Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.M. Prashanth Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2023
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO.21643 OF 2023(S-KSAT)
BETWEEN
SRI.K.M. PRASHANTH KUMAR,
S/O MALLESH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORTY
MYSORE-570 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.S.BHAGAWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SRI. SATISH.K)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
MYSORE-570 001.
4. SRI. GURUPRASAD A.B,
MAJOR,
WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
MANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
2
MANGALORE-574 142.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF TOWN PLANNING,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
MYSORE-570 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRASANNA B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE HONBEL KSAT IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 22.09.2023 PASSED IN A.No-
3096/2023(ANNEXURE-A).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI.K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is knocking the doors of this writ Court aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in A.No. 3096/2023, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner.
2. Before we proceed with the contentions adverted by the parties to this Petition, the facts apposite for consideration of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are -
Petitioner who was initially working as an Assistant Town Planner, Office of Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Mysuru came to be promoted vide order dated 11.05.2016, to the 3 post of Town Planner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru (for short 'MUDA'). The petitioner has discharged his duties in the said place for nearly six years and pursuant to which, on 11.04.2022, petitioner was again promoted from the cadre of Town Planner to Assistant Director and subsequent to said promotion, he was posted as Member Secretary, Town Planning Authority, Malavalli, Mandya.
3. Further, he served in the post of Member Secretary in Mandya for a period of nearly two months and in pursuance of order dated 02.06.2022 viz, Annexure-A3, he was again posted as Assistant Director, Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru (for short 'MUDA'). He reported to the said place on 06.06.2022. It is in this background, the respondent-State passed a Notification of vice- versa transfer by transferring the petitioner to the place of 4th respondent herein and placing the 4th respondent to the place of petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2023 after hearing both the parties was pleased to reject the contention of the petitioner by confirming the impugned Transfer Notification, challenge to which is the lis before this Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that respondent No.4 was subjected to trap proceedings by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Police, Udupi, vide 14.01.2022 and a 4 case was also registered against the said officer in Crime No. 3/2020 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and subsequent to his arrest, he was placed under suspension since his arrest dated 14.01.2022. Thereafter, pursuant to Government Order dated 12.08.2022, the invoked suspension order came to be recalled by respondent-State and pursuant to which by the same order respondent No.4 was posted as Assistant Director, Mangalore City Corporation, Mangalore. It is on this premise, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that transfer of respondent No.4 is premature one and also the same is not in accordance with rule 6 (a) of the Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013.
5. Learned Senior counsel further contended that, the petitioner was posted as Assistant director, MUDA, on 02.06.2022 and he has been displaced from his post within 13 months of him being posted to the said place which is contrary to Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines supra. He would also vehemently submit that, State Government has acted in violation of its own circular dated 31.08.2023, which mandated prior approval of the Chief Minister, post general transfer period i.e., post 01.06.2023 to 03.07.2023. Hence, the same is in the teeth of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K.G. Jagadeesh Vs State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P. No. 48988/2016 and M. Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No. 45916/2018.
5
6. Further, learned Senior counsel also submits that there is no proper reasoning forthcoming as mandated under Rule 9 of Transfer Guidelines supra, in order to prematurely transfer the petitioner from his post and he places reliance on the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131. Wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring to its earlier decision in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3 has observed that -
"..... A transfer is malafide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, that is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair."
On these grounds, the learned Senior counsel prays for consideration of writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4, in support of the impugned Transfer Notification submits that the petitioner was working in Mysuru and again pursuant to Government Order dated 11.05.2016, he was promoted as Town Planner, MUDA, Mysuru and he has worked in the said place for a considerable term of six years and it was subsequent to his promotion, he was posted as Member Secretary, Town Planning 6 Authority, Malavalli, Mandya vide 11.04.2022. Learned Senior counsel would further submit that, the petitioner is a highly influenced person and though, he was posted to Malvalli initially, he has used all of his sources to get the transfer order modified in favour of him to come back to Mysuru and accordingly, within two months vide order dated 02.06.2022, he has obtained the transfer order posting him back to Mysuru as Assistant Director, MUDA, Mysuru. Him working in Mysuru since 2016 to 2022 and again 2022 to 2023 (i.e., as on the date of passing the impugned order) makes it evidently clear that, he holds personal sway over the post and hence, he is not entitled to continue in the post, being put in nearly 7 years of work in one place.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 further persuades this Court to the office notings annexed to his statement of objection filed before the Tribunal and submits that, the transfer is corollary to the approval by the Chief Minister viz, page No.137 to the Writ Petition and would submit with all the vehemence that if office noting No.1 at page No.112 is collocated with Chief Minister's approval at page No.137, it is apparent that there is prior approval of the Chief Minister before issuing the Transfer Notification and the Secretariat has acted in furtherance of the prior approval granted by the Chief Minister, legality of which is in question before this Court.
