IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.9146 OF 2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAVARAJ B. J.
SON OF B.B. JANARDHANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCCUPATION: DEPUTY TAHSDILAR TALUK OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT RESIDING AT BAPUJI NAGAR 1ST CROSS NEAR TUNGA HIGH SCHOOL SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 2011.
(BY SRI. ARAVIND H., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING,BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAWR, BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. THE TAHSILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TLAUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N.ANITHA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.2.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.855 OF 2019 [ANNEXURE-C] PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED OM/ORDER DTD:6.2.2019 [ANENXURE-A3] ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, WITH A DIRECTION TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS DEPUTY THASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2019 passed in Application No.855 of 2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s application, the present petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the transfer is not premature. The same is disputed by the learned High Court Government Pleader, who accepts notice for the respondents. The Tribunal on considering the contentions of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the applicant, who was working as Revenue Inspector from 2015, was thereafter promoted and given the posting in the same office, held that the complainant has been working in the same place for almost four years. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it cannot be said that the order was premature. Even if the petitioner has been promoted on 16.04.2018, and he has been presently transferred in terms of the order dated 6.2.2019, in view of the fact that he was in the same office for about four years, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
The learned High Court Government Pleader is granted four weeks’ time to file memo of appearance.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA