Dismissed

Sri.Ishwarappa H Kurubara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2019WP/108119/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order transferring a regular Assistant Executive Engineer in place of the petitioner, who held the post under a specific Karnataka Civil Services rule. The court found no legal impediment recorded and no prejudice to the petitioner, recalling an interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim stay on the transfer order dated 16.01.2019 recalled.

Sri.Ishwarappa H Kurubara Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.108119/2018 (S-KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI.ISHWARAPPA H KURUBARA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SUB DIVISION, HUBLI-580021. NOW UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AND WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISION, HUBLI.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI K. SATISH, ADV. FOR SRI C.S SHETTAR, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

¶16

SRI H M KRISHNAREDDY, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE:MAJOR, WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SUB DIVISION, NARGUND, GADAG DISTRICT-582207. NOW UNDER AND ORDER OF POSTING AND WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION, HUBLI-580021. HUBLI-580021.

¶17

..... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI DINESH RAO, ADDL. ADV. GENERAL & SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R-1 SRI K L PATIL & S A SANDUR, ADVs. FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:20.11.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.7270/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.7270/2018 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BY THE PETITIONER, AS PRAYED FOR (ANNEXURE-"B").

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

By interim order dated 16.01.2019, this Court has granted stay as prayed for. Application is

¶23

¶24

filed by respondent No.2 seeking vacating of the said interim order. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶25

This writ petition assails the legality and

¶26

correctness of order dated 20.11.2018 passed in Application No.7270/2018 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for the sake of brevity). By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner herein, assailing the order of transfer bearing No.¯ÉÆÃE 315 ¸ÉÃ¸É 2018 (¨sÁUÀ-1) dated 29.09.2018 at Annexure-A5 on the file of

¶27

respondent No.1 insofar as it relates to the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been rejected.

¶28

Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner who was working at Shivamogga, on promotion in terms of Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules was transferred to Hubballi on 20.04.2018. He was relieved at Shivamogga on

¶29

¶30

14.05.2018 and took charge in the office of National Highways, Sub-Division, Hubballi on 16.05.2018. Thereafter on 29.09.2018, the petitioner has been transferred as a Technical Assistant, National Highways, Sub-Division, Hubballi and in his place, the second respondent has been transferred and posted. The same was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has dismissed the application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶31

As already noted, by order dated 16.01.2019, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted interim stay as prayed for. The same is sought to be vacated by the second respondent. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for second respondent and learned Additional

¶32

¶33

Advocate General for the first respondent at length and perused the material on record.

¶34

There is no dispute that what has been assailed by the petitioner is an order of transfer.

¶35

However, the petitioner has to make out a case that the transfer is illegal or not in accordance with law inasmuch as the competency to transfer the petitioner must exist and there must be no other legal impediment in issuing the said impugned order of transfer.

¶36

Petitioner’s counsel submits that when the petitioner was transferred by order dated 20.04.2018 and took charge in the National Highway, Sub-Division, Hubballi on 16.05.2018 within a period of four months, the petitioner could have been transferred by the impugned order at Annexure-A5. That even though the said transfer has the approval of Hon’ble Chief

¶37

¶38

Minister, in the absence there being any reason recorded or assigned, the transfer is bad in law.

¶39

However, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the transfer has been made in public interest and having regard to the exigencies of the administration and in the instant case, the transfer is within Hubballi and there is no hardship whatsoever which has been caused to the petitioner.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 is a regular Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) and that the petitioner has been discharging his functions as Assistant Executive Engineer having regard to Rule 32 of K.C.S.R. and is not regularly promoted to the said post. The post of Assistant Executive Engineer at National Highways, Sub-Division, Hubballi, fell vacant and the second respondent

¶41

¶42

has been transferred to the said post which is just and proper.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the post held by the petitioner is meant for the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and that the second respondent being Assistant Executive Engineer promoted on a regular basis to the said post, he is entitled to be transferred to the said post. Therefore, there is no prejudice which has been caused to the petitioner on account of the transfer of the second respondent in place of the petitioner.

¶44

The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for any reiteration. The facts in the present case are of significance. The petitioner is not a regularly appointed Assistant Executive Engineer. The post that has been held by the petitioner is by virtue of Rule 32 of K.C.S.R. The transfer of respondent No.2 who is

¶45

¶46

holding the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on a regular basis to the post in question cannot be faulted with. The wisdom and decision of the State Government in that regard cannot be adjudicated in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in the absence there being any case made out regarding competency or there being any other legal ground so as to interfere in the matter such as allegations of malafides. Further, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as by learned Additional Advocate General, no hardship or prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we do not deem it proper to interfere in the matter as we find that there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is hence dismissed.

¶47

¶48

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, interim stay dated 16.01.2019 is recalled. I.A.No.1/2019 is allowed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Naa

Sri.Ishwarappa H Kurubara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Ishwarappa H Kurubara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Mukundhan S/O Sambamoorthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Shamanna S/O Hanamanthappa Naik Vs P.S. Vastrad

Sri.Imran S/O Rafiq Ahmed Momin Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Maruthi Chemicals and Fertilizers Vs M/S.Rashtriya Chemicals

Smt. Veena W/O. Basavaraj Mamadapur Vs Shri. Basavaraj S/O. Chandrashekhar Mamadapur

Chakali Gowramma W/O Late Ramachandra Vs a. Ravindra Kumar S/O Yogeswara Reddy