T. M. Shashikumar vs State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

T. M. Shashikumar vs State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2018

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

         WRIT PETITION No.43620 OF 2018 (S-TR)

BETWEEN:

T.M.SHASHIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. LATE T.C.MADAIAH,
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.             ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.NAGAPRASANNA, ADV.)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
     VIKASA SOUDHA,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.   DIRECTOR
     DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
     VISVESVARAYA TOWERS,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

3.   BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     KUMARAPARK WEST,
     BANGALORE - 560 020,
                                 2


     BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

4.   SMT.S.SUSMA
     MAJOR BY AGE,
     WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
     3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI.SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI.K C SHANTHAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OFFICIAL
MEMORANDUM DATED 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 (UNDER
ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION) ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Fourth respondent was deputed to the office of the third respondent by Government vide Official Memorandum Annexure- G dated on 24th September 2018. The gist of the Notification is that the fourth respondent may be posted to the place of a person who has stayed for a longer period. The Notification further states that on deputation the fourth respondent is posted to the office of the third respondent and for the purpose of 3 displacement his services could be utilised against a post who is serving for a longer period. On the basis of the said deputation, now the fourth respondent has been transferred to the place of the petitioner. Against the same this petition is filed.

2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was transferred to the office of the third respondent on 04thJuly 2018 and accordingly the petitioner has reported at the third respondent. Further, the petitioner was transferred as Executive Engineer of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Extension and since then he is working there. When things stood thus, the fourth respondent got transferred to the place of third respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection if the fourth respondent is accommodated in the place of third respondent, in case, if any person is serving for a longer period than the petitioner. Whereas, the petitioner has served for only one month and that is not a longer period. Under the circumstance, he submits that the transfer order dated 24th September 2018 has to be set aside.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the petition has to be dismissed at the threshold since the petitioner is in the civil post and he has to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Secondly, the petition is also on deputation for which he does not have any right to continue in the said post. Under these circumstances, he justifies the deputation and transfer of fourth respondent to the place of the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The deputation/transfer of fourth respondent is to the post against the person who has served for a longer period in the place of the third respondent. If that is the case, it is the duty of the third respondent to accept the deputation of the fourth respondent and to post the fourth respondent against the person who is serving for a longer period. If that is considered, naturally, there could not have been any objection for the transfer and deputation of fourth respondent in the place of third respondent. But transferring or deputation of the fourth respondent, if it is to dislodge the petitioner, then it is arbitrary on the part of the 5 third respondent. Under this circumstance, I hold that the transferring of the fourth respondent in the place of the petitioner is premature, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

1. Petition allowed.

2. If the fourth respondent is to be posted to against any person, the same should be considered against any person who is serving for a longer period.

3. The petitioner shall not be disturbed by virtue of the transfer/deputation of the fourth respondent.

4. Liberty is reserved to the third respondent to accommodate the fourth respondent, if it is possible, against any person who is serving for a longer period than the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE lnn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court