The petitioner, a non-party to proceedings before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, challenged an order quashing her transfer. The Court held that since an efficacious alternate remedy existed under the Tribunal's Review Regulations, the High Court declined to interfere and rejected the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 100227 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SPURTHI G S W/O MALTESH PUTTANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, #27, LAXMANSA NAGAR, NEAR KANAKABHAVAN, MULGUND ROAD, GADAG 582103
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001
Digitally K MSOMASHEKAR signed by K MSOMASHEKARDate:2024.01.16 14:46:37 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05-01-2024, PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO. 11094 OF 2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, a non-party to Application
No.11094/2023 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’), is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 5.1.2024, wherein transfer of the applicant and respondent No.3 therein is quashed and both of them were directed to report back to the posts they were holding prior to issuance of impugned transfer order.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Nitin Ramesh for petitioner and learned Govt. Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for respondents No.1 and 2, perused the writ petition papers.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner as well as respondents No.3 and 4 are working as Deputy Directors in the Department of Agriculture, State of
Karnataka. In pursuance of Notification dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure-A3), the petitioner, who was working as District Skill Development Officer, Haveri was transferred as Deputy Director of Agriculture and posted to Gadag, where she reported to duty on 16.10.2023. It is further stated that respondent No.4 approached the Tribunal in Application No.11094/2023 challenging his transfer and posting of respondent No.3 in his place. In the said application, the petitioner was not made party.
4. Learned counsel Sri. Nitin Ramesh for the petitioner would submit that Application filed by respondent No.4 was allowed by the Tribunal quashing transfer of the petitioner and posting of respondent No.3 in his place. Further, learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to 3rd direction issued by the Tribunal while allowing the application i.e., “applicant and respondent No.3 are directed to report back to the posts they were holding prior to issuance of impugned transfer order forthwith”, would submit that in view of said direction, the petitioner would be without posting. It is submitted that the effect would be that
respondent No.4, who is transferred out of Gadag, would come back to Gadag. Learned counsel would contend that the order passed by the Tribunal is violative of principles of natural justice and without hearing the petitioner, the Tribunal could not have issued such direction. He would further submit that great injustice has been caused to the petitioner by virtue of impugned order, hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
5. Having heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and on perusals of writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with impugned order passed by the Tribunal, as the petitioner has remedy before the Tribunal itself.
6. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the party. Normally, Writ Court would not entertain writ petition, if the petitioner has alternate remedy,
unless exceptional ground is made out. In the instant case,
the petitioner has remedy before the Tribunal itself.
7. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Review Applications) Regulations, 1994, provides for filing review by any person, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, but considers himself aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal passed in such proceedings. Regulation 3(b) reads as under:
3. Who may apply for review.-
(b) Any person, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, but considers himself aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal passed in such proceedings may, with the permission of the Tribunal, on a petition made for this purpose, apply to the Tribunal for the review of an order made by the Tribunal.
8. A reading of Regulation 3(b) would abundantly
make it clear that any person, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, but considers himself aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal passed in such proceedings, can file review and seek appropriate relief. As the petitioner is provided with alternate and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the present. Accordingly,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:750-DB WP No. 100227 of 2024
the writ petition stands rejected . The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Tribunal seeking review of the impugned order.
Pending interlocutory applications are disposed off as
not surviving for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
JTR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing a transfer when the aggrieved non-party has an alternate remedy via review before the Tribunal?
Whether Regulation 3(b) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Review Applications) Regulations, 1994 provides an effective alternate remedy for a non-party affected by a Tribunal order?
SPURTHI G S
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
SRI KARIYELLAPPA D KORACHARA
SRI REVANASIDDANAGOWDA H K
S G PANDIT
K V ARAVIND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
