IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 4681 OF 2017 (S-TR) BETWEEN SRI SHEKHARE GOWDA A N S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS CONSTABLE AT CISF UNIT ISAC, BENGALURU-560038.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI H S PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DL 110001 2. THE OFFICE OF THE SENIOR COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT ISAC BENGALURU-560038 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMANDANT.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF (SS) HQS, CHENNAI-600001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.PRAMOD, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/7/17 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP 21916/17.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT By filing this writ appeal, an order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge rejecting a writ petition challenging an order of transfer, is impugned.
2. The appellant-writ petitioner is an employee of the Central Industrial Security Force. He has impugned his transfer on personal ground. His request was not granted.
3. We do not think in a matter of transfer, we have any discretion to exercise, unless a very strong case is made out.
4. Generally speaking, courts do not entertain a matter in which an order of transfer is challenged.
5. We feel that the Hon’ble Single Judge rightly rejected the writ petition and there is no scope for interference with it.
6. However, as prayed for by the appellant-writ petitioner, liberty is granted to him to join his transferred post by August 7, 2017, and after joining, he may make an appropriate representation to the authorities seeking remedy. We express no opinion.
7. The writ appeal stands dismissed.
8. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application for stay does not survive for consideration, and it is accordingly disposed of.
9. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*