Karnataka High Court
Sri A C Rajanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2021
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.17729/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI A.C. RAJANNA
S/O LATE CHINA BODAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.456, 1ST CROSS
MUNESHWARANAGARA
KOLAR-563102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
TO THE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION
KSFC BHAVANA
NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU -560 052
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
3. SONIA WARNIKAR
PRESENTLY WORKING IN THE
2
OFFICE OF DIST. OFFICER
BACK WARD CLASSES WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, KOLAR-563102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION/ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 DATED 04.09.2021
VIDE ANNX-C IS SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner, an employee of the second respondent/KSFC is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.»AªÀPÀ 172 ©En 2021(1) dated 04.09.2021 (Annexure-C) whereby the 3rd respondent is posted as District Officer, Backward Classes Welfare Department, Kolar in place of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.N.Bhat for petitioner and Smt.Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel for respondent No.3 as 3 also learned AGA Smt.M.C.Nagashree for respondents No.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an employee of second respondent/KSFC and by order dated 28.02.2019, the petitioner was deputed to the Backward Classes Welfare Department and posted to work as District Officer at Kolar. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without issuing repatriation order, the 3rd respondent is posted as District Officer in place of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has not completed the period of deputation i.e., 3 years. As the petitioner has not completed the deputation period, the respondents could not have repatriated the petitioner to his parent department. Further, the learned counsel along with I.A.No.3/2021 has placed on record, Annexure-D/Circular dated 17.04.2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner posting is to be provided only on conducting counseling. As there was no counseling, he submits that the 4 transfer and posting of 3rd respondent in place of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that petitioner has no right to continue on deputation since he is an employee of the 2nd respondent/KSFC. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioner himself has handed over charge on 06.09.2021 and to evidence the same, she refers to Annexure-R5. Further, learned counsel would submit that on handing over charge to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner reported to duty at his parent department on 01.10.2021. Moreover, learned counsel would submit that the order of repatriation was passed on 04.09.2021 which is placed on record as Annexure-R3. After issuing repatriation order, 3rd respondent was posted under impugned notification dated 04.09.2021. Thus, she submits that there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the 5 petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned notification. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is an employee of 2nd respondent/KSFC. He was deputed to the Backward Classes Welfare Department under Notification dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-A). Petitioner is deputed and posted to work as District Officer at Kolar with immediate effect until further orders. The petitioner has not been provided with any tenure. The notification deputing the petitioner clearly states that the deputation is until further orders.
6. Annexure-R3 makes it clear that the repatriation of petitioner to his parent department and thereafter impugned notification dated 04.09.2021 is issued posting 3rd respondent as District Officer, Backward Classes Welfare Department, Kolar in place of the petitioner. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that there is no repatriation order before posting 3rd respondent in his place. Annexure-R3 6 Notification dated 04.09.2021 repatriates the petitioner to his parent department.
7. Moreover, the petitioner on his own has handed over charge of the District Officer, Backward Classes Welfare Department to 3rd respondent by signing CTC forms as evidenced at Annexure-R5 on 06.09.2021. Thereafter, it is stated that on 01.10.2021, the petitioner has reported to duty at his parent department i.e., 2nd respondent/KSFC.
8. In view of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms