IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.50046/2019 (S-TR) Between:
Sri N.C. Amarnath, S/o G. Channabasappa, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Working as AEE, KRIDL, Mysore (Central) Sub-Division, Mysore. … Petitioner (By Sri Jagadeesh D.C., Advocate) And:
1. The Managing Director, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. (KRIDL), Grameena Abhivrudhi Bhavana, 4th & 5th Floor, Anand Rao Circle, Bengaluru – 560 009.
2. S.N. Suresh, S/o Not Known, Aged about 53 years, Occ:- Assistant Engineer, KRIDL, Mysore Sub-Division (Regular), Mysore, … Respondents (By Sri H. Devendrappa, Advocate for R1; Sri R. Yateesh Kumar, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 18.10.2019 vide Annexure-C passed by the R1 and same is illegal and unsustainable in law and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner who is stated to be an employee of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., (KRIDL) had been transferred from Mysore Zone as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), KRIDL, Mysore (Central) as per the order dated 28.06.2019. The petitioner submits that subsequently as per the order at Annexure-‘C’, he has been transferred to Hunsur to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that transfer of petitioner as per Annexure-‘C’ is in violation of the transfer guidelines applicable to Government servants dated 07.06.2013, and as the petitioner is Group-‘A’ Officer, minimum period of stay is for a period of three years. It is contended that as per Rule 8 of Transfer Guidelines, his transfer at Annexure-‘C’ is impermissible. It is also contended that the petitioner has less than two years of service for retirement and hence as per Rule 9 (a) (i) his transfer ought not to have been considered. It is further submitted that in the event transfer guidelines are to be deviated, prior approval of the Chief Minister ought to have been obtained, which has not been complied with admittedly, in the present case. In addition, it is also contended that the respondent no.2 was not competent to be transferred in place of the petitioner as he is not eligible to take charge.
3. The learned counsel for second respondent however submits that he is, in fact, competent to hold the post and relies on Rule 68 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules and that the petitioner was transferred as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) KRIDL, Mysore (Central) only pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2018 by treating it as a special case on request, the copy of which is produced at Annexure-‘R3’ along with additional statement of objections filed by the respondent no.2. It is contended that the transfer order at Annexure-‘R3’ provides that the order would be in force for a period of six months.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Employer adopts the argument of the learned counsel for respondent and submits that transfer of the petitioner as per order dated 23.06.2018 to Mysore Zone from Madikeri Sub-division was at his request and was for a period of six months and has also produced the records containing the request of the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner however, would submit that what is a matter for judicial scrutiny is only the transfer order at Annexure-‘C’ and the earlier transfer order does not in any way change this position. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the transfer guidelines have statutory force in the light of judgment in the case of Mr. Chandru H.N. vs. State of Karnataka and Others [ ILR 2011 KAR 1585] and hence submits that no deviation can be permitted.
6. The order dated 23.06.2018 produced at Annexure-R3 along with statement of objections of respondent no.2 indicates that the petitioner has been transferred at his request and would be to Mysore Zone for a period of six months as a special case. By virtue of the order dated 23.06.2018, the petitioner was transferred to Mysore Zone, as per Annexure-‘A’ dated 28.06.2019, subsequently, he has been transferred to Mysore Central. It is to be noted that the period of transfer and as to whether it is premature is to be looked into taking note of the order dated 23.06.2018 at Annexure-‘R3’. It cannot be that the contentions of the petitioner as regards premature transfer is to be looked into only from the point of view of his transfer at Annexure-‘A’ and subsequently, his transfer from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, KRIDL to Mysore Central at Annexure-‘C’. The order at Annexure-‘R3’ dated 23.06.2018 of transfer to Mysore Zone is at the request of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was transferred to Madikeri Sub- division on 01.06.2018. On request of the petitioner that he be transferred to Mysore in light of ill health of his parents, he came to be transferred to Mysore by order dated 23.06.2018, specifically for a period of six months. It is not open for the petitioner who sought for request transfer which was made for specifically six months to ignore the same.
7. In the light of earlier transfer order dated 23.06.2018 being specifically for a period of six months, none of the contentions as made out by the petitioner can be considered when the posting by way of transfer to Mysore Zone was itself for six months, a transfer thereafter as per the impugned order after one year cannot be challenged and to hold that the transfer in the present case was in breach of the transfer guidelines and to strike it down would lead to absurd consequences. The petitioner’s silence as regards the order dated 23.06.2018 is unacceptable. Insofar as the contention that respondent no.2 is ineligible to hold the post, that is a matter between the second respondent and the first respondent and it is not open to look into that aspect of the matter in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
The contention of the petitioner that the transfer guidelines had statutory force no doubt is accepted as the principle of law, however, on the facts of the case, in the light of observations made above, the said transfer guidelines would not come to the aid of the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-