7
9. He would repeatedly assert to this Court that the petitioner is a very influential person and he would persuade this Court to page No.136 of the writ petition i.e., a letter dated 23.06.2023 by a Member of Legislative Council, addressed to Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, recommending not to transfer the petitioner as he has not completed his tenure at the place in question and to continue the petitioner till completion of his tenure. He would further, referring to Note No.9 of the records maintained by the Urban Development Department, contend that the said note has come to picture subsequent to the letter addressed supra, and it is in this background, the file was again sent to the approval of the concerned Minister and Chief Minister and hence, it is in this calculatedly created scenario, the order has obtained the post approval of the Chief Minister, even after verification of the records made available and hence, would contend that the said post confirmation does not vitiate the Transfer Order which was passed after obtaining the prior approval of the Chief Minister.
10. Learned Senior counsel reiterating his reliance on the letter addressed by the Member of the Legislative Council would submit that Rule 12 of the Transfer Guidelines supra, clearly discourage the practice of bringing political pressure in transfers and the provision further states, when a political pressure is brought 8 in by a Government servant, it is the duty of the respondent-State to not to allow such person work in the said place and hence it is on this footing, he would justify the reasons assigned in the impugned Transfer Notification dated 13.07.2022. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
11. Learned AGA for State adopting the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4 and relying on the official notes produced before this Court, submits that the impugned Transfer Notification has been passed after prior approval of the Chief Minister and additionally, post confirmation is also obtained. He would further contend that, the impugned Transfer Notification is also passed keeping in mind the long tenure of the petitioner in the said place-in-question so also Rule 12 of the Transfer Guidelines, 2013 and hence he would submit that the occasion of giving separate reasons under Rule 9 of Transfer Guidelines supra, would not arise, if the long standing tenure of petitioner is concerned and on the above grounds he prays for dismissal of the petition and confirmation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
12. Heard learned Senior counsel Sri. M.S.Bhagwat for Sri. Satish K learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior counsel Sri Ashok S Haranahalli for Sri Prasanna B.R. learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Similarly, Sri T.P. Vivekananda learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.3 and learned AGA. We 9 have also perused the pleadings and the records made available to this Court during the course of hearing.
13. The present writ petition is filed calling-in-question the legality of the impugned Transfer Notification passed vide order dated 13.07.2022, on it being premature and without prior approval of Chief Minister for affecting the said impugned Transfer Notification supra. In address to the first limb of the argument by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we find that, respondent No.4 was subjected to trap proceedings by ACB Police, Udupi, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in pursuance to his arrest in the said trap proceedings, invoking Rule 10 of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, respondent No.4 was subjected to suspension by the concerned Department and subsequently, the said suspension order came to be revoked by an order dated 12.08.2022 vis, Annexure-A8 to the application filed before the Tribunal and it is by the same order the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director, Mangalore City Corporation and since then, he has discharged his duties in the said post without any further allegations and it is in this background, the impugned Transfer Notification is passed transferring the respondent No.4 to the place of petitioner herein. Learned Senior counsel buttresses his contention relying on Rule 6(a) of the Transfer Guidelines and submits that the place-in-question is a Executive post and when 10 there is any departmental enquiry is pending against an employee, the rule mandates that he shall not be posted to any post Executive in nature, but, it is the responsibility vested on the State Government to make sure that such employee is posted to a Non- Executive post. On perusal of the documents produced by the respondent No.4 along with the application for vacating interim order, we find that, in response to an application under the Right to Information Act, filed by the respondent No.4, the Department, vide reply dated 21.10.2023, has clarified that the post-in-question is a post which is not categorised as neither Executive nor Non- Executive. Hence, we find it relevant to say that, the contention put forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted as the said post being not expressly designated to the Executive Officers it does not estop the respondent-State to post the respondent No.4 to the said place-in-question.
