Dismissed

Dr K Somasundar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023WP/20406/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a government doctor challenging an interim order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT). The Tribunal had stayed a transfer order affecting the petitioner and another doctor. The HC declined to interfere, holding that the main proceeding is pending before the KSAT which has jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it did not survive given the pendency of the main proceeding before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

Dr K Somasundar Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 20406 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

DR. K SOMASUNDAR AGED 53 YEARS S/G SENIOR SPECIALIST GOVT HOSPITAL CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT R/AT NO. 83/1, 6^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK JAYALAKSHMI PURAM MYSORE - 570 012.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANJEEV SHIVARAM HEGDE - ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE MAGADI ROAD

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

DR. ASHA S W/O DR CHANDRU C.R.N AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶20

WORKING AS PRINICIPAL REGIONAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE TRAINING CENTRE METAGALLI MYSORE - 560 016. R/AT NO, 2858, 9^TH CROSS V.V. MOHALLA MYSORE – 570 002.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH – AGA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2;

¶23

SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2023 IN APPLICATION No. 3893/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging

¶28

the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.3893/2023

¶29

and praying to set aside the impugned order.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel Shri Sanjeev Shivaram

¶31

Hegde for the petitioner and so also the learned counsel

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶33

Shri Chandrakanth R. Goulay for Respondent No.3 inclusive of the learned AGA for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶34

It is the case of the petitioner / Dr. K. Somasundar that by order dated 30.08.2023 in Application No.3893/2023, the KSAT has stayed the impugned notification bearing No. Aa. Ku. Ka 219 HSH 2023 (Part11) dated 24.08.2023 Annexure-“A3” issued by the first respondent insofar as the applicant namely Dr. Asha S and the third respondent / petitioner herein are concerned, till the next date of hearing. It has further observed that the applicant / Dr. Asha S who had reported for duty on 06.07.2023, is entitled to continue during subsistence of the interim order. The said order passed by the Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioner / Dr. K. Somasundar, in this petition, by urging various grounds.

¶35

It transpires that the Administrative order dated 24.08.2023 vide Annexure-“B” was issued by the Government of Karnataka, transferring the petitioner and others from their respective posts. On being transferred,

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶37

the petitioner had filed an application for discharge for relieving him from the post of Senior Division Doctor, Channapatna Government Hospital. Thereafter he was issued with the relieving order vide Annexure-“C”. Then, the petitioner had reported for duty at the Regional Training Centre, Metagalli, Mysore, as Principal on 25.08.2023 as per the Government order dated 24.08.2023.

¶38

Later, Respondent No.3 had filed an application No.3893/2023 before the KSAT seeking to quash the Government Order dated 24.08.2023, as she had been prematurely transferred, which is in violation of the transfer guidelines. Hence, the Tribunal by its order dated 30.08.2023 in Application No.3893/2023 vide Annexure“A” proceeded to stay the impugned notification dated 24.08.2023 vide Annexure-“B” and permitted the applicant

¶39

/ respondent No.3 herein to continue in the said post during the subsistence of the interim order.

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶41

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court seeking stay of the said impugned order of the KSAT urging that the Government order is a ‘composite order’ containing transfer of 228 employees and the petitioner has no role to play in the said order and that the petitioner has been subjected to great hardship by the order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2023. Keeping in view the grounds urged, this Court was pleased to stay the order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2023, by its order dated 15.09.2023.

¶42

Now, the learned counsel for the third respondent Shri Chandrakanth R. Goulay has filed an application I.A.No.2/2023 seeking to vacate the said order of stay granted by this Court dated 15.09.2023.

¶43

Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the application for vacating stay has been filed with malice intention by making false allegations and false narratives. It is further contended that the order passed by the KSAT

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶45

is erroneous and the impugned order is against the

¶46

Government notice dated 24.08.2023.

¶47

However, learned counsel for the third respondent points out to the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka relating to premature transfer and submits that transfer of Government servants shall be effected only keeping in view the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013. He contends that the third respondent / Dr. Asha S having been transferred prematurely, is against the said Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013. It is also stated that Dr. Asha S who is the third respondent has initiated W.P.No.3893/2023 against the present petitioner / Dr. K. Somasundar.

¶48

Further, Learned counsel Shri Chandrakanth R. Goulay for the third respondent, has taken us through the interim order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.08.2023. The learned counsel for the applicant therein had contended that applicant was working in the cadre of

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶50

Senior Specialist in the post of Principal and by the transfer, the applicant is posted as Principal, Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centre, Metagalli, Mysore by order dated 3.7.2023 vide “Annexure-A1” to a vacant post. In pursuance of the same, she reported to duty on 06.07.2023. However, again by Government order dated 24.08.2023, by placing the name of the present petitioner at Sl.No.95, the posting of the third respondent herein has been modified, which is against the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013.

¶51

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the third respondent has referred to the reliance rendered in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Karnataka (2021) (1) AKR 370 , and in the case of Mahale D.B. vs. DDPI & Ors (1989 KSLJ 1095) . These reliances have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing in the impugned order, which order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶53

However, learned counsel for the third respondent submits emphatically that when the

¶54

proceedings are pending before the KSAT in Application No.3893/2023, it does not arise to consider the grounds urged in this writ petition. Hence, when main proceeding is pending before the Tribunal having jurisdiction to deal

¶55

with the issues emerged between the parties to the proceedings, the same ought to be decided before the Tribunal. These contentious contentions have been taken by the learned counsel for the third respondent herein. Hence, he submits that this writ petition does not survive for consideration when the main proceeding is pending before the KSAT.

¶56

The contentious contentions made by the learned counsel Shri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, for Respondent No.3 is also supported by the learned AGA for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned AGA has contended regarding the Transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka. On this premise, learned AGA

¶57

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:36038-DB WP No. 20406 of 2023

¶58

submits that this writ petition does not survive for consideration when main proceeding is pending before the KSAT.

¶59

In view of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and annexed documents and equally the contentions made by the learned counsel for the third respondent inclusive of the learned AGA for the State, and having regard to the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka relating to the transfer of Government servants from one Unit to another, it is deemed appropriate to state that Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been encompassed and used by the petitioner for seeking intervention. Since main proceedings are pending before the Tribunal having jurisdiction to deal with the matters are concerned, this writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶60