Dismissed

Smt. Shashikala Siddappa Wodeyar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024WP/20598/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which held that the petitioner's transfer was an election transfer made to fill a vacancy caused by the transfer of another officer under Election Commission guidelines. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's view that the vacancy was temporary and linked to the election code of conduct

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Shashikala Siddappa Wodeyar Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.20598 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHASHIKALA SIDDAPPA WODEYAR D/O SIDDAPPA BIRAPPA WODEYAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. PEBBLE BAY APARTMENT TOWER-3 FLAT NO.161, 1^ST CROSS ROAD RAMAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 094

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W. SRI. KIRAN B.Y., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2^ND FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK, BMTC,

¶15

K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶16

¶17

¶18

3 . SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O NINGAPPA SANDIGAWAD AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. ADITI APARTMENTS FLAT NO.301, 18^TH CROSS ROAD SECTOR-7, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 102

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.07.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.2113/2024 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 01.08.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

CAV JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶26

This writ petition is filed by respondent No.3 challenging the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 in Application No.2113/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short).

¶27

¶28

¶29

The impugned order of the Tribunal reads as

¶30

under:-

¶31

"Application is disposed of declaring that Notification bearing No. AaE 20 EPS 2024 dated 30.01.2024 Annexure A4 issued by the 1^st respondent posting the 3^rd respondent relating to the election as election transfer. On completion of election, applicant is entitled to report to the earlier place.

¶32

It is open for the 1^st respondent to take appropriate decision in accordance with law considering the transfer guidelines in force".

¶33

The petitioner was transferred to the office of second respondent as Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District-2 vide Government Notification dated 28.04.2022 bearing No.AE 15 EPS 2022. It is submitted that on 21.12.2023, the Election Commission of India issued guidelines for transfer of State Government employees who met certain criteria in order to conduct free and fair elections to the ensuing Lok-Sabha Election, 2024. The third respondent was transferred from Bangalore Urban District-7 to discharge his duties as Deputy Commissioner Kolar District as per the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India vide notification dated 31.01.2024. In

¶34

¶35

¶36

the said transfer notification, there was a condition that after the conclusion of the election and the model code of conduct, the employees who are transferred shall return back to the post where they held their post prior to transfer. Since, the place where the third respondent was discharging his duties became vacant, the petitioner who was discharging her duties as Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Urban District-2, was transferred to the place where the third respondent was discharging his duty on 31.01.2024 and the said transfer order was issued without any conditions to return back to her place where she held her post prior to the transfer. Being aggrieved by the transfer order, the third respondent approached the Tribunal. By the order impugned, the Tribunal held that the transfer was an election transfer. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

¶37

We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 as well as the learned

¶38

¶39

¶40

Additional Government advocate appearing for the official respondents.

¶41

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that while working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise at Bengaluru Urban District - 2, she was transferred to Bengaluru Urban District - 7 on 31.01.2024. The petitioner's transfer was in the vacancy created by the transfer of the third respondent from Bengaluru Urban District - 7 to Kolar on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Election Commission prior to the elections conducted in April - May, 2024. However, the transfer order of the petitioner did not refer to the election guidelines and was a transfer to an available vacancy.

¶42

The learned senior counsel contends that the official respondents had taken a clear stand before the Tribunal that the petitioner's transfer was one made in public interest and administrative exigencies. However, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the third respondent that it was a part of election transfers and directed the third

¶43

¶44

¶45

respondent to be reposted to his earlier place of posting. The said order is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court.

¶46

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that Annexure - C, order of transfer of the third respondent refers to the transfer guidelines and states that he will report back to his earlier place of posting after the model code of conduct ceases. However, the petitioner's transfer as per Annexure - D contained no such conditions and was a transfer to fill up a vacancy. The petitioner had completed her tenure in her prior place of posting. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply statement before the Tribunal had clearly contended as follows:-

¶47

"5. It is submitted that it is pertinent to state here that admittedly the Applicant came to be transferred from Office of The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru Urban District, (BUD-07) as Deputy Commissioner of Excise. The Applicant was working in Bangalore Urban District since 29.04.2022 for the last 2 years. As per the Election Guidelines, he has been transferred from the said place to Office of The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, KOLAR District as Deputy Commissioner of Excise by the first Respondent by Notification No.AE 170 EAA 2023(iii),

¶48

¶49

¶50

dated: 31.1.2024 (Annexure-A3). This being the fact, and as the post where the Applicant was working was vacant, the 3^rd Respondent was transferred there. The impugned Official Memorandum at Annexure-A3 was passed in the interest of Administrative and in public exigencies. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Official Memorandum. Hence, the present Application is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

¶51

6. It is submitted that the first Respondent by Notification No.AE 170 EAA 2023(iii), dated:31.1.2024 transferred the 3^rd Respondent to Office of The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bengaluru Urban District, (BUD-07) as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the place at which the Applicant was working. The said impugned Notification came to be passed in the interest of Administrative and in Public exigencies. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the present Application is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed."

¶52

It is therefore contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner's transfer was also an election transfer and that she cannot continue in the transferred post was factually incorrect and the order is liable to be set aside.

¶53

¶54

¶55

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of R O Suresh v. State of Karnataka and another ; by order dated 26.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.31053/2018 (SKAT) A/W connected matters .

¶56

The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that his transfer was admittedly an election transfer as evidenced by Annexure - C. It was only in the vacancy created by his transfer that the petitioner was accommodated on the same day. The Tribunal had considered all the contentions advanced as urged before it and had come to the conclusion that both the transfers were election transfers. The decisions of this Court in the cases of Election Commission of India v. State of Karnataka reported in 2013 (6) KLJ 363, R. O Suresh v. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2019 (3) AKR 178, Sri Anuwanth Singh v. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.13448/2024 (S-KSAT) and Smt. Sheela N v. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.13728/2024 (S-KSAT) were referred to and followed. It is therefore contended

¶57

¶58

¶59

that the order is perfectly legal and valid and liable to be sustained.

¶60

The learned counsel appearing for the third

¶61

respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

¶62

Smt. Sheela N v. The State of Karnataka and Others , by order dated 04.06.2024 passed in W.P.No. 13728/2024 (S-KSAT) ;

¶63

Smt. Sheela N v. The State of Karnataka and Others , by order dated 25.06.2024 passed in R.P.No.241/2024 ;

¶64

Sri. Anuwanth Singh v. The State of Karnataka , by order dated 04.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.13448/2024 (S-KSAT) ; and

¶65

Sri. Anuwanth Singh v. The State of Karnataka , by order dated 25.06.2024 passed in R.P.No.242/2024 .

¶66

We have considered the contentions advanced.

¶67

Annexure - C is admittedly an order of transfer issued in pursuance to the directions of the Election Commission. It

¶68

clearly states that the incumbent shall be reposted once the election code of conduct expires. It is evident that it is in

¶69

¶70

¶71

the resultant vacancy that the petitioner was posted by Annexure - D. Though Annexure - D does not state that the petitioner will be reposted to her earlier place, it is evident that the vacancy would cease on the third respondent being reposted as stated in Annexure - C. The statement in the reply statement of the official respondents was also that it was in the vacancy created by the election transfer of the third respondent that the petitioner was transferred by Annexure - D. We are therefore of the clear opinion that there is no error, factual or legal, in the finding of the Tribunal.

¶72

The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly

¶73

dismissed.

¶74

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶75

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶76

cp*

Smt. Shashikala Siddappa Wodeyar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Shashikala Siddappa Wodeyar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shambulingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Raghumurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Jayashri Emmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S M Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. C. Adarsha Kumar, Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Shivaji