Karnataka High Court
Sri. K M Ravi Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B. Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI
WRIT PETITION No.24598/2012(S-RES)
BETWEEN :
SRI. K M RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE SRI. MARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.63/E, 4TH MAIN,
ALLANAHALLI LAYOUT,
MYSORE- 570 028. ...PETITIONER
( BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV. )
AND :
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE
3 THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE
2
4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE
5 SRI. MAHESH K.
S/O KYATHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE ...RESPONDENTS
( BY SMT.MANJULA KOMMADOLLI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.06.2012 BEARING
NO.NA.HA.EE.33 KMR 2012 ISSUED BY THE RSPONDENT NO.1
FOUND AT ANNEXURE-J AND NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.NA.HA.EE.138 TME 2012(BAGHA-1) DATED 15.06.2012
FOUND AT ANNEXURE-K, AND FURTHER DIRECT RESPONDENT
NO.1 TO RESTORE THE POSTING OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
3
OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.4, etc.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 4.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition inter alia challenging the notifications issued by respondent No.1 dated 16.06.2012 and 15.06.2012 produced at Annexures `J` and `K` respectively.
3. The facts, which are not in dispute are that, the petitioner was promoted and posted as Assistant Executive Engineer in a vacant post in the office of respondent No.4 - Project Director, District Urban Development Cell, Mysore. 4 The 5th respondent was sent on deputation from Public Works Department (PWD) to the office of fourth respondent for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever was earlier. Further, he was repatriated to the office of PWD by order dated 21st March 2012. Respondent No.5 has called in question the said order of repatriation before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in application No.1814/2012. The Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 28th March 2012, stayed the repatriation till the 5th respondent is given a posting or till the end of May 2012. However, the said interim order was continued. The petitioner was transferred to the place of respondent No.5 by Annexure `A`. However, when he went to report to the fourth respondent on 26.03.2012, respondent No.4 issued an endorsement dated 27.3.2012, which is signed on 05.04.2012, inter alia informing the petitioner that in view of the interim order granted by the Administrative Tribunal, the 5th respondent has been continued in the said post. 5
4. The petitioner herein filed I.A.I in Application No.1814/2012 for impleading himself as as a respondent. The Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 22.05.2012 allowed the application of the petitioner for impleading and directed the Government Pleader to contact the PWD and communicate the order and to see that a posting was given to the applicant before the next date of hearing. The interim order was extended till the end of June 2012 or until a posting was given to the petitioner herein, whichever was earlier.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim order passed by the Administrative Tribunal has been wrongly interpreted by the respondent - State and Annexure `J` dated 16.06.2012 has been issued. Learned counsel submits that repatriation of respondent No.5 was stayed only on the ground that he had not been shown given posting. But, the Government has interpreted the interim order as if it is protecting the repatriation of the 5 th respondent and in the 6 meanwhile, the petitioner is also subjected to further transfer to Madikeri.
6. No doubt, the petitioner service come under the Directorate of Municipal Administration. However, the petitioner has filed an application for impleading in Application No.1814/2012 and the Administrative Tribunal by order dated 22.05.2012, while allowing his application for impleading has extended the interim order. The said application filed by respondent No.5 is still pending. If any clarification of the order dated 22.05.2012 is required, the petitioner has to approach the Administrative Tribunal.
7. Since the petitioner has already sought for vacating the interim order and also for necessary relief, the petitioner is permitted to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for further clarification in Application No.1814/2012, which is stated to be pending. It is open to the petitioner to seek such relief as permissible under law. If there is any question 7 of jurisdiction and if the petitioner requires to file a writ petition, it is always open to the petitioner to approach this Court after getting clarification from the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma