IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.1370 OF 2019 AND WRIT PETITION NO.2740 OF 2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI H. M. MALLIKARJUNAIAH SON OF LATE H. M. PAKKEERAIAH, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD), WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (ADTP), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (EAST), MAYOHALL, BENGALURU.
RESIDING AT NO.8 OF A, PURNAPRASAD ROAD, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI C. M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. SRI CHANDRA KUMAR A ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (UNDER RULE 32), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P. S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4;
MS. ANITHA N., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 IN APPLICATION NO.7879 OF 2018 AND APPLICATION NO.9151 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE (ANNEXURE-A) AS THE SAME IS UNJUST ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF LAND AND ETC.
***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he was working as an Assist6ant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department and was deputed to work in Urban Development Department and thereafter deputed to work as an Assistant Director of Town Planning (East), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP' for short), Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner reported for duty on 05.03.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.3 - BBMP posted the applicant on 07.11.2018 to the Chief Engineer (Smart City Yojana) Scheme and thereafter he was transferred to Road And Infrastructure Department. The said order was questioned before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the same was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. That the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI.BHOJA RAJ VS. HOMBALAIAH AND OTHERS, reported in 2014 (2) K.L.J. 554 has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, he pleads that interference is called for.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any question of law or fact that arise for consideration in this writ petition. The petitioner has been transferred from one office of BBMP to another office of BBMP. Therefore, this itself is sufficient for us to hold that the transfer is not opposed to the Transfer Guidelines.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that there is no legal infringement of the right of the petitioner to question the order of transfer. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to go into the question of law that has been raised by the petitioner.
Consequently, the writ petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