Dismissed

Sri Dinesh H S/O Late Huchappa v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/104357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant in HESCOM challenged his inter se transfer with a colleague as malafide since it recited mutual request he never made and lacked Chief Minister approval post-transfer season. Court held transfer was exigency of service, MD's approval satisfied guidelines, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Dinesh H S/O Late Huchappa Vs the Managing… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12604 WP No. 104357 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.104357 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI DINESH H. S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT O AND M SUB - DN, DIVISION, HESCOM, LTD., SIDDAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, (ADM. AND M SA AA) HESCOM LTD., HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O AND M SUB DIVISION LTD.,

¶14

SIDDAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O AND M SUB DIVISION LTD., SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶17

SRI DEVENDRA DHARMA NAIK, OCC: ASSISTANT, O AND M DIVISION OFFICE, HESCOM, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI LAXMESH P. MUTAGUPPE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 10.07.2024 IN NO. PRUVE (AA)/ LE(AA)/ SALE(LE)B37/SA-2/2024-25/CYC-2420 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12604 WP No. 104357 of 2024

¶23

RESPONDENT THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADM.& MASA AA VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY THE RESPONDENT TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER FROM ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUB-DIVISION, HESCOM LTD., SIDDAPUR TO ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUBDIVISION, LTD., SIRSI BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Challenging order dated 10.07.2024, passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-C, transferring petitioner and respondent no.4 to inter se place, this writ petition is filed.

¶27

Sri Lingesh V Kattimani, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that while petitioner was working as FDA in HESCOM at Sirsi, when Annexure-C-impugned order of transfer came to be passed. It was Annexure-C showed that it was on mutual request, though petitioner had not made any such request.

¶28

It was further submitted, order was passed after lapse of period of general transfer and therefore, without approval of Chief Minister, same could not have been passed. It was further submitted as per statement of objections filed, request for transfer was in fact made by respondent no.4. Hence, without request by petitioner, passing of order of

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12604 WP No. 104357 of 2024

¶30

transfer on mutual request would be malafide and sought for it’s quashing.

¶31

Sri Shivakumar S Badwadagi, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 3 and Sri Laxmesh P Mutaguppe, learned counsel for respondent no.4 sought to justify impugned order. It was submitted though request for transfer by respondent no.4 was admitted, order of transfer at Annexure-C clearly indicated that it was inter se transfer and not on mutual request. It was further submitted, said order of transfer was passed within extended time for general transfer and in any case, it had received approval from Managing Director, who was Chief Executive Officer of Corporation. Therefore, all requirements of law as per transfer guidelines adopted by Corporation were met and there were no good grounds for challenge.

¶32

It was further submitted, maximum tenure in case of First Division Assistant, which would be Group ‘C’ post was 4 years and petitioner had served at same place from 20 years, 8 months and 7 days. Likewise, in case of respondent no.4, it was noticed, he had served for 11 years, 7 months and 20 days

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12604 WP No. 104357 of 2024

¶34

in same place. In view of above and in interest of administrative exigencies, order of transfer was passed and same did not call for any interference.

¶35

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶36

record.

¶37

Admittedly, challenge is to an order of transfer. Impugned order states that it was mutual. But first ground that it was without any request from petitioner would require to be rejected on ground that transfer is ‘inter se’ and not on mutual request. In fact, petitioner is transferred to place of respondent no.4 and while respondent no.4 is transferred to place of petitioner. Admittedly, Annexure-C is in respect of petitioner and respondent no.4, only. Therefore it is ‘inter se’.

¶38

Even failure to obtain approval from Chief Minister would require to be noted only for rejection as transfer guidelines formulated by State Government have been adopted mutatis mutandis, and Chief Executive Officer of Corporation i.e. Managing Director has granted approval as clearly depicted in impugned order. Therefore, transfer being violation of guidelines would not sustain.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12604 WP No. 104357 of 2024

¶40

An alarming fore is brought to fore in this writ petition. An employee has remained in same place for more than two decades in case of petitioner and more than a decade in case of respondent no.4, when minimum period of tenure is four years and yet parties make grievance out of same is quite shocking. It is settled law that transfer is an exigency of service. After having enjoyed same place of posting for two decades, petitioner cannot be permitted to make out a grievance against impugned order and there would be hardly any bonafide in it.

¶41

Hence, desisting imposition of costs, writ petition stands dismissed.

¶42

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶43

VB CT-ASC

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri Dinesh H S/O Late Huchappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Dinesh H S/O Late Huchappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajshree Ramchandra Inamdar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula N W/O Dr. S P Jagadish Vs Managing Director

Sri Philip Xavier Pinto Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraj Vs Sri H.M. Shivandaswamy

Dr Aravind M Shetty S/O Late Mahaling Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Pratik S/O Shripad Kulkarni,Rep. by Her Mother Smt. Akanksha W/O Shripad Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka