IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.6916/2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SMT. B. V. ROOPASHREE W/O. B. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KARNATAKA RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI PUTTEGOWDA K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT & ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.
3. THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, KARNATAKA RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 009.
4. B. LAKSHMIKANTH, CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI VARUN, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI I. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED:23.01.2019 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:23.01.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.8551/2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ALLOW APPLICATION NO.8551/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (UNDER ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though this writ petition is listed for considering I.A.No.2/19 filed by caveator/respondent No.4, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. Petitioner was the applicant in Application No.8551/2018 filed by her before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for the sake of convenience). By order dated 23/01/2019, the said application was disposed off by observing that the applicant would be completing two years of minimum tenure on 19/02/2019 in the post held by her and thereafter, she could take charge of the post to which she was transferred by order dated 17/11/2018 (Annexure – A6), which was challenged by her before the Tribunal.
3. Being aggrieved by the said observations, the applicant has preferred this writ petition.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 at the outset submitted that the interim order granted on 08/02/2019 by this Court ought to be vacated so as to enable the Tribunal to consider the subsequent application filed by respondent No.4 before the Tribunal in Application No.817/2019. The said contention was sought to be repelled by learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the petitioner herein had challenged her transfer order dated 17/11/2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 23/01/2019, disposed off her application. Thereafter, the respondent/ authorities have passed order dated 28/01/2019, by which the impugned transfer order dated 17/11/2018 had been superseded, was recalled by the respondent/authorities. Therefore, the observations made in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal has been effaced or it would not have any further effect. Paragraph No.5 is extracted hereunder for immediate purpose:
“5. In view of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, it is crystal clear that applicant would be completing two years of minimum tenure on 19/02/2019 in the present post and therefore, there is no impediment to continue her in the present post till then and thereby respondent No.4 can take charge of the post of the applicant on 20/02/2019.”
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 contended that respondent No.4 had every right to challenge the subsequent order dated 28/01/2019 and the same is pending consideration before the Tribunal in Application No.817/2019 and that the impugned order passed by this Court is coming in the way of consideration of the said application filed by respondent No.4 and therefore, appropriate orders may be made in the matter.
7. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration except highlighting the fact that, though the Tribunal disposed off petitioner’s application by order dated 23/01/2019 by virtually postponing the effect of order of transfer dated 17/11/2018 so as to take effect from 20/02/2019. The fact remains that subsequent to the disposal of application by the Tribunal, the respondent/authorities have passed an order on 28/01/2019 recalling the impugned transfer order dated 17/11/2018. As a result, the order of transfer of the petitioner on 17/11/2018 being superseded and recalled, she has not been transferred.
8. In view of the subsequent order dated 28/01/2019, the observations of the Tribunal at paragraph No.5 would have no effect and would stand effaced. In the circumstances, petitioner to comply with the order dated 28/01/2019 and as a result, she would continue in her present post. It is further clarified that the observations of the Tribunal in its order dated 23/01/2019 are superseded by the subsequent order passed by the respondent/authorities on 28/01/2019. It is needless to observe that if the order dated 28/01/2019 is assailed by respondent No.4, challenge to the same would have to be considered by the Tribunal independent of the order dated 23/01/2019 and on its own merits and in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed.
Consequently, I.A.No.2/19 also stands disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*