Dismissed

Sri. Madhu H P v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/20967/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a transfer order. The court held that both the petitioner and respondent No.4 were unable to claim the post of Revenue Officer as they had not changed their cadre from Office Manager per rules, directing proper postings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner and respondent No.4 directed to report to respondent No.2 for appropriate postings within one month.

Sri. Madhu H P Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39885 WP No. 20967 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 20967 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MADHU H P, S/O LATE SRI PUTTASWAMY, AGED 40 YEARS, OFFICE MANAGER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOOTAGALLY, MYSORE DISTRICT, C/O NO 105, JAYANAGARA 1ST CROSS, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, MYSORE 570 014.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI C M NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VV TOWERS, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOOTAGALLY, MYSORE DISTRICT 570 018.

¶16

SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY SD,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:39885 WP No. 20967 of 2024

¶19

MAJOR, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, OFFICE MANAGER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI 571 201.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI V G BHANUPRAKASH, AAG ALONG WITH SRI PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NARASIMHA RAJU, ADVOCATE C/R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO. NAAAE 77 TMS 2024 (E) DATED 31.07.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SO FAR RELATES TO PETITION AND R4 AND DIRECT THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS REVENUE OFFICER, CMC., HOOTAGALLY MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMNARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned Official Memorandum bearing No.NaAaE 77 TMS 2024 (E) dated 31.07.2024 and to direct the respondents to continue him as Revenue Officer, City Municipal Council, Hootagally, Mysore.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:39885 WP No. 20967 of 2024

¶29

(i) The petitioner contends that he was appointed as First Division Assistant at respondent No.2 in the year 2011. He was transferred and posted as the Revenue Officer at Hootagally City Municipal Council in terms of an official memorandum dated 05.11.2022 and he reported to duty. (ii) He further claims that his wife was an official at respondent No.1 and presently employed as Committee Secretary of the Mysore City Corporation. (iii) The petitioner contends that respondent No.4 was working as Office Manager at Madikeri City Municipal Council as per the transfer notification dated 16.02.2024. However, the respondent No.4 did not report to duty at the transferred place but reported long thereafter on 18.06.2024. (iv) The petitioner contends that he is a 'Group-C' official and the minimum period of stay in a post/place is four years as per the transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024. However the petitioner was prematurely transferred to the post of Office Manager, Madikeri City Municipal Council on 31.07.2024. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging his transfer and also posting of respondent No.4 to his place.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶31

the petitioner has a guaranteed tenure as Revenue Officer at

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39885 WP No. 20967 of 2024

¶33

Hootagally and therefore, he could not have been disturbed before completion of minimum tenure. He also contended that the respondent No.4 who was transferred and posted as the Office Manager at Madikeri on 16.02.2024, did not report the duty until 18.06.2024. He further contends that the respondent No.4 used his political clout to get the petitioner transferred out from Hootagally to Madikeri and to take a posting at Hootagally. He therefore contends that respondent No.4 is not entitled to continue at Hootagally, as the same is done for extraneous consideration and not for any administrative exigency or public interest.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the petitioner was appointed initially as a First Division Assistant. Therefore, without he changing the cadre, he could not have aspired to hold the post of Revenue Officer at Hootagally. He invited the attention of this Court to the C and R Rules of respondent No.2, which provides that Revenue Officer and Office Manager are two different cadres though with the same pay scale. He also pointed out the Rule 15 of C and R Rules related to the procedure to change of cadre. He therefore contends that the petitioner did not change his cadre but was transferred and posted as Revenue Officer. He submits

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39885 WP No. 20967 of 2024

¶36

that the petitioner is only entitled to be posted as Office Manager and not to any other posts. He further contends the petitioner has been working in Mysore area in various locations from the date of his appointment but respondent No.4 has served in many places in the State and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue at Hootagally for another four years.

¶37

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶38

It is evident that the cadre of office manager and Revenue officer are different. The C and R Rules of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 provide for changing the cadre as a one time measure which is not revocable during the period of service. It is not in dispute that the post of Office Manager and Revenue Officer command the same pay scale. The petitioner has not placed any record to establish that he had changed his cadre from Office Manager to Revenue Officer. However, the petitioner who was in the cadre of officer manager was transferred and posted as Revenue officer at Hootagally. This was indeed a clear violation of C and R Rules, as stated above.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39885 WP No. 20967 of 2024

¶40

The respondent No.4 on the other hand was also an office manager and he is sought to be posted to the place of the petitioner as a Revenue Officer. The respondent No.4 has also not placed any materials to establish that he had opted for changing his cadre. However, the petitioner and respondent No.4 have indulged in one-upmanship. The petitioner has managed somehow by getting a transfer order as Revenue officer Hootagally while the respondent No.4 has taken the route of approaching the Hon’ble Chief Minister by getting a note to post him as Revenue Officer at Hootagally. This Court entertained a doubt as to whether the letter from Chief Minster is genuine or not and therefore, called upon learned Additional Government Advocate to secure instructions about the genuinity of letter.

¶41

Learned Additional Government Advocate filed a

¶42

memo stating the Hon’ble Chief Minsiter after coming to know of such letter, issued a note to Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka henceforth, not to entertain any such request and to take suitable actions against those persons who try to obtain orders from the Hon’ble Chief Minster or concerned ministers directly. He contends that there were no official records from which it could be ascertained whether, the letter obtained by

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39885 WP No. 20967 of 2024

¶44

the respondent No.4 from the office of Chief Minister is genuine or not.

¶45

Be that as it may, since it is evident that both the petitioner and respondent No.4 without changing their cadre have used their respective clout to get an order of transfer and posting as Revenue officer, both are not entitled to continue.

¶46

In that view of the matter, neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.4 have any right to continue as Revenue Officer in Hootagally City Municipal Council, unless they change their cadre as per the C and R Rules of respondent No.2. Hence, both are not entitled to be posted as Revenue Officer at Hootagally. Consequently, both petitioner and respondent No.4 shall report before respondent No.2, who shall issue appropriate postings to the petitioner and respondent No.4, taking into account their respective cadre. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

THM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Madhu H P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Madhu H P 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss Anitha Vs Sri Prakash

Shankrappa Vs Prabhu Kannan

R Nagarajaiah Vs the Managing Director

Nithyananda Vs Union of India

Sri Jagannatha K G Vs the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation

Pramod Kumar Verma Vs Syndicate Bank