IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOs. 8447 - 8448 OF 2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SHRI. J. S. SUBBARAMAIAH SON OF LATE SRINIVAS SHETTY AGED 41 YEARS DEPUTY CONTROLLER/ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KHANIJABHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.
RESIDING AT NO. SURYA LAYOUT, AYYAPPANAGAR, K.R.PURAM BENGALURU - 560 032.
... PETITIONER (BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. SHRI T.K.GOPALAKRISHNA SON OF T.J.KEMPEGOUDA AGED 33 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY CONTROLLER (FINANCE), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, DASARAHALLI BAGALGUNTE, HESARGATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076.
4. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKARVEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Ms. M.L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 12.02.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.6997 OF 2018 CONNECTED WITH APPLICATION NO.8516 OF 2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2019 PASSED IN REVIEW APPLICATION NOS.6 AND 7 OF 2019 BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALLOW THE MAIN APPLICATION NO.6997 OF 2018 CONNECTED WITH APPLICATION NO.8516 OF 2018 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2019 passed in Application No.6997 of 2018 connected with Application No.8516 of 2018 and also the order dated 15.02.2019 passed in Review Application Nos. 6 and 7 of 2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in rejecting the applications of the petitioner, the present petitions are filed.
2. The undisputed fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Controller of Accounts and Auditor, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru vide notification dated 11.9.2015. He took charge on 14.9.2015. On 24.01.2017, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Controller (Accounts) and posted to the same office - KIADB. He took charge to the promoted post on 25.01.2017. Thereafter, he was sought to be transferred by the transfer order dated 10.09.2018. The Tribunal on considering the plea of the petitioner held that as on 24.01.2019, he has already completed two years. The second reason assigned is that, since he has been given a posting in Bengaluru City itself, it would not cause any hardship to the applicant or his family. The third reason assigned is that, the post which he has been transferred is vacant for a very long time and therefore, the Tribunal did not find any ground to interfere with the order of transfer.
3. Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. He further contends the fact that the applicant having completed the service for two years as on the date of the impugned order cannot be considered. Therefore, he relies on the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.28507 of 2009 dated 19.01.2010 with reference to paragraph 8, wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court held that the impugned order in the writ petition requires to be considered keeping in view the facts which existed on the date of the impugned order. We have no quarrel with the same. However, what is required to be noticed herein is that Courts also have a duty to take into account the subsequent events that have taken place from the date of the petition, or date of the impugned order, up to the date on which the final order is passed. The subsequent event would aid the Court in moulding the relief appropriately.
4. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner having completed two years even as on the date the impugned order was passed, we do not find that the said order could be interfered with. Secondly, posting is made to an office at Benglauru itself, that too, for a vacant post for a long time. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, is just and proper, and does not call for interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA