Karnataka High Court
Smt K H Sumithra vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION No.54225/2013 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT K H SUMITHRA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O G.D. MUNISWAMY,
SUB REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OF REGISTRATION & COMMISSIONER
FOR STAMPS, KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE 560009. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
REGISTRATION & STAMPS,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE 560001
2.SRI.BHASKAR S CHOURA
SUB REGISTRAR,
HEBBAL,
BANGALORE 560024 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.B. BAJENTRI, AGA, FOR R1,
SRI M.S. BHAGWAT, FOR C/R2)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD.8.11.2013 PASSED IN APPLICATION
6661/2013 OF KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
ANNEX-A. ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED IN KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 8.11.2013 in Application No.6661/2013 is called in question in this writ petition.
2. The records reveal that the petitioner, who was working as Sub-Registrar in Sub-Registrar's Office at Hebbal, Bangalore, is transferred to Central Office, at Bangalore. In the place of petitioner, respondent No.2 who was working as Sub-Registrar at Sedam, Gulbarga District, is transferred.
3. Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner is premature inasmuch the petitioner has not completed 3 years of service in Sub-Registrar's Office at Hebbal, Bangalore.
-3-
4. The said contention cannot be accepted as Hebbal is part of Bangalore City itself. The petitioner is posted from one office of Bangalore to another office at Bangalore. Virtually it is not a transfer at all in the eye of law in terms of Rule 8 (49) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules.
5. Hence no interference is called for. Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NG*