IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.2361/2019 & 2772/2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN SRI PRAKASH B M S/O MALLEGOWDA G WORKING AS DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER CHAMARAJANAGAR ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M S BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RERPESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560009 3. THE DIRECTOR TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT RACE COURSE ROAD, CLOCK TOWER BANGALORE-560019 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001 5. SMT PRABHA B S HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR, WORKING AS PROJECT COORDINATOR INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI M NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.10.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.4811/2018 AND 5015/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.4811/2018 AND 5015/2018 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B AND D) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, DEVDAS J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, in Application No.6579/2018 clubbed with Application Nos.4811/2018 and 5015/2018 vide order dated 12.10.2018, is before this Court.
2. The petitioner was working as District Social Welfare Officer at Kodagu District and was transferred as Project Coordinator, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Mysuru, by order dated 28.05.2018. However, by order dated 30.05.2018, the earlier notification dated 28.05.2018 was kept in abeyance and by order dated 31.05.2018, the petitioner was transferred to Bengaluru. It is the contention of the petitioner that the notification dated 28.05.2018 was kept in abeyance at the instance of respondent No.5, to whose place the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner moved the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by filing application No.4811/2018. The petitioner, having been transferred to Bengaluru assumed charge on 01.06.2018. Within a period of 2½ months from the date when which the petitioner was posted to Bengaluru, another notification dated 09.08.2018 was issued posting one Subramanya to the post of the petitioner at Bengaluru.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the said Subramanya was posted to his place at Bengaluru, no posting was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore constrained to move another application in Application No.6579/2018. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to Chamarajanagar by order dated 04.12.2018 and the petitioner filed another application before the Tribunal in Application No.9089/2018. It is submitted that the said Application No.9089/2018 is still pending consideration at the hands of the Tribunal.
4. Sri M.S.Bhagwat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal having arrived at a conclusion that the transfer orders passed by the respondent-State Government was not in accordance with law and has caused undue hardship to the petitioner, however set aside the transfer orders posting the petitioner to Chamarajanagar and directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as Research Officer in the Tribal Welfare Directorate, Bengaluru.
5. The learned Counsel submits that the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the applications No.4811 and 5015/2018 having been rendered infructuous, cannot be accepted. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the cause of action for the petitioner was the original order of transfer dated 28.05.2018, whereby the petitioner having been transferred to Mysuru, without any reasons, the respondent-State Government has kept the said order in abeyance.
6. The learned Counsel would further submit that there cannot be any doubt that the order of keeping the order in abeyance was at the instance of respondent No.5 herein. The learned Counsel brings to the notice of this Court that the fifth respondent has been working at Mysuru from 2013 till date.
7. Sri M.Nagaprasanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that though it is true that the Respondent No.5 has been working since 2013 at Mysuru, she has been working in various capacities and both the petitioner and respondent No.5 who were employees earlier in Social Welfare Department and their services having been merged into the Department of Tribal Welfare on 26.03.2013, the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 is the first order of transfer subsequent to the merger.
8. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that respondent No.5 was retained at Mysuru on medical grounds.
9. Heard Sri M.S.Bhagwat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Nagaprasanna, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State Government.
10. Having gone through the writ papers and on hearing the learned Counsels, this Court finds that the Tribunal had in fact, rightly concluded that the impugned orders transferring the petitioner from one place to another is in violation of the transfer guidelines issued by the State Government. Neither the impugned notifications nor the file notings of the State Government give any reason for keeping the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 in abeyance. The fact that the respondent No.5 has been working at Mysuru, from the year 2013 also cannot be ignored.
11. The respondent-State Government has also not produced any document to show that there was substantial reason for keeping the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 in abeyance and thereafter reposting the fifth respondent to Mysuru.
12. The Tribunal having concluded that the impugned orders of transfer have caused hardship and injustice to the petitioner, could not have stopped short of giving the relief to the petitioner. The respondents having not assigned any reason for withholding or keeping in abeyance the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 and reposting respondent No.5 to Mysuru, this Court is of the opinion that the subsequent order dated 30.05.2018 which kept the earlier order in abeyance, requires to be quashed and set aside.
13. Having arrived at a conclusion that the impugned orders of transfer are in contravention to the transfer guidelines issued by the State Government, this Court would proceed to allow the writ petitions and modify the order passed by the Tribunal. The application Nos.4811/2018 and 5015/2018 could not have been held to have become infructuous. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the respondent-State Government is hereby directed to post the petitioner as Project Coordinator Integrated Tribal Development Project, Mysuru District, giving effect to the notification dated 28.05.2018.
It is ordered accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE JT/-
SD/- JUDGE