Karnataka High Court
Sri Ganesha Murthy V vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2012
Bench: N.K.Patil, S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
Writ Petition No. 23865 of 2012 (S-KAT)
Between:
Sri.Ganesha Murthy.V
S/o Late.Venkatagiriyappa
Aged about 59 years
Working as Programming Assistant
Office of Commissioner, Pre-University Education,
18th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.M.S.Bhagwat and Miss.Sudha.D., Advs.,)
And :
1. The State of Karnataka
Department of Education (Primary and Secondary)
Represented by its Principal Secretary
M.S.Building, Bangalore-560001.
2. The Commissioner
Department of Pre-University Education
18th Cross, Sampige Road
Malleswaram, Bangalore-560012.
3. The Deputy Director
Department of Pre-University
Chamarajanagar District
Chamarajanagar-571342. ... Respondents
(By Sri.E.S.Indiresh, HCGP)
2
This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to call for records from the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application
No.2917/2012 and to quash the order dated 20.6.2012
passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in
Application No.2917/12 insofar as rejection of interim order
sought for by the petitioner to stay the order issued by the
first respondent is concerned vide Annexure-A etc.
This W.P. coming on for orders this day, N.K.PATIL J.,
made the following:
: ORDER :
Though this matter is listed for orders, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the correctness of the order dated 20.6.2012 passed in Application No.2917/12 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, declining to stay the order issued by the second respondent, vide Annexure-"A".
3. The petitioner herein has filed Application No.2917/12 assailing the correctness of the order of transfer dated 15.6.2012 issued by the second 3 respondent, vide Annexure-"A7" to the application, insofar as it relates to the petitioner. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 20.6.2012. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the Tribunal while admitting the matter and issuing notice to respondents, has declined to grant stay on the ground that the petitioner is working in Bangalore from 1983 and as such there is no sufficient ground to stay the matter at present, however it has observed that the prayer will be considered after the appearance of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.
4. At the outset, the principal contention canvassed by Sri.M.S.Bhagwat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.11.2013. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal ought to have granted an interim order. He further submits that the petitioner was working as a Programme Assistant in the Education Department and therefore, he ought to have been transferred to the same 4 post instead of that he has been transferred to the post of Superintendent, which is a demotional post and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.
6. On careful consideration of the application filed by the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 20.6.2012, it is seen that the Tribunal considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has declined to grant stay for the present on the ground that the applicant is working in Bangalore from 1983. However, it has observed that the prayer will be considered after the appearance of the respondents. Hence, the instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. One more aspect to be considered is that since 1983 the petitioner is working 5 in Bangalore. The post of Superintendent to which he is transferred is a promotional post. The petitioner instead of accepting it wholeheartedly is making all sorts of allegations. Taking these aspects into consideration and also the conduct of the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.
8. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, the prayer sought for in I.A.No.II/12 does not survive for consideration and hence, it is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-.