IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.14197 OF 2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN SRI MANJUNATH.E, AGED 55 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU – 560010.
(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SR.COUNSEL A/W SRI SHAIK ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES ... PETITIONER CONSUMER AFFAIRS (LEGAL METROLOGY), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE CONTROLLER, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, P.B.NO.175, BENGALURU – 560 052.
3. SRI RAMAIAH.M.S, S/O LATE SRIRANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY (ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI M.S.BHAGWAT, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:5.3.2019 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.9087/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.06.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, DEVDAS J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner herein was appointed as Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology on 29.03.1997. He came to be promoted as Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology on 17.04.2018 and on promotion, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, Bengaluru Division, on 17.04.2018. By order dated 12.12.2018, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Controller (Administration) Legal Metrology, at Bengaluru, to the place of the third respondent and the third respondent was posted to the place of the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, the third respondent approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short), in Application No.9087/2018, contending that he was prematurely transferred, within a period of eight months from taking charge at the previous posting. The Tribunal, by order dated 18.12.2018, passed an interim order staying the impugned transfer notification. By final order dated 05.03.2019, the Tribunal allowed the Application filed by the third respondent herein and quashed the impugned transfer notification dated 12.12.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the order passed by the Tribunal.
2. Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the impugned notification dated 12.12.2018 only places the two Officers, to the place of the other, within the same Office viz., Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology at Bengaluru.
Therefore, the impugned notification cannot be considered as an order of transfer. The learned Senior Counsel brings to the notice of this Court orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of M.J.Varun Kumar Vs. H.T.Natesh and Others in W.P.No.1383/2019 decided on 17.01.2019; R.Manjaulamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.530/2019, decided on 18.01.2019 and H.M.Mallikarjunaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.1370/2019 and W.P.No.2740/2019, decided on 25.01.2019, to buttress his contention that the transfer guidelines by virtue of Government Order dated 07.06.2013, stipulated that the movement of a Government servant within the same office/unit from one post to another or desk/compilation to another under the same Head Office shall not be treated as transfer.
3. Per contra, Sri M.S.Bhagwat, learned Counsel appearing for third respondent submits that the Co- ordinate Benches referred above have not noticed the ruling of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.Gangadharaiah, K.A.S Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another, reported in ILR 2015 KAR 1955.
4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri A.S.Ponnanna, appearing for the petitioner, Sri M.S.Bhagwat, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and the learned AGA for the respondent-State and perused the writ papers.
5. The question that fell for consideration before the Full Bench, in the case of S.N.Gangadharaiah (supra), was, “whether the Rules relating to ‘transfer’ contained in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules override the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 and whether it is permissible to transfer a Government servant from one office to another office within the same Headquarters in exercise of the power conferred in the Government Order dated 07.06.2013?”
(Emphasis supplied) 6. Having considered various judgments, including an earlier Full Bench decision in the case of Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in 2011 (3) KLJ 562, it was held that the Rules relating to transfer contained in the KCSRs and the definition of the term ‘transfer’ contained in Rule 8(49) of KCSR have no application for regulating transfer of Government servants as provided in the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. Further, it was held that posting of a Government servant from one Office to another within the same Headquarters, to take up duties of a new post would tantamount to transfer within the meaning of Clause-3 (d) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013.
7. Moreover, we notice that both the Officers herein were promoted and posted on 17.04.2018 to the present posts. Both the Officers are in Bengaluru, but holding different posts. By issuing the impugned notification dated 12.12.2018, the State Government sought to transfer the Officers, interchanging the posts.
Admittedly, the order of transfer has been issued eight months from the date of the previous posting. The minimum tenure, as per the Guidelines in Government Order dated 07.06.2013, is two years. We also notice that though the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister has been taken, there is no reason assigned for the premature transfer. It is pertinent to notice that a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sri.Rajashekar M. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P. 45916/2018, decided on 13.11.2018, held that in matters of premature transfer, the competent authority is required to record reasons stating as to how the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in paragraph-9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order to warrant premature/delayed transfer of a Government Servant and the said reasons have to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Minister to obtain his prior approval as mandated in paragraph-9(b) of the Government Order. After perusal of the reasons, if the Chief Minister is satisfied that the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in paragraph- 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order, only then the Hon’ble Chief Minister may give his prior approval for premature/delayed transfer of the Government servant.
8. We do not find compliance of such requirement, in the present case. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JT/-