Dismissed

G.Prem Charles S/O. G. Joseph Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2021WP/102016/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a transfer order moving the 3rd respondent to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner claimed violation of transfer policy and lack of posting. The Court upheld the transfer order, noting the petitioner did not belong to the required Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service cadre as per Section 365 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and directed the Government to

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The Government was directed to provide a posting to the petitioner forthwith.

G.Prem Charles S/O. G. Joseph Raju Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.102016/2021 (S-TR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G.PREM CHARLES S/O. G. JOSEPH RAJU AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. TEN HOUSES NO.87, 3RD WARD, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. K L PATIL and Sri. S A SONDUR, ADVS.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

¶13

2 . TOWN MUNICIPALITY SHIRAGUPPA DIST. BALLARI 583101,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶15

3 . K.H.RAGHAVENDRA GURU

¶16

AGE. MAJOR,

¶17

OCC. ASSISTANT COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

¶18

BALLARI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶19

BALLARI-583121 ……Respondents

¶20

(By Sri.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI.RAJASHEKHAR GUNJALLI, ADV. FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

¶22

¶23

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER BEARING NO.NA.A.E.49 T.M.E 2021 (E) DATED 25.05.2021 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is directed against the order of transfer dated 25.05.2021 passed by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-C transferring the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner’s place i.e., the 2^nd respondent-Town Municipality, Shiraguppa.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent by order dated 12.02.2019 vide Annexure-A has transferred the petitioner to Shiraguppa Town Municipality-2^nd respondent. Thereafter on 25.03.2019, during the elections, he has been transferred to Chitradurga Town Municipality as Commissioner. After the elections were over, on 12.06.2019 vide Annexure-B, he has been re-transferred to the original place i.e. the 2^nd respondent-Town Municipality, Shiraguppa. Thereafter, impugned order-Annexure-C is issued by the 1^st respondent transferring 3^rd respondent to the petitioner’s place but for

¶28

¶29

petitioner they have not shown any place. Being aggrieved by Annexure-C, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

Sri.K L Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that he has been posted to the 2^nd respondent-Town Municipality, Shiraguppa by order dated 12.06.2019. As per the transfer policy, before completion of his two years, the impugned Annexure-C has been passed and the 3^rd respondent has been posted to his place. Hence, Annexure-B is contrary to the transfer policy. He further contended that even vide Annexure-C, the 1^st respondent has not shown any place to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.

¶31

Per contra, Sri.Shivaprabhu S Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri.Rajashekhar Gunjalli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contended that the petitioner has been transferred to the 2^nd respondent-Town Municipality, Shiraguppa on 12.06.2019. Due to the elections, he had been transferred to Chitradurga Town Municipality on 25.03.2019. Immediately after the elections were over, he

¶32

¶33

has been re-transferred to the original place on 12.03.2019. From 12.02.2019, he was working as Commissioner in the 2^nd respondent-Town Municipality, Shiraguppa. Since the petitioner has completed two years of his tenure, the 1^st respondent has transferred the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner’s place. He further contended that the petitioner do not belong to Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service. As per Section 365 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), it is mandatory that Government has to appoint officers to the local authority from the persons belonging to Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service. Therefore, they have transferred the 3^rd respondent to the place of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.34611/2017 passed on 03.08.2017. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶35

¶36

The 1^st respondent by order dated 12.02.2019

¶37

has transferred the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent-Town Municipality, Shiraguppa as Commissioner. During the Lok Sabha elections, on 25.03.2019 he has been temporarily transferred to Chitradurga Town Municipality. Immediately after the elections were over, on 12.06.2019 he has been re-transferred to the original place i.e. the 2^nd respondentTown Municipality, Shiraguppa. As on the date of passing of the impugned order-Annexure-C, he has already completed two years of his tenure in the 2^nd respondent-Town Municipality, Shiraguppa and also as per Section 365 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, it is mandatory that Government has to appoint officers to the local authority from the persons belonging to Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service. Since, the petitioner does not belong to the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service, in his place the Government has transferred the 3^rd respondent. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.34611/2017 has upheld the transfer order on the ground that the petitioner in that case does not belong to the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service cadre.

¶38

¶39

In view of the above, the petitioner has not

¶40

made out any case for interference. Therefore, I declined to interfere with the order passed by the Government vide Annexure-C.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶42

Since the 1^st respondent has not shown any place to the petitioner even after two months, under such circumstance, the 1^st respondent is directed to give a posting to the petitioner forthwith.

¶43

Kgk

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

G.Prem Charles S/O. G. Joseph Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Prem Charles S/O. G. Joseph Raju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nissar S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Jafar Vs Farukh S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Killedar @ Mulla

Sri. Bharamappa S/O Late Gowiera Revanna Vs Smt. Eramma W/O Late Somappa

M/S.Shreya Briquetting Bio Energy Vs the Hukkeri Rural Electrical

Smt.Vijayalaxmi W/O Murugarajendra Mirji Vs Shri.Murugarajendra S/O Gurupadappa Mirji

Sri.Vijayakumar Hemareddi Hallikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Khairun Bee W/O Late P. Saddam Husain Vs the Joint Director