Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravi Naik U. S vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB
WP No. 11737 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 11737 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVI NAIK U.S.,
S/O SAKRA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT K.T MUDIYAPPA BADAVANE,
KADUR, CHIKMAGALURU DIST.-577 548.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.K SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE [PH])
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
by D HEMA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION,
COURT OF MULTISTOREYED BUILDING,
KARNATAKA
DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
NEW PUBLIC OFFICE,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB
WP No. 11737 of 2023
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
(ADMINISTRATION-CUM-DISTRICT
PLANNING COORDINATE OFFICER),
OFFICE OF THE SARVA SIKSHANA ABHIYANA,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
CHICKMAGALUR-577 101.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
BIRUR, KADUR TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA [PH])
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
I) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION No. 1053/2022
(1053 AND 1054/2022) ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE AS PER
ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 14.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
UMESH M ADIGA J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB
WP No. 11737 of 2023
ORDER
This Writ Petition is directed against order passed in Application No.1053/2022 dated 30.11.2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru ("Tribunal" for short).
2. We refer to the parties as their rank before Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case of both the parties were as under:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Education Department (Primary Education) and he was posted to different schools in the State. Petitioner passed the necessary examination for the post of CRP and in the counselling, he opted for the Centre at Banuru Cluster of Birur Block of Kadur Taluk and accordingly, petitioner was posted to the Banuru Cluster. The wife of the petitioner is also working as a Teacher in Kadur Taluk. Petitioner was posted to Banuru Cluster by issuing Official Memorandum dated 29.04.2016.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that, as per Section 10(v) of the Karnataka State Civil Service (Regulation -4- NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB WP No. 11737 of 2023 of Transfer of Teachers) Act, 2020, whose spouses are working in the State Government or Central Government has got priority / preference in the transfer of teachers.
4. Petitioner applied for transfer on the spouse ground. However, the 3rd respondent without considering the case of the petitioner on spouse ground, issued an order dated 09.02.2022 transferring the petitioner from CRC to GLPS B Hosahalli Colony, Mudigere of Chikkamangaluru District. The said order of transfer is arbitrary, illegal and prayed for quashing of the said transfer order produced at Annexure - A5.
5. The case of respondents are that, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Education Department and he passed necessary examinations for the post of CRP and he was posted to the Banuru Cluster by official memorandum dated 29.04.2016. The applicant has completed maximum period of five years tenure of CRP and he has to go back to the school as teacher after completion of his tenure as CRP. The respondents have prepared the list of seniority as per the Karnataka State Civil Service (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers) Act, 2020 and called for transfer counselling to be -5- NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB WP No. 11737 of 2023 held on 09.02.2022. Petitioner had participated in the said transfer counselling dated 09.02.2022 and in the said counselling, petitioner has opted to transfer him to GRPS B Hosahalli Colony, Mudigere. According to his request, he has been transferred to the said place by order dated 09.02.2022 as per Annexure - A5. The said place, is the choice of petitioner, therefore, now he cannot make any grievance of the same.
6. It is further stated by the respondents that at the time of counselling, the final vacancy list was brought to the notice of the applicant, and he had opted to go to the said place, based on the same, transfer order had been issued and there is no infirmity or illegality, either in the process of counseling or with regard to his posting, therefore, pray to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA.
8. It is not in dispute that, petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department. It is also not in dispute that he passed necessary examination for the Post of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB WP No. 11737 of 2023 CRP and by virtue of Official Memorandum dated 29.04.2016, he was posted to Banuru Cluster of Birur Block of Kadur Taluk and he worked in the said place from April, 2016, till his transfer dated 09.02.2022.
9. It is also not in dispute that, as per the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers) Act, 2020, the minimum tenure of specified post is for three years and maximum of five years. Admittedly, in this case, petitioner had completed period of five years by 2021 and he was due for transfer.
10. It is also not in dispute that, respondents have prepared list of final vacancy and called for counselling of petitioner on 09.02.2022. The petitioner considering the places of vacancy, has opted for the post of GLPS B Hosahalli Colony, Mudigere and accordingly, he has been posted to the said place by order dated 09.02.2022 as per Annexure - A5. When the transfer is given according to his own wish or option, now he cannot make any grievance against the said order issued by the respondents as illegal. The said contention is not tenable. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB WP No. 11737 of 2023
11. The next ground made out by the petitioner is that, on the spouse ground, the respondents ought to have given priority to the petitioner for transfer in the same Taluk, as per Section 10(v) of Karnataka State Civil Service (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers) Act, 2020. According to it, the persons, whose spouses are working in State Government or Central Government have got priority / preference in the transfer of teachers and it is further contended that without considering the case of applicant, that his spouse is working in Kadur Taluk, the 3rd respondent has proceeded to pass an order dated 09.02.2022 transferring the 1st applicant from CRC to GLPS B Hosahalli Colony, Mudigere of Chikkamangaluru District which is illegal.
12. To consider the said contention, it is necessary to refer Section 10 of the above said Act, which reads as under:
"10. Exemptions from rationalization, zonal transfers and priority for request transfers.- (1) The exemptions from rationalization, zonal transfers and priority for request transfers are as follows, subject to conditions specified in sub-sections (2) to (5).-
(i) XXX
(ii) xxx
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB
WP No. 11737 of 2023
(iii) xxx
(iv) xxx
(v) teacher with spouse working with the
State or Central Government or aided educational institution;
(vi) xxx
(vii) xxx"
13. The relevant sub-section (5) which reads as under:
"(5) The teachers falling under category
(v) shall be given priority during request transfer. If the teacher is working in a different Taluk as that of the spouse is allowed to seek transfer to the working Taluk of the spouse only.
If both are working in the same Taluk then they are not eligible to make application under priority:
Provided that, during rationalization and zonal transfers the excess teacher shall be posted within the working Taluk of the spouse."
14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as his spouse was working in Kadur Taluk i.e., both were working in the same Taluk. Hence, the question of priority does not arise.
Therefore, Section 10(v)(Rule-5) do not help the petitioner to -9- NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB WP No. 11737 of 2023 claim any priority and on this ground also, his contention is not sustainable.
15. More importantly posting was given to petitioner as per his choice in the counselling. It is not explained in the petition as to why he opted for the place, which was not acceptable to him if there were vacancy in other places. When he accepted the said place and he is posted to the said place as per his desire or option, now, he cannot make any grievance on various other grounds. According to the rules referred above, there is no such option given to any teacher, who has been posted to some place as per their request. On this ground also, the relief sought by the petitioner is not tenable.
16. As already discussed in the above, the petitioner is not entitled for transfer on the spouse ground because both were working in the same Taluk before the transfer of the petitioner. It appears there were no vacancies to accommodate applicant. Moreover he has already completed maximum period of tenure of five years in the same post. Therefore, only on the ground that, his spouse is in Kadur Taluk, he cannot be permitted to continue in the very same post till she continues in
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11551-DB WP No. 11737 of 2023 the Kadur Taluk. Therefore, all the grounds made out by the Writ Petitioner are not tenable to hold that the order of posting / transfer of petitioner as per Annexure - A5 is illegal or contrary to the provisions of transfer guidelines. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) Writ petition is dismissed.
b) Order passed in Application No.1053/2022 dated 30.11.2022 is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RHS Sl No.: 3