14. Further, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also contends that the impugned Transfer Notification is passed without obtaining the prior approval of the Chief Minister and in support of his contention the reliance is placed upon the Note No. 24 of the records maintained by the State and the contention is also canvassed that the approval obtained at Note No. 24 dated 15.07.2023 is not prior-approval but the approval obtained after passing the impugned Transfer Notification which is on 13.07.2023. 11 We have perused the copy of Government Records made available to this Court vide Annexure R1 to the statement of objection filed before the Tribunal. Before proceeding to examine the Government records, we find relevant to refer to the communication addressed by the Chief Minister at page 137 of the petition which reads as under -
" £ÀqÀªÀ½ ²æà UÀÄgÀÄ¥Àæ¸Ázï.J.©., ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ , £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªiÀ ÁAvÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á E¯ÁSÉ, ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ, ªÀÄAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ EªÀgÄÀ ß ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.JA.¥Àæ±ÁAvï PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÌÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ."
(emphasis supplied) On thorough perusal of the letter of communication, we find that, the same was issued from the office of Chief Minister on 21.06.2023 and has received the assent of the concerned Minister on 26.06.2021. It is in furtherance of the same, Note No.1 was prepared by the Secretariat of the Department detailing the service details of the respondent No.4. Further, in Note No.1, we also find the tabulation wherein at Sl.No.13 an endorsement by the concerned has been made note of. Which states that the implementation of said transfer would be premature in terms of petitioner is concerned and hence, implementation of the transfer in favour of respondent No.4 is unwarranted.
15. Further the Note No.1 also included the contents of the details as to the total number of vacancies in the State to the post 12 of Assistant Director is concerned and on perusal of the entire Note No.1 juxtapose the communication addressed by the Chief Minister is concerned, we find it relevant to substantiate the meaning of the word "PÉÆÃjzÉ" which finds place in the communication addressed by the Chief Minister at page No.137 of the writ petition. As per the 2020 Edition of Legal Glossary issued by the Directorate of Translations, Karnataka State, Volume 2 Page No.1641 states that the word - "PÉÆÃjPÉ" means a 'request'. The synonyms of which are mentioned as "«£ÀAw, «£ÀAw¸ÀÄ, ¥sÁæyð¸ÀÄ, PÉýPÉ, ¨ÉÃrPÉ, ªÀÄ£À«, CºÀªÁ®Ä". Hence, if the word "PÉÆÃjzÉ" is read in conjunction with Note No.1, which is admittedly prepared after the communication by the Chief Minister, we would find that the letter of communication addressed by the Chief Minister was only a request to consider the candidature of the respondent No.4 to the said place-in-question subject to verification records and not a prior-approval accorded by the Chief Minister. Moreover, by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that the Chief Minister has accorded the prior approval of the Transfer before the files and records are placed before him. Hence, on careful perusal of the communication from the Chief Minister and also the Note No.1 of Government records, we are of the considered opinion that, if any, communication is addressed by the Office of the Chief Minister bearing his signature, requesting to consider a person for transfer, then, it cannot be construed as the approval by the 13 Chief Minister, but only be said that the proposal is laid by the Chief Minister subject to verification of service records of the employee concerned, so also the underlying circumstances. Nevertheless, Chief Minister being a highest officer of the legislature has not barred from directing the officials to consider the candidature for transfer after due perusal of their service records in the best interest of Administrative exigencies. At the cost of repetition, we opine that, the said communication addressed by the Office of Chief Minister being request forwarded, cannot be considered as a prior approval.
