Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. C. Ravindra, vs The Managing Director on 2 January, 2018
Bench: B.S Patil, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.A.NO.7087/2017
BETWEEN
SRI B.C.RAVINDRA,
S/O B.G.CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-
CUM-TECHNICAL ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BETHAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION,
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri NAGARAJAPPA A., ADV.)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD,
JAL BHAVAN, NO.6, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT,
BETHAMANGALA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 029.
2. KASHI VISHWANATH,
S/O MADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER-CUM-TECHNICAL ASSISTANT,
2
OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY BOARD,
JALBHAVAN,NO.6, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST PHASE,
BTM LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 029. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri S.G.PANDIT, ADV. FOR C/R1;
Sri J.PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
13/12/2017 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN WP
NO.32603/2017, AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
B.S.PATIL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
1. Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Appellant was working as Assistant Executive Engineer from December 2001 to April 2015 at Bethamangala Sub-Division in Kolar District. He was transferred to Chitradurga during the year 2015. He worked there for nearly 15 months but was again transferred to Bethamangala in June 2016. Thereafter, vide transfer order dated 15.07.2017 impugned in the writ petition appellant was transferred from Bethamangala to 3 Jamakandi Sub-Division and 2nd respondent - Kashi Vishwanath was transferred from Jamakandi to the place of appellant. Indeed, the said transfer of appellant was on account of request made by 2nd respondent - Kashi Vishwanath, for being posted to Bethamangala in the place of appellant. In this background, aggrieved by the order of transfer and contending that the impugned order of transfer was in violation of the transfer policy framed by the State Government, appellant filed the writ petition.
3. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 13.12.2017 on the ground that transfer policy framed by the State Government was merely a guideline and was directory in nature. Learned Single Judge has further held that since transfer policy was not mandatory, same was not binding on respondent - Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board. In these circumstances, present intra court appeal has been filed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for all the parties. We find from the undisputed facts that appellant was 4 transferred from Chitradurga to Bethamangala not on his request but due to administrative exigency. Appellant had completed just 15 months in his post as Assistant Executive Engineer on transfer to Bethamangala. As per transfer policy, if appellant had to be shifted from there prematurely, then, prior approval of the Chief Minister was required to be taken. Indeed, policy guidelines laid down by the State Government which has been adopted by the respondent - Board make it very clear that as per Clause 9(b) before effecting any premature transfer and for making any transfer after the transfer period and also for extending the tenure of a Government servant for the reasons stated in the policy guidelines, prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister must be obtained without fail by the concerned Administrative Department of the Secretariat.
5. In the case of CHANDRU H.N. v/s. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS - ILR 2011 Kar. 1585 a Full Bench of this Court has declared the law on the point stating that policy guidelines laid down by the State 5 Government are executive orders issued in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and hence, they enjoy statutory force and are enforceable in law. Indeed this principle has been reiterated and followed in respect of subsequent guidelines which were framed by the State Government. Enforceability of the same were the subject matter of challenge in the case of S.N.GANGADHARAIAH V/S. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER - ILR 2015 Kar. 1955. Indeed this Court after considering the various judgments of the Apex Court and by examining the relevant guidelines and construing the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Act has held that transfer guidelines framed by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers have statutory force.
6. In the light of the two full bench judgments wherein the law has been clearly laid down regarding the nature of policy guidelines and their statutory force, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the transfer policy was merely a guideline and was 6 therefore only directory in nature cannot be sustained in law.
7. In the result, as adverted to above, transfer of appellant from his post at Bethamangala in Kolar district to Jamakandi in Bagalkot district barely within 15 months from the date of his posting at Bethamangala cannot be sustained as it is in contravention of the transfer policy.
8. We may hasten to add here that it is not as if the employee concerned has an absolute right to continue in the place for a period of three years. Policy guidelines laid down by the State Government clearly spell out exception for effecting premature transfer with the prior approval of the Chief Minister. Indeed, in the present case, admittedly, no such procedure has been followed and no approval of the Chief Minister has been taken before effecting premature transfer. In the statement of objections filed, respondent No.1 has merely stated that due to administrative exigency such a decision was taken. 7
9. Hence, keeping in mind the law laid down in the two judgments of the Full Bench of this Court holding that transfer guidelines framed by the State Government have got statutory force, we are of the view that the impugned transfer order cannot be sustained in law as the required procedure has not been followed while effecting transfer of appellant.
10. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed. Order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Impugned order of transfer transferring appellant from Bethamangala to Jamakandi as Assistant Executive Engineer is also set aside. This order will not come in the way of respondents acting in accordance with law for effecting any premature transfer of the appellant.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE VP