Allowed

Sri P Shivaprasad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024WP/16481/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a transfer notification appointing another officer as Chief Officer of a Town Municipal Council while the petitioner was incumbent. The High Court of Karnataka, noting a subsequent government order withdrawing the appointee's posting, held the impugned notification unsustainable and quashed it, directing the return of charge.

What did the court decide?

Notification dated 07.03.2024 posted by First Respondent queching Rs as Chief Officer TMC, Kunigal Quashed. Directing Third Respondent to hand over charge to petitioner forthwith. Ordered First Respon

Sri P Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25424 WP No. 16481 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16481 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI P SHIVAPRASAD S/O LAE PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶9

WAS WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICE

¶10

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

¶11

KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION V V TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANBALORE-560001.

¶18

SMT. G MANJULA HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICR TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC.,AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. D. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:25424 WP No. 16481 of 2024

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-1 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.03.2024 (ANNX-E); QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.03.2024 BEARING NO. NAAAE 23 EMC 2024 (E) PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNX-E) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO WORK AS CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KUNIGAL.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Transfer Notification dated 07.03.2024 [ Annexure-E ] issued by the first respondent, and this notification is issued posting the third respondent as the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Corporation [ TMC ], Kunigal recording that her posting shall be with immediate effect and the decision to post her as aforesaid is in public interest and for administrative reasons. The petitioner's grievance, as is canvassed by his learned counsel, Sri Satish K., is in the following circumstances.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:25424 WP No. 16481 of 2024

¶29

The petitioner was posted as Chief Officer,

¶30

TMC, Kunigal on 01.04.2022, and because of the ensuing general elections and the officers in the appropriate cadre with the Karnataka Municipal Administration [ KMA ] were awaiting posting, the third respondent is posted in his place. However, this decision is withdrawn on 17.02.2024 and the petitioner, because of the ensuing elections, is posted as the Chief Officer, TMC, Annigeri and the Chief Officer, Annigeri is transferred to his place i.e., as the Chief Officer, TMC, Kunigal on 07.03.2024. These transfers are subject to the express condition that on conclusion of the election process the officers must report back to the original posting without movement orders.

¶31

Sri Satish K. canvasses that consequent to

¶32

the afore condition the petitioner must have been permitted to function as the Chief Officer, TMC, Kunigal, but allegedly in public interest and for

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:25424 WP No. 16481 of 2024

¶35

administrative reasons, the impugned notification is issued posting the third respondent as the Chief Officer, TMC, Kunigal without posting to the petitioner. Sri D. Nagaraj, the learned counsel for the third respondent, in rebuttal, submits that the petitioner [a non-KMA officer] was posted as the Chief Officer TMC, Kunigal on the condition that as and when an officer with the KMA is posted, non-KMA officers must, without fail, hand over charge and report to their next place of posting and because the third respondent [a KMA officer] was awaiting posting as of 09.02.2024 she is posted as Chief Officer, TMC, Kunigal.

¶36

Sri D. Nagaraj emphasizes that consequent to this order dated 09.02.2024 the petitioner has reported to duty at KMA and the merit of the next order dated 17.02.2024 must be considered in the light of these circumstances and also the fact that the third respondent has continued to work as Chief

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:25424 WP No. 16481 of 2024

¶39

Officer, TMC, Kunigal in terms of the impugned Transfer Notification dated 07.03.2024 and also because Sri Y.G.Gaddigowdar, who is posted to such post because of the ensuing elections vide the order dated 17.02.2024 did not report to duty and he was transferred elsewhere.

¶40

These rival submissions are considered.

¶41

This Court must first observe that the third respondent's claim to the post of Chief Officer, TMC, Kunigal essentially stems from the order dated 09.02.2024, but the State Government's next order dated 17.02.2024 is categorical and unequivocal in stipulating that the order dated 09.02.2024 is withdrawn. The inevitable consequence of this withdrawal would be that the third respondent's posting vide this order is nullified. This consequence is underscored by the fact that the petitioner is shown in the subsequent order dated 17.02.2024 as working as Chief Officer, TMC, Kunigal and that she

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:25424 WP No. 16481 of 2024

¶44

is transferred because of the ensuing general elections, as the Chief Officer, TMC, Annigeri. This transfer order is common to many and on the condition that on conclusion of the election process the officers must report back to duty without further movement orders.

¶45

If the Government was of the opinion that the third respondent must be posted in the place of the petitioner, either because the petitioner as a non-KMA officer must yield in favour of the third respondent or that the third respondent's posting would be necessary in the public interest and for administrative reasons, there must be a specific order in that context and there cannot be ready inference in that regard especially with the Government stipulating that the order dated 09.02.2024 is withdrawn, as aforesaid, without any exceptions and in categorical terms.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:25424 WP No. 16481 of 2024

¶48

Therefore, the first respondent's impugned order dated 07.03.2024 [Annexure-E] cannot be sustained and must be quashed. However, this Court's order cannot restrict or constrain the first respondent in taking appropriate decision considering all the circumstances. Hence, the following.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The petition is allowed quashing the Notification dated 07.03.2024 [ Annexure-E ] issued by the first respondent posting the third respondent as the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Corporation [ TMC ], Kunigal and directing the third respondent to hand over charge to the petitioner forthwith and the first respondent is directed to issue appropriate orders for the third respondent's transfer/ posting at the earliest and in any

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:25424 WP No. 16481 of 2024

¶53

event within four [4] weeks from the date of

¶54

receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶55

SD/JUDGE

¶56

SA ct:sr

Sri P Shivaprasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Shivaprasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Subraya R Hegde Vs Canara Bank

Sri Srinivasamurthy S/O Late Pillappa Vs Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Board

Sri K L Muralidhar Pai Vs Central Government of India

Karthik M S/O Late Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Pamesh Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N R Nandish Vs State of Karnataka