Petitioner challenged orders repatriating him from deputation to accommodate another officer. Court found valid authorization per circular to cut tenure, noted petitioner violated cooling-off period, and dismissed petition due to lack of merits.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2156 WP No. 200253 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO.200253 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI MALLIKARJUN JAKA S/O CHANNABASAPPA JAKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KIADB, KALABURAGI, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 75 NGO, LAYOUT, SEDAM ROAD KALABURAGI-585101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARED FOR SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN L MALAGHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI A. M. NAGRAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI ASHOK HARNALLI SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARED FOR SMT. AMBIKA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RELATED TO FILE NUMBER, LO.E 285 SE-ASU 2023 AND C. I- 06-IAP (E) 2024, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION IN NO:LO.E 285 SE-ASU DATED 30-12-2023 AND CI-06-IAP(E) 19-01-2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND AND 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY AS PER ANNEXURE G AND H TO WRIT PETITION. ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.02.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner herein is a seeking a writ of certiorari in respect of the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated 30.12.2023 and 19.01.2024 by which the services of the petitioner was repatriated to parental Department i.e. Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited and his place the respondent No.4 was appointed on deputation.
KIADB, had not completed his tenure of the five years on deputation.
No.4 was working as Executive Engineer in Public Works Department (PWD hereinafter) that is respondent No.2, he was on deputation to Urban Development Authority, Kalaburagi since about four months. The respondent No.2 i.e. the Department of PWD by office memorandum dated 30.12.2023 withdraw the order of deputation of the respondent No.4 from the urban Development Authority, Kalaburagi and he was placed in hands of the respondent No.1 i.e. Industries and Commerce to enable the respondent No.4 to be appointed as Executive Engineer at KIADB in the place of the petitioner as per Annexure-G. Thereafter, by OM dated 19.01.2024 the 1st respondent withdrew the services of the petitioner from the KIADB and he was repatriated to the parent department i.e. Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., only to accommodate respondent No.4. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner approached this Court in this writ petition.
violative of the settled proposition of law and they are liable to be quashed.
to accommodate the respondent No.4 and as such the said decision is arbitrary and liable to be deferred with.
appeared through their counsels.
also heard the arguments by High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri. A.M.Nagaral appearing for respondent No.3.
to be followed while the petitioner is being disturbed from his posting. He contends that as per the said guidelines, the petitioner has to complete at least a period of five years and therefore since he had not completed the said minimum period on deputation, the impugned order is illegal. He submits that the scheme of the deputation require the parent department being requested by the borrowing department and then the parent department has to place the services of the government servant at the hands of the borrowing department and then there would be order of deputation. It is submitted that in the case on hand, the borrowing department could not repatriate the government servant without the consent of the parent department. Therefore, he submits that there is violation of the scheme of the deputation. He further urged that the transfer guidelines are having a statutory force as held by this Court in catena of decisions. He also submits that the guidelines say that reasons are to be given as per the Rule No.7 and 9. In this regard he rely on the judgment in the case of Rajashekar M. V/s The State of Karnataka
and Others1 . Then he submitted that the petitioner has also filed additional grounds along with an I.A. He submits that earlier petitioner was on deputation to the Water Resources Department and there he had opted for absorption of his services in the said department. However, despite a consent being given by the parent department of the petitioner, his services were not absorbed in the Water Resources Department and therefore he had filed a writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed but the writ appeal is pending before this Court. Therefore he submits that the repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department is not proper and it is illegal. It is also submitted that though the order of deputation of respondent No.4 is approved by the Chief Minister, there are no reasons assigned.
1 MANU/KA/5189/2018
submit that the petitioner was on deputation at Water Resource Department for a period of ten years i.e. from 2012 to 2022. Thereafter, only for about ten months he was in parent department and then again he was deputed to respondent No.3-KIADB in the year 2022. He also points out that though the post held by the petitioner at KIADB was of the higher pay scale, he was appointed on his own pay scale which is improper and illegal. Therefore, it is submitted that he could not have been sent on deputation. He further argued that the guidelines issued by the government laid down that every year, the deputations have to be reviewed and if there are officials who are eligible, then the officials on deputation have to be repatriated to the parent department. Therefore, by relying on the Rule 6 of the Transfer Guidelines, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submit that no fault can be found in respect of the impugned orders. It is also submitted that the appointment of the officials on own pay scale has been discontinued by the Government
in view of the order dated 12.09.2023. Therefore he submits that the impugned order need not be disturbed.
