IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH 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.11434 OF 2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN :
SRI K. P. NANJESHA SON OF LATE K. C. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR MANGALURU - 575 001.
(BY SHRI M. S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER FOR STAMPS 8TH FLOOR KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 3. SRI BASHEER AHAMED MAJOR ... PETITIONER FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR MOODABIDRI-574 197 (BY SHRI I. TARANATH POOJARY, A.G.A.) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT; TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.1.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7785 OF 2018 [ANNEXURE-A] INSOFAR AS DECLINING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 30.10.2018 (ANNEXURE-A5 IN ANNEXURE-B] ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID APPLICATION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.7785 OF 2018 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The legality and correctness of order dated 10.01.2019 passed in Application No. 7785 of 2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity) is questioned in this writ petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the applicant was working as a Sub-Registrar at Hassan. By notification dated 24.06.2015 issued by respondent No.1 herein, he was transferred to Mangaluru. He reported for duty on 29.06.2015. When he was discharging his duties as a Sub-Registrar at Mangaluru, impugned order dated 30.10.2018 was passed by respondent No.1 transferring him from Mangaluru to Moodabidare. In the place of the petitioner, respondent No.3 who was at Moodabidare was transferred. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 was promoted as a Sub-Registrar by virtue of Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, but the petitioner was regularly promoted Sub-Registrar. That the transfer of the petitioner to Moodabidare was premature. Further respondent No.3 who was promoted on the basis of Rule 32 of the KCSR Rules could not have been posted in the place of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner challenged his order of transfer before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the respective counsel, disposed off the Application by directing respondent No.1 to continue the petitioner in the present post at Mangaluru till 30.04.2019 and to give effect to the impugned order of transfer with effect from 01.05.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal could not have altered the transfer order by postponing the order of transfer from 30.10.2018 upto 01.05.2019 and directing that the petitioner to continue in the present post till 30.04.2019. That such an order could only be passed by respondent No.1 and that the Tribunal could not have exercised its powers as respondent No.1.
4. Secondly, petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner is a regularly promoted Sub-Registrar and in his place an officer who was promoted by virtue of Rule 32 of KCS Rules could not have been transferred. He contended that the said transfer of the petitioner being pre-mature, the Tribunal ought to have considered the position as it existed on the date of transfer and granted relief to the petitioner by quashing the order of transfer instead of only postponing the transfer order. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of transfer may be quashed and relief may be granted to the petitioner.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, on advance notice, we find that the petitioner joined duty at Mangaluru on 29.06.2015 on being promoted and transferred from Hassan as Sub-Registrar, Mangaluru. As per the Guidelines issued by the State Government, normally an Officer is to be stationed at a particular place for about four years insofar as Group-C employees are concerned. However, we find that, that is not a hard and fast rule. In the interest of administration and exigencies of the situation, an Officer could always be transferred prematurely. Contending that the impugned order of transfer was premature, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on noting the facts and circumstances of the case, has in fact postponed the effect of transfer order dated 30.10.2018 by holding that the same would be effective from 01.05.2019 so that the petitioner could continue in the present post till 30.04.2019 which is only about two months short of four years. In substance, the petitioner has been granted relief by the Tribunal. Therefore, all other contentions which arise in the writ petition would not be really relevant for the purpose of deciding the petitioner’s case in light of the relief granted by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hnm