IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.54387/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
CHIDANANDA.H S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS EXTENSION OFFICER BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT BHADRAVATHI TALUK BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 301 R/AT 376, SREEVARI NILAYA NEAR BASAVESHWARA SABHA BHAVANA 4TH MAIN, SIDDARUDHA NAGARA BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT -577 301 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI S.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. C.M.KHAJURI, S/O MALLIK SAB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS EXTENSION OFFICER BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 301 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE- 560 001 3. COMMISSIONER, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT NO.16, D.DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN VASANTHA NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 052 4. DISTRICT OFFICER BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, RAVINDRA NAGAR SHIMOGA – 577 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.R.SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; MS. M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.6390/2017 AND THEREBY UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 25.10.2017 (ANNEXURE-A2) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1 ARE CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore allowing application No.6390/2017 filed by respondent No.1 by setting aside the transfer order dated 25.10.2017 insofar as it relates to him and the petitioner herein.
2. The transfer is set aside by the Tribunal inter alia on the ground that the transfer of respondent No.1 is premature. It is relevant to refer to the following reasoning of the Tribunal:
“5. It is crystal clear that the transfer of the applicant is premature and apart from that the applicant is due to retire on 30/06/2018. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have not placed any material on record to show the reason for premature transfer of the applicant though he is due to retire on 30/06/2018. Under such circumstance, the impugned order of transfer in so far as it relates to posting of respondent No.4 to the place of the applicant is not sustainable in law. It is also pertinent to mention that respondent No.4, who is a First Division Assistant, cannot be posted as Extension Officer i.e., to the post of the applicant, even on that score also the applicant is entitled to succeed.”
3. In our opinion, the transfer is contrary to Government Order bearing No.DPAR 22 STR 2013, Bangalore, dated 07.06.2013 wherein guidelines have been laid down for transfer of Government servants. The said guidelines have been held to have statutory force by a Division Bench of this Court in Alla Saheb vs. The State of Kar.,[ILR 2017 KAR 86], by relying on two full Bench decisions of this Court. Accordingly, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the transfer of respondent No.1 and the petitioner to warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB