Disposed

Arjun S/O Basavaraj Hyadal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/106020/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a premature transfer order of a petitioner Principal respondent to another Principal due to extraneous considerations despite Chief Minister's approval. The High Court held the challenge untenable as per subsequent Clarification Opinion allowing transfers without detailed reasons. The order was finally disposed of as spent due to interim relief continuing the parties

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood disposed of; the impugned transfer order was treated as spent due to the effect of interim orders allowing the parties to continue in their respective places.

Arjun S/O Basavaraj Hyadal Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.106020 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ARJUN S/O. BASAVARAJ HYADAL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL, KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL(469), BASAPUR, GUTTAL, TQ/DIST: HAVERI – 581 110.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 01.

¶14

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

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.

¶16

THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, (AN ORGANIZATION OF GOVT. OF KARNATAKA) NO.8, M. S. BUILDING, FLOOR NO.1,6 AND 7 CUNNINGHAM ROAD,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶19

BENGALURU – 581 110, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶20

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT (HAVERI DISTRICT), MINI VIDHAN – SOUDHA/D.C. OFFICE, DEVAGIRI, HAVERI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI – 581 110.

¶21

MAHANTESH F. KELLUR, AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL, KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, (S.T-675), SOKKE(UDDAGATTA), TQ: JAGALURU, DIST: DAVANAGERE, R/O: NETAJI NAGAR, NEAR AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, BEHIND G.H.COLLEGE, HAVERI, TQ/DIST: HAVERI – 581 110.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER/NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE – D DATED 30.09.2023 BEARING NO.SAKAE-MDS/69/2023 (BHA-1) PASSED/ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 INSOFAR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.5 AT SL.NO.16 AND 17 OF THE ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶27

CAV ORDER

¶28

Challenging notification dated 30.09.2023 issued by respondent no.1 bearing no.SAKAE-MDS/69/2023 (BHA-1) at Annexure-D, insofar it relates to petitioner and respondent no.5 at sl.no.16 and 17, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

Sri Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that Government of Karnataka was running 826 Residential Educational Schools, throughout Karnataka, namely Moraji Desai, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and Atal Bihari Vajpayee Residential Schools for Co-education and Kittur Rani Chennamma and Indira Gandhi Residential Schools for Girls. As said Schools were under supervision of Departments of Social Welfare and Primary Education, for better administration respondent no.3 - Society was formed, with its own Cadre and Recruitment Regulations (‘C & R’ Regulations for short). It was submitted as per said Regulations, post of Principal was to be filled 50% by Direct Recruitment and remaining 50% by promotion. Requisite qualification and method was provided in Schedule I and II of Regulations.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶32

It was submitted, petitioner was appointed as Principal by Direct Recruitment and posted as Principal of Morarji Desai Residential School at Maranbeedu, Hangal Taluk. Thereafter, he was transferred to Morarji Desai Residential School at Karaginkoppa on 10.04.2017 as Principal. And on 07.04.2021, to Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School, Basapur. He was relieved on 28.06.2021 and assumed charge on 29.06.2021.

¶33

It was submitted respondent no.5 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on contract basis and later regularized. While on deputation as Assistant teacher at Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School, Basapur, he was made in-charge Principal until petitioner assumed charge. It was submitted respondent no.5 was promoted as principal on 08.07.2022 and posted as principal of Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School, Sokke. He assumed charge on 09.07.2022.

¶34

It was submitted as per Transfer Policy adopted in respect of Residential Schools on 05.05.2022, general transfers were effected on 07.07.2022. It was submitted, insofar as transfers on request, same was to be effected by

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶37

counseling, on basis of transfer merit points. It was submitted post of principal was categorized as Group ‘A’ post, with minimum period of stay as ‘5’ years.

¶38

But on 30.09.2023, respondent no.1 issued impugned notification effecting transfers for extraneous considerations transferring petitioner and respondent no.5 inter se claiming it to be for administrative reasons. Said transfer was premature. It was submitted while, respondent no.5 had completed tenure of one year and two months only, petitioner had completed only two years three months. Even if it were passed on request of respondent no.5, as per policy, transfer was to be considered on basis of transfer merit points by counseling.

¶39

It was submitted, though impugned transfer was colored as for administrative reasons and issued with approval of Chief Minister, same would be in violation of ratio laid down by Division Bench in case of Sri Rajashekar M. v. State of Karnataka and others (in W.P.no.45916/2018 disposed of on 13.11.2018). It was submitted, even if prior approval is given by Chief Minister for transfers not falling under any of circumstances stated

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶41

in paragraph no.9(a) (i) to (viii) of Government Order, same would be invalid in law and any premature or delayed transfer would be liable to be set aside, due to failure to assign detailed reasons.

¶42

It was submitted, impugned transfer was premature both in case of petitioner as well as respondent no.5 and hence liable to be quashed. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition.

¶43

Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents no.1, 2 and 4, Sri Sunil S.Desai, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri K.S.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.5 sought to oppose petition.

¶44

It was submitted, impugned transfer was not on request, but on administrative grounds, which had received approval from Chief Minister. Therefore, even if, transfer was not general transfer, same could not be invalidated on said ground. It was submitted ratio in Rajashekar’s case (supra) would not avail much to petitioner as same was considered by later Division Bench in case of Smt.Veena

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶46

H.S. v. State of Karnataka and others

¶47

(W.P.no.24786/2023 and connected matters disposed of on 22.01.2024), wherein requirement of assigning detailed reasons in case of each and every public servant, would cause unnecessary difficulties for State Government. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that due to grant of interim order and pendency of this writ petition, impugned transfer was spent.

¶48

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶49

From above, it is seen that petitioner is challenging order of transfer on ground of same being premature and even if approved by Chief Minister, on ground that said approval was without assigning special reasons.

¶50

From order sheet it is seen, initially this Court had rejected interim prayer. However, in W.A.no.100550/2023, an interim order was granted on 04.10.2023 and appeal was disposed of on 25.10.2023 by maintaining interim order till disposal of writ petition.

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶52

It is seen, respondents have not denied/disputed petitioner’s assertion that impugned transfer was ordered when respondent no.5 had completed tenure of one year and two months while petitioner had completed two years and three months. By virtue of interim order, petitioner as well as respondent no.5 have continued in their respective places for more than one year.

¶53

It is seen, both Rajashekar’s case (supra) as well as in case of Smt.Veena H.S. (supra), Division Benches of this Court were considering guidelines for transfer of Government Servants. In Rajashekar’s case (supra), it was held, in case of premature transfer falling outside paragraph no.9, Chief Minister was required to assign specific reasons. But, later Division Bench in case of Smt.Veena H.S. (supra), after taking note of decision in Rajashekar’s case (supra), watered down said requirement.

¶54

Division Bench of this Court in New Krishna Bhavan, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3 v. Commercial Tax Officer, No. IV Circle (Addl.) Bangalore, reported in 1959 SCC OnLine Kar. 130, has held in case of

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12948 WP No. 106020 of 2023

¶56

difference of view between two decisions of equal bench strength, later decision would prevail. Especially so, when it is rendered after referring to earlier view.

¶57

In view of above, challenge of transfer on ground of it being premature would be untenable, as it has approval of Chief Minister, even without assigning detailed reasons, in view of clarification in case of Smt.Veena H.S. (supra).

¶58

But, as parties have continued in same place due to interim order, impugned order of transfer insofar as petitioner and respondent no.5 shall be treated as spent and respondent no.3 shall be at liberty to consider need for their transfer as per current transfer policy, if so required.

¶59

With above observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶61

EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Arjun S/O Basavaraj Hyadal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun S/O Basavaraj Hyadal 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

Mohammed Zaheer S/O Abdulla Sab Jalegar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Gopalkrishna S/O Narayan Mangalarti Vs Mr. Narsinha S/O Krishanappa Mangalari

Tirukappa S/O. Lakkappa Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Madhu W/O Manjunath Machapur Vs Shri Manjunath S/O Gurushidappa Machapur

Venkatesh S/O Babayya Vs the Secretary

Siddappa Kuri S/O Yallappa Vs Karnataka Residencial Educational Institutions Society