Karnataka High Court
Sri Y A Kale S/O Anand Y Kale vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2022
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
WP No. 105079 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 105079 OF 2022 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI Y A KALE S/O ANAND Y KALE
AGED BOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS DISTRICT MANAGER,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL 583231,
R/AT, C/O. MAHABASAWESHARA WADATTI,
BEHIND RELIANCE PETROL BUNK,
DIWATOR NAGAR, KOPPAL 583231
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANUSHA L.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
ROHAN
Digitally
signed by
ROHAN
HADIMANI
BENGALURU 560001
HADIMANI T
T Date:
2022.11.26
10:54:36
+0530
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
DR. B R AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH SMALL TOWER,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001
3. SRI SHIVANAND M NAGANOOR
AGE MAJOR, WORKING AS DISTRICT MANAGER,
-2-
WP No. 105079 of 2022
KARNATAKA MAHARSHI VALMIKI SCHEDULED TRIBES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT 587101
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA MAHARSHI VALMIKI SCHEDULED TRIBES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NO.10,
3RD FLOOR, KHADI BHAVAN,
JASMA DEVI BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU 560052
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT., ADV. FOR R1, R3 & R4)
(BY SRI.MADANGOUDA N. PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, I. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2022
(ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION
NO.11084/2022. II. ISSUE A WRIT OF QUO-WARRANTO AND
DIRECT THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS OF
RESPONDENT NO.3 ON WHAT AUTHORITY OF LAW RESPONDENT
NO.3 CAN BE POSTED AS DISTRICT MANAGER OF DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND TO CONTINUE AS DISTRICT
MANAGER OF BOTH THE CORPORATIONS. III. DECLARE, THAT THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 CANNOT HOLD A GROUP-A POST OF DISTRICT
MANAGER IN BOTH THE RESPONDENT CORPORATIONS AND CAN BE
TRANSFERRED TO ANY GROUP-C POST OR EQUIVALENT POST. IV.
DISTRICT THE RESPONDENT STATE AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
THE BOTH CORPORATION THE R1, R2 AND R4 TO FILL THE POST OF
DISTRICT MANAGER STRICTLY AS PER THE C AND R RULES AND NOT
TO POST GROUP-C EMPLOYEES AS DISTRICT MANAGER AS PER THE
CIRCULAR DATED 07.06.2022 (ANNEXURE-J) AND STRICTLY ADHERE
TO THE C AND R RULES OF THE CORPORATION (ANNEXURE-G).
INTERIM PRAYER.
-3-
WP No. 105079 of 2022
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
THE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order passed in application No.10758/2021 whereby the order dated 22.09.2022 in application No.11084/2022 has been called in question. By virtue of the order of transfer dated 01.09.2022, the respondent No.3 has been posted in the place of the petitioner while no posting has been given as regards the petitioner and he has been directed to report to the Government.
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been sent on deputation and the period under the order of deputation is extendable to 5 years as is referred in the transfer guideline and that petitioner is entitled to remain in the same post for a period of 5 years.
3. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent is a person holding Group-C post is now by virtue of the order of transfer posted to a Group-A post as a District Manager. It is further -4- WP No. 105079 of 2022 submitted that in terms of the circular of 07.06.2022, the practice of posting Group-C officer in higher post is impermissible and accordingly, petitioner cannot be displaced by 3rd respondent.
4. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the interest of the petitioner is taken care of insofar as the security of tenure of 2 years available to an officer of Group-A post is ensured by virtue of the order of the Tribunal, by allowing the petitioner to continue till 30.11.2022. It is further submitted that the order of transfer of petitioner is to be judged vis-à-vis the petitioner's right to continue in the same post does not depend upon the weakness of the order of possession of the defendant.
5. However, it is submitted by the learned AGA that insofar as the contention made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, same would be looked into in terms of the applicable circular in light of the contention raised as well as the applicable Rules.
6. Heard both sides.
-5-WP No. 105079 of 2022
7. It must be noted that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, petitioner was posted in the present place on 25.11.2020 and reported on 30.11.2020. Insofar as the security of tenure is concerned, the transfer guidelines provides security of tenure of 2 years as regards posting of a Group-A officer. The Tribunal by permitting the petitioner to continue till the conclusion of 2 Years has taken note of the aspect of security of tenure. As this Court is not considering an appeal it would not want to substantiate its decision, nor is it necessary to enter into the validity of the order of posting of the respondent in the petitioner's position as eventually no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by permitting him to continue till completion of 2 years which is the security of tenure that is assured.
8. We would like to reiterate that whenever transfer is made, unless the employee being transferred is shown a posting, the order would suffer from legal malafide and that aspect is to be taken note of while passing transfer orders. But, as the petitioner's tenure of 2 years is protected, no ground is made out for interference, as regards his displacement after the protected tenure. -6- WP No. 105079 of 2022
9. Learned AGA submits that posting order would be made insofar as the petitioner even before he is relieved and such submission is taken note of and this Court refrains from interfering with the order of the Tribunal. However, insofar as the writ of quo-warranto that is sought for, it must be noted that writ petition is essentially filed as regard the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The cause of action to file Writ of Quo-warranto is independent and the same cannot be clubbed along with the cause of action to challenge the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which is a separate and distinct cause of action and both cannot be clubbed in the present proceedings.
10. However, taking note of the circular at Annexure-A6, the Government is directed to examine whether the posting of the 3rd respondent as per the order of transfer impugned before the Tribunal can be sustained and the 3rd respondent is competent and eligible in terms of the 'C and R Rules' and applicable circulars to be posted as a District Manager of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation Limited. Bengaluru. -7- WP No. 105079 of 2022
11. It is necessary to observe that these are the aspects that the Government even otherwise is required to look into before posting a person. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
12. Insofar as the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that petitioner would make representation for continuance, it is open for such representation to be made and to be considered by the authorities in accordance with law. Representation if made, to be disposed off within 10 days.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE HMB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14