IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION No.1383 OF 2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI M J VARUN KUMAR, SON OF JAVAREGOWDA M B, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD SUB DIVISION, PIRIYAPATNA, MYSURU DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NO.1 SUB DIVISION, NAZARBAD, MYSURU) … PETITIONER (BY SRI M.NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI YOGESH D.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI H T NATESH, SON OF LATE. T.DODDATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD NO.1, SUB-DIVISION, NAZARABAD, MYSURU-570001, (PRESENTLY WORKING AT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NO.1 SPECIAL SUB DIVISION, MYSURU-570001) 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, C & B (SOUTH), K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560001.
4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD NO. 1, SUB-DIVISION, NAZARABAD, MYSURU 570001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT-1, SMT.ANITHA N, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 TO R4) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 IN APPLICATION NO.7290 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
2. Respondent no.1 reported to duty on transfer on 10.07.2017 to the post of Assistant Engineer in PWD No.1 Sub-Division, Mysuru. Even before he completed two years of service in the said place, he was transferred to PWD No.1 Special Sub-Division, Mysuru. Questioning the same, he approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal’) in application no.7290 of 2018. The application came to be allowed and the impugned order of transfer so far as it relates to the applicant therein and respondent no.4 who is petitioner herein, was quashed.
Respondent no.4 i.e. the petitioner herein was directed to hand over the charge to the applicant immediately among consequential orders. Questioning the same, respondent no.4 has filed this petition.
3. Sri Nagaprasanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners counsel contends that the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He firstly contended that the charge was handed over to the petitioner-4th respondent therein on 1.10.2018 at Mysuru. However, he has been shown working as Asst.Engineer in Piriyapatna. Secondly, in terms of the transfer guidelines by virtue of Government Order dated 7.6.2013, a transfer does not include movement of a Government servant within the same office/unit from one post to another one or desk/compilation to another one under the same head office which shall not be treated as a transfer. Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order. The same is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for.
5. The transfer guidelines of the Government servant stipulate that the movement of a Government servant within the same office/unit from one post to another one or desk/compilation to another one under the same head office shall not be treated as a transfer. In terms of the said transfer guideline, the Tribunal could not have treated the order as orders of transfer. Hence, no interference was called for in this regard by the Tribunal. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Unfortunately, the impugned order does not indicate as to whether the above fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the applicant therein. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the application. When there was no order of transfer in terms of the transfer guidelines, no interference could take place.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed.
The Order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.7290 of 2018 is set aside. Application No.7290 of 2018 filed by respondent no.1 herein is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR