IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.530 OF 2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SMT. R. MANJAULAMMA WIFE OF MALLIKARJUNA N., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHIRESTHEDAR, NORTH TALUK OFFICE, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, RESIDING AT NO.2 OF 1, 13TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 060.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISH S. JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR NORTH TALUK OFFICE, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SRI B. R. RAJASHEKHAR MURTHY AGE: MAJOR, SHIRESTHEDAR (MANAGER), OFFICE OFF RENT CONTROL, EAST RANGE, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI H. C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN APPLICATION NO.9397 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU DATED 27.12.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 26.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-A5 IN ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Shiresthedar in North Taluk Office, Kandaya Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bengaluru and was posted to the place of the third respondent and vis-à-vis, vide a official memorandum 14.11.2018. He reported to duty on 16.11.2018. By the memorandum dated 26.12.2018, the earlier official memorandum dated 14.11.2018 was cancelled and he was posted to his original position. Questioning the same, he filed the instant application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the application. Hence, this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal rejected his application only on the ground that the transfer has been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister.
3. The said contention is disputed by the respondent’s counsel. He contends that the transfer is within the city of Bengaluru and therefore the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The reasoning of the Tribunal that only because the Hon’ble Chief Minister has approved the transfer, there can be no interference by the Tribunal, is an incorrect understanding of law. However, what is of relevance herein, is that the petitioner has been transferred from one office to another in the city of Bengaluru itself. In terms of the transfer guidelines, it does not amount to a transfer. Therefore, we find no legal injury that is caused to the petitioner that calls for interference, since the transfer is within the city of Bengaluru itself. Hence, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