IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P. NO.11054 OF 2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN :
SRI EKANTHAPPA SON OF MOOLI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF DEVARAJ URS BACKWARAD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ARASU BHAVAN, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONER (BY SHRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SHRI.R.BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 4. SRI REVANAPPA SON OF LATE KOTRAPPA KADALIGONDI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR D. DEVARAJ URS BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. BENGALURU AND RESIDING AT NO.447 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, KALYANANAGAR NAGARABHAVI 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 072.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI V. R. SARATHY FOR SHRI B.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.4 ;
SHRI I. TARANATH POOJARY, A.G.A. FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.02.2019 IN APPLICATION NO. 706/2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Respondent No.4 in Application No.706 of 2019 has questioned the legality and correctness of order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’, for the sake of convenience).
2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No.4 in this writ petition who was the applicant and who shall hereinafter be, referred as “applicant” before the Tribunal, challenged the order of his transfer dated 29.01.2019 before the Tribunal. By the impugned order of the Tribunal, the order of transfer has been set aside.
3. Background facts are that respondent No.4 before the Tribunal (petitioner herein) was posted as Managing Director of D. Devaraj Urs Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru, in July 2015. The applicant was transferred to the said post by order dated 25.09.2018 and respondent No.4 before the Tribunal (petitioner herein) was not given a posting. When the matter stood thus, on 29.01.2019 the applicant was transferred from the post of Managing Director of D.Devaraj Urs Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru, to the office of Managing Director, Vishwakarma Development Corporation Limited. Being aggrieved by that order, the Application was filed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner (respondent No.4 before the Tribunal) submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the impugned order dated 29.01.2019, though according to respondent No.4 herein may be a premature order, is nevertheless not an order of transfer at all. He contends that both the Corporations function under the Department of Backward Classes. Further the said Corporations are also housed in the same building, but on different floors. Therefore, the applicant could not have assailed transfer order dated 29.01.2019 on the premise that it was a premature transfer. He contends that when the same was not to be construed as a transfer the concept of premature transfer would not arise at all. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the said order and granting relief to the applicant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.4 herein contended that the petitioner herein worked as the Managing Director of D. Devaraj Urs Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru from July 2015 to September 2018 and thereafter the applicant was transferred to the said post. But, no posting order was issued to the petitioner herein who was to await orders of the DPAR for his further posting. When the matter stood thus, all of a sudden within a period of four months impugned order dated 29.01.2019 was issued displacing the applicant from the said post and posting him to Vishwa Karma Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru. The applicant had every reason to assail the said order of transfer. Firstly, on the ground that it was premature and secondly, it was a transfer order and not a mere change of posting. The Tribunal appreciated the said contentions and has rightly set aside the order. There is no merit in the writ petition.
6. Learned A.G.A. appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, on advance notice, submits that the order of the Tribunal has been accepted by the official respondents inasmuch as there is no challenge made to the same. He, therefore, submits that appropriate orders may be made in the writ petition.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, fairly submitted that if the order dated 29.01.2019 is construed to be an order of transfer, then the said order is indeed premature and on that score the petitioner may not have any grievance as such. But the emphasis laid by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is on the expression ‘transfer’. His contention is that both the Corporations are functioning under the very same Department of Backward Classes and hence it was only a change in posting and not a transfer.
8. We have considered the said submission in the light of the observations made by the Full Bench in the case of Sri S. N. Gangadharaiah, K.A.S., v. The State of Karnataka, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Services-II) and Another, reported in ILR 2015 Kar 1955, wherein the Full Bench has categorically observed that the posting of a Government servant from one office to another within the same Headquarter to take up the duty of new post would tantamount to transfer within the meaning of Clause 3(d) of the Government order dated 07.06.2013.
9. That apart, it is necessary to appreciate the object and purpose for which the two Corporations have been set up. No doubt, they function under the same Department of Backward Classes, but the said entities have been incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1958, as it then stood, as Government Companies with distinct objects and purposes. The main object and purpose of Managing Director of D. Devaraj Urs Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru, is for the purpose of welfare of the backward classes and to ensure implementation of the Government Schemes and other measures for the upliftment of the backward classes and for their welfare. Whereas the object and purpose of Vishwa Karma Development Corporation Limited is for amelioration of Vishwa Karma communities and for taking measures for their welfare. Hence, it is held that the two entities being distinct Corporations separately incorporated having distinct objects and purposes and nomenclatures, the two entities cannot be considered to be the same or a common entity though they may be functioning under the same Department of Government in the very same building. Hence, the posting of an Officer from one entity to another is indeed a transfer. If it is held to be a transfer, then the transfer of the applicant from the post of Managing Director of D. Devaraj Urs Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru to the post of Managing Director of Vishwa Karma Development Corporation Limited was indeed premature, as he had taken charge in the former Corporation only on 25.09.2018 and hence he could not have been transferred to the latter Corporation in a period of four months on 29.01.2019. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order dated 29.01.2019. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is hence dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order dated 08.03.2019 is recalled.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hnm