16. Furthermore, Note No.2 of the Government records supra, reads as under -
"Note #2 £ÉÆÃmï-1 C£ÀÄß zÀ.CªÀUÁ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ²æà UÀÄgÀÄ¥Àæ¸Ázï.J.©., ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á E¯ÁSÉ, ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ EªÀgÄÀ ß ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÈÀ ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ E°èUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸À®Ä ¸À£Áä£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¸ÀaªÀjUÉ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÉ CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀnÖ ªÀiÁr ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð gÀªÀgÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£Æ É A¢UÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÈÀ ¢Þ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É ¸ÀaªÀgÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄAr¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
(emphasis supplied by Me) On bare perusal of the said Note, it clearly specified that the communication addressed by the Chief Minister was merely a "²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì" but nothing else. If looked into the Legal Glossary issued by the State Government supra the word "²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì" means "recommendation". Hence, on perusal of the Note No.2 it is very 14 much pellucid to say that, the State in itself has considered the communication addressed by the Chief Minister as a "recommendation" and not as an approval and it is in this regard, the file along with details and also the opinion by the concerned Department heads, are again placed before the Chief Minister for approval of the impugned Transfer Notification on 15.07.2023, wherein at Note No.24 of the Government records, it can be seen that the Chief Minister has signed it as "C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ", which according to Legal Glossary supra, vide Volume 1 page No.182 would be "Approved". Hence, we are not in congruent agreement with the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4 that the impugned Transfer Notification has been issued after obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister and the same is in accordance with Transfer Guidelines, 2013. Accordingly, we hold this contention in favour of the petitioner, as on perusal of the record we find that the impugned Transfer Notification is in the teeth and also deserves to be quashed in terms of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.D.Ramadas vs The State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No. 11934/2022 (S-KSAT) decided on 25.08.2022 wherein, paragraph No. 7 of the order reads as under -
"...... In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the same is a pre-
mature transfer and contrary to the law laid down by this Court is wholly unsustainable. This Court has often and repeatedly held that a pre-
15mature transfer is vitiated only in the absence of it being preceded by prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Be that as it may, if the eligibility of the petitioner who is before this Court calling-in-question the legality of the impugned order be seen from the records made available to this Court, Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner who was initially working in the post of Assistant Town Planner, till 2016 who came to be promoted as Town Planner and was posted again in the Office of MUDA and in the said place, he has worked for a considerable period of six years i.e., from 11.05.2016 to 11.04.2022. By order dated 11.04.2022, petitioner came to be promoted as Assistant Director and he was posted to Malvalli. But, the petitioner has worked in the said place for a period of nearly two months only and further by an order dated 02.06.2022, said Promotion order came to be modified and pursuant to which he was posted as Assistant director, MUDA by directing the incumbent officer to report to the Head office. We also find it relevant to mention here that, the petitioner has worked in the office of Assistant Director, MUDA as Assistant Town Planner before him being promoted to the post of Town Planner, before 2016. Hence, it is clear from the records available before us that even considering his tenure after 2016, petitioner has worked in Mysuru for a considerable period of seven years. In order to further enunciate the case on hand, we find it 16 relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with transfer of a Government servant in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, held in Paragraph No. 8,9 and 15 asunder -
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 55] , SCC p. 406, para 7).
9. The Courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar [1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 127 : AIR 1991 SC 532] this Court held: (SCC p. 661, para 4) "4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government 17 and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
15. The only question required to be seen was whether transfer of Respondent 5 was actuated with mala fides or otherwise in violation of statutory rules. The transfer of Respondent 5 was not found to suffer from any of these vices. The High Court went into the competence and suitability of Respondent 5 for such posting. It is here that the High Court fell into a grave error. As a matter of fact, the impugned order of the High Court casts stigma on the service of Respondent 5 which may also act prejudicial to his interest in the pending appeal against the adverse remarks."
(Emphasis supplied by Me) On perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that no employee of the Government can claim a right over a post or a right to be posted to a particular place. Incidents of transfer, flows through the service conditions of the employees. Moreover, the very object of transferring a Government employee is to make sure that the employee should not grow roots in the said place or should not develop any vested interest in the said place or even the post where he is being transferred. This Court reiterating the versions of the decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches, has on numerous occasions opined that, any person who has served in a place for a continuous period of more than what is prescribed by the Transfer Guidelines, 2013, shall be transferred to some other places. If not, the chances of him developing vested interest in the said place is more than usual and the same would defeat the very purpose of transfer itself. (See- Sri. N.Venkatesh Vs State of 18 Karnataka & Ors in W.P.No. 23998 OF 2023 decided on 12.12.2023 and Sri.N.Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka & Ors in W.P. No. 7922/2023 decided on 14.12.2023).
In view of the above, differing with the reasons enunciated by the Tribunal, we pass the following -
ORDER
a) Writ petition is Allowed.
b) The order dated 22.09.2023 passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal in A.No.3096/2023 is set-aside.
Consequently, the impugned Transfer
Notification dated 13.07.2023 bearing
No.NaAaEe 115 NaYooSee 2023(E)
stands quashed.
c) Since, the impugned Transfer Notification stands quashed, we direct the petitioner to report to the place-in-question i.e., as Assistant Director, MUDA, subject to respondent-State taking fresh decision to post the eligible person to the post of Assistant Director, MUDA, keeping in view the Transfer Guidelines, 2013.
No order as to Costs.
19This Court places on record its deep appreciation for the able research and assistance rendered by Official Law Clerk/Research Assistant, MR.Shreedhar Ganapati Bidre.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE HKV