IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8519 OF 2019 (S-KAT) Between:
Sri. Devamane (Ramesh P.Devamane) S/o Late. Parasappa Devamane Aged about 59 years, One Month, Working as District Officer Office of the District Officer Department of Backward Classes Welfare Chikkaballapur & District R/at Ganganamidde, Opposite to APMC Market Chikkabalapur & District. …. Petitioner (By Sri.V.R.Sarathy, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Backward Classes Welfare Vikasasoudha, Bangalore-560001.
2. The Commissioner Department of Backward Classes Welfare 3rd Floor, D.Devarajurs Bhavan Vasanthnagar, Bangalore-560052.
3. Dr.V.Ashok Assistant Director Office of the Commissioner Backward Classes Welfare Department D.Devarajurs Bhavan, Vasanthanagar Bangalore-560 052. …Respondents (By Sri.I.Taranath Poojary, Additional Government Advocate for R1 and R2:
Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel along with Sri.S.N.Bhat, Advocate for C/R3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed in Application No.868/2019 dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure-A) passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and allow the application as prayed for and to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to continue the service of the petitioner as District Officer, Backward Classes, Chikkaballapura, till he completes his tenure as per the transfer guidelines and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for Preliminary Hearing – ‘B’ Group, this day, NAGARATHNA J., made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is listed for Preliminary Hearing – B Group.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused material on record, including the impugned order.
2. The impugned order reads as under:
“Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent – Caveator files reply statement along with Annexures-R1 to R3. He submits that the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 at Annexure-A7 has been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and in pursuance of the impugned order the 3rd respondent has assumed the charge of the post of the applicant on 12.02.2019.
Keeping in view that the 3rd respondent has assumed charge of the post of the applicant on 12.02.2019, assumption of charge by the 3rd respondent is subject to the result of this application.
The applicant is directed to report for duty as per the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 at Annexure-A7, subject to the result of this application.
Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent No.1.
Sri Vijaya Simha Reddy, learned standing counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.
Granted two weeks time to file reply statement.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interim direction would virtually amount to disposal of the application in as much as the assumption of office by the third respondent has been given an imprimatur by way of an interim order by the Tribunal. Therefore, petitioner herein was constrained to file this writ petition, challenging the interim order dated 13.02.2019.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent submits that the matter is still at large before the Tribunal. It has to be heard on merits. Since third respondent had assumed charge, Tribunal has granted an order of status- quo permitting third respondent to continue in the said post and it would always be subject to the result of the application and hence appropriate orders may be made in this writ petition.
5. On perusal of the order impugned, we find that Tribunal has, in substance, ordered status-quo in the matter as third respondent had assumed charge of the post and the same is subject to the result of the application which is already noted by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The application is yet to be heard by the Tribunal.
6. In the circumstances, we observe that the interim order passed by the Tribunal is always subject to the result of the application filed by the petitioner herein and that the observations made in the impugned order would not come in the way of considering the application filed by the petitioner herein on merits and in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-