IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.29581/2019 (S-TR) BETWEEN VITTALAIAH B, S/O A. BHEEMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, KODIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION, YELAHANKA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560092.
(BY SRI M.NAGAPRASANNA, SR. ADV.) AND 1. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 2. ANAND S K MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, KEMPEGOWDANAGAR SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU SOUTH ZONE, BENGALURU-560019 (BY SRI H J ANANDA, ADV. FOR R2.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OFFICE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-1 (UNDER ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION) DIRECTING THE R-1 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, KODIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION TILL HE COMPLETES TWO YEARS AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THERETO ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. M. Nagaprasanna for petitioner and Sri. H. J. Ananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Notice to respondent No.1 is awaited. Matter is listed for considering the application I.A. 2/2019 preferred by respondent No.2 seeking for effecting the interim order granted by this court on 18.07.2019. Admittedly, the matter lies in a narrow compass as the writ petition is canvassed on the twin grounds of the order being bad as the order of transfer is within the two years and contrary to the guidelines framed by respondent No.1.
3. Learned senior counsel would invite the attention of the court to circular dated 20.03.2014 vide Annexure-C to the writ petition. He would submit that by the said circular employees in group ‘C’ and ‘D’ ought not to be transferred from the place of posting for a period of three years. He would further invite the attention of the court to Annexure-E a request letter by the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayat Raj who incidentally is also the MLA of the constituency, wherein the petitioner and respondent No.2 are working. Learned senior counsel would contend that the same amounts to political interference and hence the impugned order stands vitiated. The second respondent has filed a detailed statement of objection.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent contends that the petitioner has been functioning in the said office for the last six years and hence the contention that the transfer is premature is without basis.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the employees of the first respondent function within its limits only. It is not a case of the employee being required to move from town to town or city to city or any other far off place. Despite the said fact, the employees approaching the court is only indicative that employees desirous to set roots in one place for obvious reasons. The various ward offices of the first respondent are situated across the city only. Mere traveling from one point to another within the city limits cannot be construed as hardship by any stretch of imagination. Despite the same writ petitions are preferred impugning the transfer from one ward to another. The provisions of Section 69 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 fully enables the authority to issue orders of the nature which is called in question in the writ petition. The only other ground on which the impugned order challenged is that it is premature and that it is passed within three years from the posting of Assistant Revenue Officer. The three years period would also include any promotion or demotion and the said three years period is fixed with the sole intention of ensuring that the officials do not develop any vested interests which would be the consequence, if any of the officers are permitted to remain in any place for a period in excess of three years. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working in the Kodigehalli Sub Division for the last six years, earlier as an Assessor and now as an Assistant Revenue Officer.
Hence, in the opinion of this court the petition is bereft of any merits and accordingly the petition stands rejected.
Interim order granted earlier stands dissolved.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A. 2/2019 for vacating the interim order does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE