Partly allowed

Sri. Satyanarayan Joshi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2023WP/1237/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's plea by ignoring an interim order from this Court. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for a review and reserved liberty to the petitioner to file such a review.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Tribunal for review; liberty to file review petition reserved; petitioner not to be relieved from post for 10 days.

Sri. Satyanarayan Joshi Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1237 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1237 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI. SATYANARAYAN JOSHI, S/O KRISHNA JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶11

WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (TECHNICAL ASSISTANT) MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B ROAD, MYSORE -570 005.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560 001.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560 001.

¶17

2 - WP No. 1237 of 2023

¶18

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.L.B ROAD, MYSORE -570 005.

¶19

SRI YOGISH C.S MAJOR WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.9, H.L.B.C. SUB DIVISION, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, CHINAKURALI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571 455.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON’BLE KSAT BANGALORE PERTAINING TO A.No-3422/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.01.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KSAT, BANGALORE IN A.No-3422/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶26

learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 04.01.2023

¶28

¶29

WP No. 1237 of 2023

¶30

whereby, the Tribunal has been pleased to reject the application of the petitioner on the short ground that private party i.e. the 4^th respondent has already taken charge of the post. Though it was in agreement with the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner being on the verge of retirement, was entitled to be considered for continuation in the post in the light of the law laid down by

¶31

this Court in the case of C. Vasudeva Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (W.P. No.24572/2005 decided on 22.07.2015) and also in the light of Clause 9(i)(a) of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013.

¶32

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶33

contend that the said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous in view of the fact that the rejection of the interim prayer by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.15769/2022 and this Court by an interim order dated 18.08.2022 was pleased to pass the following order:-

¶34

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 1237 of 2023

¶37

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of transfer, transferring him out of Mysore Urban Development Authority.

¶38

It is contended that the order is contrary to law laid down by this Court in the case of Seema H. and Mahiboob Sab that the repatriation/transfer is without a consequential posting and that the same is impermissible in view of the law laid down by this Court.

¶39

In that view of the matter, there shall be a stay of the order impugned before the Tribunal dated 2-8-2022 issued by respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-A4 in Annexure-B.

¶40

4^th respondent is directed to handover the charge to the petitioner.

¶41

Matter is required to be heard.

¶42

Issue emergent notice to respondent Nos.3 and

¶43

4.”

¶44

On perusal of the order impugned, we find the

¶45

interim order passed in W.P. No.15769/2022 has not been canvassed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that the 4^th respondent has already taken charge of the post.

¶46

¶47

WP No. 1237 of 2023

¶48

In that view of the matter, we are of the

¶49

considered opinion that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by way of review. In that view of the matter, we dispose off the instant writ petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition, if he so desires. If the petitioner is not already relieved from the instant post, he shall not be relieved for a period of ten days.

¶50

Petition shall stand ordered accordingly.

¶51

No order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri. Satyanarayan Joshi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Satyanarayan Joshi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

The Registrar Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S G K Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri R D Mokasi S/O Late Devendrappa Mokasi

Sri. B. Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka