Disposed

Dr Savita S K v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2022WP/284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a transfer order. Directed the second respondent to post the petitioner back to Bengaluru East within three months as the pandemic came under control, without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to re-post the petitioner to Bengaluru East within three months from today.

Dr Savita S K Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

W.P.No.284 OF 2022(S-TR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Dr. Savita S K., D/o Krishhna, Aged about 53 years, Working as Health Officer East, 9^th Floor, Mayohall, Public Unity Building, M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001. … Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri. Srinivas V., Advocate (VC)) AND:

¶9

The Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N R Square, Bangalore-01.

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner(Admin), Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N R Square, Bangalore-01.

¶11

Dr. Siddappaji A., S/o O. Anku Gowda, Aged about 51 years, Deputy Health Officer, Rajarajeshwari Nagar,

¶12

¶13

BBMP, Bangalore-560 098. ... Respondents

¶14

(By Sri. Karthikeyan B.S., Advocate for R1 & R2(VC): Notice to R3 is not issued)

¶15

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the modified office order dated: 05.01.2022 issued by the R2 vide Annexure-C to the Writ Petition and etc.

¶16

This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court, made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-C transferring the petitioner from Bengaluru East to Rajarajeshwari Nagar.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that she was

¶20

working as a Health Officer in Bengaluru East, earlier she was working as Health Officer in Yelahanka. By order dated 20.10.2020, she has been transferred from Yelahanka to Bommanahalli and on 26.11.2020

¶21

¶22

from Bommanahalli she has been transferred to Bengaluru East. Thereafter within a short span of six months, she has been transferred from Bengaluru East to Rajarajeshwari Nagar by impugned order at Annexure-C. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submitted that the impugned transfer order has been passed in the public interest. Since the Covid-19 Pandemic cases are rising in Bengaluru, services of the petitioner is required in Rajarajeshwari Nagar, therefore, she has been transferred there. He also filed the modified endorsement dated 27.01.2022 along with a memo. He submits that once the Covid19 Pandemic comes to normal, immediately the petitioner will be re-transferred to her original place, i.e., Bengaluru East.

¶24

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶26

perused the writ papers.

¶27

Be that as it may. As per the modified endorsement filed by the respondent, the petitioner has been transferred from Bengaluru East to Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru on the ground of public interest, in view of Covid-19 Pandemic situation. In the modified endorsement the respondent has also stated that the petitioner will be transferred to Bengaluru East once the Covid-19 Pandemic comes to normal.

¶28

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, now that the Covid19 Pandemic is coming under control, the second respondent is directed to re-post the petitioner to Bengaluru East within three months from today.

¶29

¶30

With the above observations, the writ petition

¶31

stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Cm/-

Dr Savita S K v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Savita S K v. the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Harishchandra Kulal Vs Hegra Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Limited

Ramalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

D S Shivanagappa Vs State of Karnataka

Hanumantharaju T H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vasanthakumar T S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rangamma Vs the State of Karnataka