in the cadre of Receiving Officer, was entitled to be placed as in-charge of Coordinating officer. He claimed that in similar circumstances he had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.48395/2017 challenging the deputation of Smt. Sudhamani from the Social Welfare -5- NC: 2024:KHC:37083 WP No. 24847 of 2024 Department to work in the place of petitioner as Superintendent. He contends that this Court granted an order of stay and thereafter, Smt. Sudhamani was transferred elsewhere. Consequently, writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is bad in eye of law and deserves to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated above contentions and invited the attention of the Court to circular dated 12.09.2023 issued by the respondent no.1 relating to deputation under Rule 16(a)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977. He contends that the Rules contemplated that no deputation shall be made to a post, if the Cadre and Recruitment Rules does not allow such deputation.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that admittedly the petitioner was not even a Superintendent, but was a Receiving Officer who was placed in-charge of the post of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:37083 WP No. 24847 of 2024 Superintendent. He contends that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the order of deputation and he has no locus standi to question the deputation. He contends that if any person is aggrieved by such deputation, it is only the persons who are holding the post of Superintendent. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the impugned order and hence no indulgence can be shown to him to continue in additional charge of the post of Coordinating Officer.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted as Receiving Officer on 19.12.2023 as per Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2021 referred supra. The post of Office Superintendent was to be filled up through promotion from the cadre of First Division Assistant who had put in not less than three years in the cadre of First Division Assistant. The post of Superintendent could not -7- NC: 2024:KHC:37083 WP No. 24847 of 2024 be filled up from amongst the cadre of Receiving Officers. None the less, the petitioner was placed in-charge of the post of Superintendent. The post of Coordinating Officer had to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Office Superintendent. Therefore, the petitioner had no prospects to be promoted to the post of either Office Superintendent or Coordinating Officer. However, he was placed in-charge of the post of Coordinating Officer. Therefore, the respondent No.1 in terms of its order dated 03.09.2024, had deputed the respondent No.3 to the post of Coordinating Officer, Grade - I to the place of petitioner. The petitioner being only a Receiving Officer has no right to continue as Coordinating Officer on in-charge basis, once the State Government has exercised its power to depute an official.
9. It is no doubt true that the post of Coordinating Officer has to be filled up from the cadre of Office Superintendent. However, by the impugned order the respondent No.3 is not deputed, but is only deployed until -8- NC: 2024:KHC:37083 WP No. 24847 of 2024 further orders. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were no incumbents in the post of Office Superintendent to be promoted to the post of Coordinating Officer, the respondent No.1 is justified in deploying the respondent No.3 to occupy the post of Coordinating officer. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the said order of deployment and therefore, is not aggrieved by the said order.
10. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. However, the question whether the respondent No.3 is deployed or deputed is left open to be considered in an appropriate petition filed by an interested person.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4