IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.24445/2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
PRABHAIAH KALLAIAH CHIKKAMATH S/O KALLAIAH CHIKKAMATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT CITY BLOCK, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. M.L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, RODDA ROAD, DIET CAMPUS, DHARWAD – 580 008.
3. PRINCIPAL & EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR (DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION & TRAINING (DIET), VIJAYAPURA – 586 103.
4. SHAREEFSAHEB MOULASAHEB NADAF, S/O MOULASAHEB AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NOW WORKING AS SENIOR LECTURER DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION & TRAINING VIJAYAPURA – 586 102.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R1-R3 SRI N.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.1088 OF 2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.1088 OF 2019 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION) WITH COSTS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITON COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru dated 06.06.2019 passed in Application No.1088/2019 filed by respondent No.4 quashing the order of transfer dated 23.02.2019 transferring him from the post of Block Education Officer to the post of Senior Lecturer, DIET, Vijayapura.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in setting aside the order of transfer dated 23.02.2019, in the light of the fact that respondent No.4 himself had acquiesced inasmuch as he gave a representation to be posted to Belgaum which is his native place. The Tribunal failed to consider all these aspects and proceeded to hold that two years minimum period is required under the Rules and the transfer is premature.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the representation made for posting him to Belgaum was withdrawn as no steps were taken by the Government. Further he submits that the Tribunal has rightly opined that the impugned transfer notification so far as it relates to the petitioner and respondent No.4 is not sustainable and accordingly quashed the same. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal and seeks for dismissal of the petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The Tribunal exercising its jurisdiction has passed the impugned order setting aside the order of transfer dated 23.02.2019. In order to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, there should be serious irregularities or violation of any Government orders or provisions of any law. In this case, we do not find any serious irregularities committed by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, we do not wish to interfere in this matter. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2019 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ca