Writ petition filed by a Municipal Council Chief Officer challenging a transfer order. Held that petitioner was not qualified for the post and transfer guidelines did not apply; petition dismissed.
Transfer order dated 11.07.2024 upheld; writ petition dismissed with directions to handover charge.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19144 OF 2024 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. SHIVAPRASAD S/O LATE PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRAMODREDDY AND SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;
SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. R. SHIVCHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED TRANSFER ORDER DATED 11.07.2024 BEARING NO.£ÀCE/127/nJAE/2024 (E-PÀqÀvÀ) AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question his order of transfer bearing No.£ÀCE/127/nJAE/2024 (E-PÀqÀvÀ) dated 11.07.2024 passed
by the respondent No.1.
15.11.2022 was modified by an order dated 20.02.2023 by which the petitioner was continued as the Chief Officer, TMC, Kunigal. It is claimed that in view of the elections to the Lok Sabha, respondent No.1 vide order dated 09.02.2024, posted the respondent No.4 to the place of the petitioner. This order was later withdrawn on 17.02.2024. As a consequence, the petitioner was posted back as the Chief Officer, TMC, Annigeri and accordingly, reported to duty at TMC, Annigeri on 15.03.2024.
NC: 2024:KHC:40695 WP No. 19144 of 2024
05.07.2024. Even before the order dated 05.07.2024 was released, the respondent No.4 called upon the petitioner to voluntarily hand over charge and accordingly, the petitioner handed over the charge on 10.07.2024. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.4 by then “managed” to obtain a fresh transfer order dated 11.07.2024 displacing the petitioner. The petitioner contends that this order of transfer is in violation of the transfer guidelines and is without prior approval of the Competent Authority and no reasons of whatsoever nature are recorded but it is stated that the transfer is effected in public interest. The respondent No.4 has thereafter assumed charge on her own. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 by which the respondent No.4 was transferred to the place of the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:40695 WP No. 19144 of 2024
passed by this Court on 05.07.2024 and contended that this Court took exception to the manner in which the respondent No.4 was transferred to the place of the petitioner even before
a copy of the order of this Court dated 05.07.2024 was received. He further contended that the Under Secretary of the Urban Development Department stated before this Court that the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 was passed based on a representation submitted by the respondent No.4. Learned senior counsel therefore contends that the unearthly haste with which the respondent No.4 has proceeded to displace the petitioner shows that the order of transfer of the petitioner was not genuine but designed to accommodate the respondent No.4.
Municipal Administrative Service (‘KMAS’ for short) officers were not available, the non-KMAS officers who were appointed as Chief Officers were required to report to the place shown by the Government. It is contended that the petitioner was not a KMAS officer and therefore, was not entitled to officiate as the Chief Officer of the TMC, Kunigal and his appointment vide order dated 01.04.2022 was ad hoc and was subject to change at the discretion of the State Government. He also contended that the respondent No.1 after being satisfied that the petitioner is not a KMAS officer and in view of the disposal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.16481/2024, felt it appropriate to transfer the respondent No.4 to occupy the place of the petitioner. It is therefore contended that there is no error committed in the respondent No.1 doing so and the petitioner cannot claim that he was transferred to the post of Chief Officer as the post of Chief Officer and Community Affairs Officer were two different cadres and the petitioner was merely placed in-charge of the office of the Chief Officer. Thus, it is contended that the transfer guidelines do not in the strict sense apply to the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:40695 WP No. 19144 of 2024
petitioner was not qualified to occupy the post of Chief Officer. It may be that a Coordinate Bench of this Court had entertained a writ petition in W.P. No.16481/2024 filed by the petitioner and in view of the order dated 17.02.2024, the petitioner was reverted back as the Chief Officer of the TMC, Kunigal. However, that did not deprive the right of the respondent No.1 to appoint a suitable person as the Chief Officer of TMC, Kunigal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he had any vested right to continue as the Chief Officer, TMC, Kunigal and he also could not press into service the transfer guidelines to continue as the Chief Officer of TMC, Kunigal. Assuming that transfer guidelines were applied, the petitioner who was a Group ‘B’ officer was entitled for a minimum tenure of two years, which too had expired by the time the impugned order was passed. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the respondent No.1 in transferring the respondent No.4 to occupy the post of Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Kunigal. Hence, this writ petition does not merit consideration and the same is dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:40695 WP No. 19144 of 2024
In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all pending applications do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of the petitioner as Chief Officer of TMC, Kunigal was in violation of transfer guidelines or Section 365 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
Whether a Community Affairs Officer has a vested right to occupy the post of Chief Officer or could claim tenures under transfer guidelines.
Whether the High Court should quash the impugned transfer order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the State Government.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. P. Shivaprasad S/o Late Puttaraju
The State of Karnataka Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development
Director of Municipal Administration
Deputy Commissioner Tumkur District
Smt. G. Manjula
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
