IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 34043 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. Nagalingaiah, S/o Puttalingaiah, Aged about 52 years, Superintendent, In the office of The Superintendent Engineer, Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited (CNNL), Varuna Canal Circle, Cauvery Bhavan Complex, Gokulam 4th Stage, Mysuru District-570 020.
R/o No.496/D, II Main, III Cross, Metagalli, Lokanayak Nagar, Mysuru-570 016.
...Petitioner (By Sri. Keshav R. Agnihotri, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, The Department of Water Resources, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Chief Engineer, The Water Resources, Development Organization (WRDO), Anand Rao Circle, Bengaluru-560 009.
3. The Managing Director, The Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited (CNNL), Gokulam, Mysuru-570 002.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Kabini & Varuna Canal Circle, Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited (CNNL), Cauvery Bhavan Complex, Gokulam 4th Stage, Mysuru District-570 020.
5. The Executive Engineer (EE), No.3, Hemavathi Left Bank, Canal Division, K.R. Pet Taluk-571 401 Mandya Distict.
6. Smt. M. Surekha, First Division Assistant (FDA), In the O/O The Superintending Engineer, Kabini & Varuna Canal Circle, Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited (CNNL), Cauvery Bhavan Complex, Gokulam 4th Stage, Mysuru District-570020.
... Respondents (By Smt. Shilpa S. Gogi, HCGP for R1) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records on the file of R-2 pertaining to the impugned transfer order dated 14.07.2017 at Annex-M and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer order dated 14.07.2017, passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Organisation, respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner is transferred from Mysuru to Mandya, at a distance of sixty kms., which can easily be covered by road transport within thirty minutes.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in 2006 the petitioner was posted, on an officiating basis, as Superintendent, in the office of the Superintendent Engineer, Kabini and Varuna Channel Sector, Mysuru. Since the petitioner’s family consists of aged parents, a wife, who is working as an Assistant Teacher in Srirangapatna Taluk, and a son, who has just completed II PUC, the petitioner had requested the respondent to continue his services at Mysuru. However, by order dated 14.07.2017, the petitioner has been transferred from Mysuru to Mandya. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Keshav R. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the petitioner should have been permitted to work at his present place of posting, since a reasonable period of posting has to be given to an employee. Secondly, according to the Transfer Policy of the Government, if the husband and wife are working, they should be kept at the same place, rather than being separated from each other. Thirdly, the petitioner is already saddled with aged parents who need to be looked after. Fourthly, the respondent No.6, Smt. M. Surekha, is working as First Division Assistant and yet, she is being asked to officiate on the vacant post of Superintendent. Therefore, a person who is junior to the petitioner in post, is being asked to officiate against the post which the petitioner is officiating presently. Therefore, the transfer order deserves to be interfered with, by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the transfer order.
5. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly untenable and unacceptable. For, firstly, the petitioner, admittedly, has been working in his post from the year 2011, till the present, i.e., for a period of six years. Thus, a reasonable time has been given to him for his post at a place.
6. Secondly, according to the petitioner himself, his wife is working as an Assistant Teacher at Government Model Higher Primary School, K.R. Sagar (South Bank), Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, which is fifteen kms. away from Mysuru. The petitioner, on the other hand, has been transferred to Hemavathi Left Bund Channel, which is sixty kms. away from Mysuru. A distance of sixty kms., can be easily covered by road transport, within thirty minutes. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently pleaded that, according to the transfer policy, a working couple should be kept at the same place, however, such requirement is not mentioned in the Circular. Moreover, the petitioner and his wife can easily continue to stay at Mysuru, and can commute from Mysuru, as it is the petitioner’s wife is staying in Mysuru, and commuting to her work in Mandya District. Therefore, the said contention is clearly unsustainable.
7. Thirdly, the petitioner may be responsible for looking after his aged parents, but the said fact does not make the transfer order, an illegal one. Many employees may have the responsibility to look after their aged parents. But merely to look after the aged parents, the respondents cannot be preventing from transferring the petitioner.
8. Fourthly, even if Smt. M. Surekha, respondent No.6, working as First Division Assistant, is being asked to officiate as Superintendent in the office of Superintendent Engineer, the same is within the discretion of the respondent. This Court cannot sit over the decision of the respondent.
9. Lastly, even if the petitioner were officiating as Superintendent to the place of posting, even then, he cannot claim that he has lien on the said post. Thus, he can be transferred from the said post.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of transfer. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merit. It is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-