Karnataka High Court
Sri. M. N. Puttaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2023
Bench: G.Narendar, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
WP No. 26048 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 26048 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M N PUTTARAJU
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
by NANDINI D WORKING AS
Location: High CIVIL POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE-358,
Court of
Karnataka PRESENTLY POSTED AS
POLICE FOREST MOBILE SQUAD,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-57313
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. H J KARIGAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
NO.222, 2ND FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
WP No. 26048 of 2022
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN-573201.
4. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
FOREST MOBILE SQUAD,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.
5. SRI RAJASHETTY L S
CIVIL POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE-215,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
POLICE FOREST MOBILE SQUAD,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK-573134.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR THE STATE,
SRI. THYAGARAJA S, ADV. FOR R5.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE
IN A NO.4917/2022 DATED 22/12/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A
BY HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ILLEGAL,
ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND
ALSO BY RETAINING THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURES-B AND
B1 ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Vikram Huilgol, along with Sri. Huchappa J. Karigar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and the learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
-3- WP No. 26048 of 20222. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner in the instant writ petition is similarly situated as the petitioner in W.P.No.26035/2022, which came to be disposed of by the following order:-
"ORDER Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Vikram Huilgol, along with Sri. Huchchappa J. Karigar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The petitioner was respondent No.5 before the Tribunal and respondent No.5 herein, who was the applicant has called in question the orders dated 14.10.2022, 21.10.2022 and relieving order dated 22.10.2022.
3. The order dated 14.10.2022 is the original order of transfer produced as Annexure- A2 whereby, the petitioner and eight others were deputed to the Forest Traffic Division Mobile Squad and the petitioner, who was earlier attached to Konanur Police Station was deputed to Sakaleshpur Forest Traffic Division in the place of respondent No.5 herein, who has -4- WP No. 26048 of 2022 been repatriated back to his erstwhile post at Dudda Police Station. The Tribunal, after appreciating Annexure-A5, has been pleased to hold that the order repatriating the applicant/respondent No.5 herein, back to his erstwhile post from the Forest Traffic Division amounts to a premature transfer and has been pleased to set-aside the same.
4. The facts are not in dispute. In our opinion, the Tribunal appears to have misread the orders and has also erroneously appreciated the Government Guidelines of 2013. Annexure- A5 upon which, much reliance is placed by the private respondent, would read that the minimum assured period is recommended to be increased from 'three years' to 'five years' in respect of Group 'C' and Group 'D' Officers of the Department and accordingly, it has been directed that the period mentioned in the Circular to be read as 'five years' in the place of 'three years'. In our opinion, the said Notification is inapplicable for determination of the facts involved in the case, as it is merely a general instruction, whereby the Department has clarified that a person may be sent on -5- WP No. 26048 of 2022 deputation for a period upto five years only. This general instruction in no manner determines the rights of the parties.
5. The initial order dated 17.08.2019 would reveal that private respondent along with others has been sent on deputation to the post of Forest Traffic Division Mobile Squad and it is not an order of transfer but a mere deputation and one of the conditions of deputation, more importantly, condition No.5, reads as under:-
"5. ¤AiÉÆÃd£É WÀlPÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ C¢üPÁj/¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀ¤µÀÖ CªÀ¢ü MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðªÁVzÀÄÝ, UÀjµÀÖ CªÀ¢ü LzÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ÄÃgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. JgÀqÀ£Éà ¨Áj C¢üPÁj/¹§âA¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è 02 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÀÆ°AUï D¥sï CªÀ¢ü DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ."
6. It clearly states that the minimum period of deputation is one year and the maximum period is five years and any further deputation is permissible only after completion of two years cooling-off period. Thus, from a reading of the above, it is apparent that the minimum assured period of stay is one year -6- WP No. 26048 of 2022 only and the maximum period of deputation could extend upto five years.
7. Learned counsel has fairly conceded that the private respondent has completed more than three years and two months in the deputational post. In that view, the minimum assured period of one year having been completed, respondents were entitled to invoke condition No.5. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has also misread the order dated 14.10.2022.
8. The learned HCGP would submit that the word 'promotion' used is by inadvertence and that private respondent is neither entitled nor has any order of promotion been issued. That the subsequent order dated 21.10.2022 has corrected the error and that the same has not been appreciated by the Tribunal in its proper perspective. The orders impugned clearly reveal that the orders of deputation, deputing the personnel to various units and as stipulated in the deputation order of 2019, under which private respondent was deputed to the post from which he is transferred, in the instant order of deputation also, the minimum assured period of deputation is one year only and that -7- WP No. 26048 of 2022 the maximum period shall not exceed five years and any further extension is to be preceded by a cooling-off period of two years. By proceedings dated 22.10.2022, private respondent and others, who were similarly situated have been repatriated back.
9. It would be useful to refer to the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard. In Ratilal B. Soni and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph No.5 as under:-
"5. The appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post. We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and as such we dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs."
In Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India and Another2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paragraph No.6 as under:-
11990 SCC (L&S) 630 2 (2000) 5 SCC 362 -8- WP No. 26048 of 2022 "6. On the legal submissions also made there are no merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for a permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption.
The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. The reference to the decision reported in Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D., U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. is inappropriate since the consideration therein was in the light of the statutory Rules for absorption and the scope of those Rules. The claim that he need not be a graduate for absorption and being a service candidate, on completing service of 10 years he is exempt from the -9- WP No. 26048 of 2022 requirement of possessing a degree needs mention, only to be rejected. The stand of the respondent Department that the absorption of a deputationist being one against the direct quota, the possession of basic educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment i.e. a degree is a must and essential and that there could be no comparison of the claim of such a person with one to be dealt with on promotion of a candidate who is already in service in that Department is well merited and deserves to be sustained and we see no infirmity whatsoever in the said claim."
In Union of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Others3, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paragraph No.32 as under:-
"32. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post. A deputationist indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an officer is deputed, 3 (2005) 8 SCC 394
- 10 -WP No. 26048 of 2022
no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service.
When the tenure of deputation is
specified, despite a deputationist not
having an indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala fide. An action taken in a post-haste manner also indicates malice."
10. From a reading of the law, as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, it is apparent that the Tribunal has misread the orders of deputation as orders of transfer. It is not in doubt that the Guidelines are also applied to deputationist posts but the fact remains that the minimum assured period of deputation under the orders is only one year and it is not in dispute that the applicant/private respondent has completed three years of service in the deputed post and he has been repatriated in a
- 11 -
WP No. 26048 of 2022manner known to law. The law in this regard is no more res-integra. A deputationist has no vested right and even if deputation is for a fixed period, the deputationist can be repatriated for reasons to be recorded and after affording an opportunity.
11. In the instant case, minimum period of deputation being one year, the private respondent is not entitled to assert a right contrary to the same.
12. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal warrants interference. Be that as it may. Learned HCGP would submit that private respondent pursuant to the relieving order at Annexure-A4 has been repatriated back to his erstwhile post and the petitioner has reported to duty in the Forest Traffic Division. In that view of the matter also, the order of deputation and the order of repatriation having been obeyed, the Tribunal ought to have held its hands.
13. Be that as it may. As stated above, the reasoning by the Tribunal appears to be on account of misreading the orders and the law
- 12 -
WP No. 26048 of 2022applicable with regard to the deputation. Hence, the order impugned warrants interference at our hands. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal rendered in Application No.4916/2022 dated 22.12.2022 is set-aside.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The writ petition stands ordered accordingly."
3. Learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned AGA would also fairly concede the same.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.26035/2022.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1