clearly indicate that he was appointed as Engineer in Hutti Gold Mines Limited in February-2005 then he was promoted as a Deputy Manager in the year 2010. From 20.04.2012, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Water Resources Department where consent was sought from the interested officials on deputation for absorption. He extended his consent for absorption. But while the final list was prepared, his name was not included and as such he had challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.201920/2021. The said writ petition came to be dismissed and therefore the Writ Appeal No.200106/2022 was filed and the same is pending. This would indicate that the petitioner was on deputation to the Water Resources Department for about 10 years.
deputed to the respondent No.3-KIADB. Such deputation of the petitioner with respondent No.3-KIADB was on his own pay scale. Thus it is evident that the petitioner was of the lower pay scale but he was appointed to a post of the higher pay scale at KIADB on his own payscale.
years at WRD department is in clear violation of the transfer guidelines of 2013.
¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ/¤AiÉÆÃd£É CxÀªÁ £ÉªÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ F PɼÀV£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ
RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ,-
(C) AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ UÀA©üÃgÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½zÀÝ°è ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉ/Qæ«Ä£À¯ï £ÀqÀªÀ½ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ°è CxÀªÁ ¨ÁQ¬ÄzÀÝ°è CxÀªÁ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉƽ¸À®Ä GzÉÝò¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ°è CAvÀºÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀëªÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ/ PÁAiÀÄðPÁj ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ £ÉëĸÀzÉà CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨ÁQ¬ÄgÀĪÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀ¸ÀÛPÉëÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®è¢gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÁjAiÉÄÃvÀgÀ (noneexecutive) ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ £ÉëĸÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ªÀÄÄzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉ/Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¨ÁQ¬ÄgÀĪÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß CªÀ£ÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ.
i. »A¢£À ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÈ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ZÁvÀĪÀiÁð¸ÀåCªÀ¢ü (PÀÆ°AUï D¥sï ¦ÃjAiÀÄqï) ªÀÄÄV¸ÀzÀ PÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß »A¢£À ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è 5 ªÀµÀð PÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À®Ä ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. M§â ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß MAzÉà ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀzÉà ¥ÀzÉà ¤AiÉÆÃf¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤µÉâü¸À¯ÁVzÉ;
ii. E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è£À MAzÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ vÀÄA§®Ä D E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀå«®è¢zÀÝ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðUÀ¼À°è D ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¸ÀĪÀAw®è. F jÃwAiÀÄ ¤AiÉÆÃd£UÉ À¼£À ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è ¥Àæw ªÀµð CªÀ ÀÅUÀ¼£À ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ£Àgï¥Àj²Ã°¹ D ºÀÄzÝAiÉ ÀÄ£ÀÄß vA§®Ä À ¸ÀÆPÀÛ E¯ÁSÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀågÁzÀ°è ¤AiÉÆÃfvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀÈ E¯ÁSUÉ É »AzÀÄjV¸ÀvÀPÌzÀ ÀÄÝ;
concerned, it is evident that rule 6 (Aa)(ii) lays down that if the eligible officials are not available as per the C & R
rules, then only the officials of the other department may be deputed to such post. Whenever there are such deputations, every year it has to be reviewed and soon after the eligible officials are available, the officials on deputation have to be repatriated their parent department. This rule clearly indicate that if the eligible candidates are available, then every year such deputations have to be reviewed. This rule would invariably indicate that the rule of five years on deputation is not absolute. The five years rule is qualified by the availability of the eligible government servant who can be posted to such post. In other words the deputations are to be resorted to only if the eligible candidates are not available. However, the deputation on own pay scale, to a post of higher rank is also prohibited as per the circular and the said circular refers to the G.O. dated 07.06.2013.
of the respondent No. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Veena H.S. V/s The State of Karnataka and others2 has observed as below:
“In this legal background, if the cases of the petitioners are to be considered keeping in view the findings recorded in Rajasehkar M’s case supra, then it would be difficult for the State Government to refer to each and every individual and assign the reasons stipulated as against their transfers. Moreover, in a given peculiar circumstances fo the case on hand, we find it relevant to state that Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines cannot be read in isolation the Transfer Guidelines, 2013, as the same, if read in conjuncture with the very principles and object of the Transfer then the present transfer seems to be one that is covered under the ambit of Rule9(a) of the Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013. Hence, it is on this ground we opine that, under peculiar circumstances, like the case on hand, it is not mandatory for the respondent-State to script the reasons as contemplated under Rule
2 W.P.No.2024786/2023 dated 22.1.2024
9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Transfer guidelines supra, provided the same shall be reflected in the records that are made available before obtaining prior-approval from the Chief Minister. In the present case on hand, if the impugned Transfer Notifications are read along with the service records of these petitioners, then it can be clearly seen that the petitioners are holding one or the other post in one place itself for considerable period.”
