IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.18081/2019(S-KSAT) BETWEEN SRI RAMESH KUMAR V S/O LATE VEERAPPA M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS WORKING AS OFFICE MANAGER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE CHIKKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR RESIDING C/O OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE VASANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560052 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE 3RD FLOOR, DR. DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN VASANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560052 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101 4. SRI H M BALASUBRAHMANYA MAJOR WORKING AS EXTENSION OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE SRINGERI-577139 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHILPA S GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 & R3, SRI VIJAYA SINHA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN APPLICATION NO.1120/2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU DATED 26.03.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.02.2019 (ANNEXURE-A7 IN ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 26.03.2019 passed in Application No.1120/2019 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’).
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner herein who was working as Hostel Superintendent in the Post Metric Boys Hostel, Shankarghatta, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga District, was transferred as Office Manager in the office of the District Officer, Department of Backward Classes Welfare, Chickamagaluru-3rd respondent herein, on his own pay grade against the vacant post. The said arrangement is by Official Memorandum dated 10.08.2018 bearing No.»AªÀPÀ¤/¹§âA¢-3/11049/1/2018-
19 (Annexure-A1). The said order would state that the posting shown therein is until further orders, wherein the name of the petitioner herein is seen at Sl.No.22.
3. It is seen that after service of the said order dated 10.08.2018, the petitioner herein was relieved from his post of Hostel Superintendent on 14.08.2018 vide Annexure-A2. Consequently, he took charge as Office Manager in the Department of Backward Classes Welfare, Chickamagaluru District, who is respondent No.3 in this writ petition.
4. When matter stood thus, it is seen that on 01.01.2019, an Official Memorandum bearing No.»AªÀPÀ¤/¹§âA¢-3/¹Dgï-51/2018-19 vide Annexure-R5 is issued, to which the temporary seniority list of Hostel Superintendent is appended. In the said list, the seniority of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.170 and as per the State Level Seniority List (Male), seniority of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.194 for the post of ‘Hostel Superintendent’. On the same day i.e., on 01.01.2019 by another Official Memorandum vide Annnexure-R6 the seniority list of Hostel Warden was published where the seniority of 4th respondent is seen in the temporary Seniority list of Hostel Warden (Male) at Sl.No.39. The said documents would clearly indicate that the petitioner and 4th respondent belong to different cadres, that the 4th respondent is senior to petitioner in service and also in the cadre in which he was working.
5. It is seen that subsequently, an order is passed by the Government recommending the posting of 4th respondent to the post of Office Manager in the office of the District Office, Department of Backward Classes Welfare, Chikmagaluru (respondent No.3 in this proceedings). In this background, a communication dated 19.01.2019 vide Annexure-A5 is also exchanged between the Commissioner and the Secretary to Government, Department of Backward Classes Welfare, Chikmagaluru. In the said communication an attempt was made by the Commissioner, Backward Classes Department to show that the recommendation of 4th respondent to the post of Office Manager is contrary to the practice; though the Hon’ble Chief Minister has approved such transfer, the same is not maintainable, which may lead to litigation. It is seen that the other reasons cited by the Commissioner of Department of Backward Classes Welfare, Chikmagaluru, to the Secretary of Government, in the said communication is in trying to stall the posting of 4th respondent to the post of Office Manager. However, the Secretary to Government, who is 1st respondent in this proceedings has rightly rejected the said communication of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and by order dated 08.02.2019 vide Annexure-A6 directed posting of 4th respondent as Office Manger to the 3rd respondent’s office with immediate effect and kept the posting of the petitioner herein pending.
6. It is in this background, the aforesaid transfer order is challenged by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal in Application No.1120/2019 wherein it was contended that the transfer of petitioner from the post of Hostel Superintendent at Shivamogga District to Chikamagaluru District cannot be interfered with on the ground that it is premature in nature;
secondly, the name of the 4th respondent should not have been considered in as much as he is also not competent for the said post and that though petitioner is in a different cadre his posting being on own pay grade the same should be considered in his favour. However, the Tribunal, in its order has rejected the said contentions and consequently dismissed the application of the petitioner, which is in challenge in this writ petition.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is in the cadre of Hostel Superintendent, which is the entry level cadre. The post to which he is presently posted on in-charge basis is the post of Office Manager, which is above the cadre level of the petitioner. So far as the posting which is given to the 4th respondent is concerned, he is a person who is in the cadre of ‘Warden’, which is one step below that of the Office Manager. Further, in his cadre his seniority is at Sl.No.39 in the Seniority list of Hostel Warden and he is said to be due for promotion. If promotion to 4th respondent is considered, he would be in the cadre of Office Manager, which is considered vide Annexure-A6. It is in this background, the Tribunal has felt that the application of the petitioner cannot be entertained and accordingly, the same is dismissed, which appears to be the correct view taken by the Tribunal.
8. However, in these proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner tried to assert that the impugned order is erroneous in as much as the grounds which are urged by him are not properly appreciated and that subsequent to the application being dismissed, there is change in the cadre and according to him, the 4th respondent herein is said to be in the cadre of Warden, which is above that of the cadre of Office Manager, therefore he should not have been considered for the said post as against the entitlement of the petitioner who is posted to the said post on own pay grade basis vide order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure-A1).
9. In any event, this Court would not look into any of these things when admittedly posting of the petitioner to the post of Office Manager is only temporary arrangement. As could be seen from the order at Annexure-A1, the posting of the petitioner to the post of ‘Office Manager’ is until further orders on own pay grade basis. Hence, the same cannot be accepted as regular transfer and further his posting is also not shown as it is on permanent basis, in the order of transfer vide Annexure-A1. In that view of the matter, the posting of 4th respondent as ‘Office Manager’ cannot be found fault with either by the petitioner herein or any other person in his cadre. Accordingly, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in Application No.1120/2019. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.
10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the 4th respondent herein is posted to place he was temporarily accommodated, there will be no posting for the petitioner. In this background, this Court would direct the 1st respondent to show appropriate posting to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE TL