Karnataka and others3 holds that the 2013 guidelines refer to the transfers, they are applicable to the deputations also, it was rendered while considering deputation on the ground of impending retirement of the government servant and her capacity to handle the post. It does not specifically refer to the approval of the deputation by the Chief Minister. Thus it is evident that though it was not mandatory for the department to obtain the approval of the Chief Minister, such an approval has been obtained.
3 WP No. 3357/2022 dated 12.4.2022
a Writ Appeal, which is pending. The fact that he was serving in and around Kalaburagi for more than 10 years is not disputed. So also it is evident that for most part of his service, he did not work in his parent department, i.e., Hatti Goldmines Company Ltd, is also an admitted fact. In view of the Circular issued by the Govt dated 12.09.2023, the contention of the petitioner that he did not complete his tenure of 5 years on deputation to the respondent No. 3 KIADB cannot be countenanced. When viewed in this background, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs S N Maity4 , which held that curtailment of the tenure of 5 years deputation without any reasons is unsustainable, cannot be made applicable to the present case.
4 (2015) 4 SCC 164
No. 4. The judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Sri C B Chikkalagi Vs State of Karnataka5 has observed as below:
“iii) To put it shortly, the idea of deputation involves three ingredients namely, lending department, the borrowing department and the lent hand, ordinarily, a valid deputation envisages a consensus amongst all the three agencies involved, unless the law otherwise states; Rule 50 of KCS Rules provides for deputation of a Government servant from one department to another and his entitlement to the emoluments on such deputation; Rule 50(1) reads as under:
“50. (1) When a Government servant is permanently transferred or deputed from one department to another under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, he will draw pay in the new post at the same stage in which he was drawing in the old post and earn
5 WP 226384/2020 dtd 28.9.2020
the next increment on the date on which he would have earned it had he continued in the old post.”
Rules 15 & 16 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 provide for the disciplinary proceedings for the misconduct of deputationists; going by the text and context of these rules, it can be safely stated that in the matter of deputation in Government service, an employee may not have much say; however, no department can thrust it’s employee on deputation to another, as a general rule; similarly, a borrowing department cannot cut short the tenure of the deputation unilaterally, in the absence of authorization.”
cutting short the tenure of the deputation. Obviously, such authorization is in accordance with the Circular and the Transfer guidelines. Therefore, there is no such violation of the scheme of deputations as urged by the petitioner.
undergone the cooling off period since 2010, when he went on deputation. Under these circumstances, the petition is bereft of any merits and thus is liable to be dismissed.
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders cancelling deputation and repatriating the petitioner violate transfer guidelines regarding tenure and cooling-off periods.
Whether the Chief Minister was required to assign reasons when approving the acceptance of the new deputation.
Whether the borrowing department could unilaterally cut short the tenure of the petitioner's deputation to accommodate another officer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajashekar M. V/s The State of Karnataka and OthersReferred¶49
Rajashekar M. V/s The State of Karnataka and Others
MANU/KA/5189/2018Referred¶53
Smt. Veena H.S. V/s The State of Karnataka and othersExplained¶83
Smt. Veena H.S. V/s The State of Karnataka and others
W.P.No.2024786/2023 dated 22.1.2024Referred¶85
Smt Jennifer Lolita C Vs State of Karnataka and othersDistinguished¶88
Smt Jennifer Lolita C Vs State of Karnataka and others
Union of India Vs S N MaityDistinguished¶94
Union of India Vs S N Maity
(2015) 4 SCC 164Referred¶97
Sri C B Chikkalagi Vs State of KarnatakaApplied¶98
Sri C B Chikkalagi Vs State of Karnataka
5 WP 226384/2020 dtd 28.9.2020Referred¶101
WP No. 3357/2022 dated 12.4.2022Referred¶92
Sri Mallikarjun Jaka
The State of Karnataka by its Addl. Chief Secretary
The State of Karnataka by its Secretary
The Chief Executive Officer KIADB
Sri Ashok Khandre
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
