Dismissed

Shri Vasantha H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/20984/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing an application to quash a premature transfer. The High Court dismissed the writ, observing the Government's readiness to post the petitioner, but directed the Government to issue the posting order by a specific deadline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Government to provide appropriate posting to the petitioner on or before 20.05.2024.

Shri Vasantha H Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14423-DB WP No. 20984 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 20984 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRI VASANTHA H S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED 50 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.2, VARUNA SUB DIVISION VALMIKI ROAD, MYSURU R/AT NO.H.NO.5, ST. JOSEPH CONVENT ROAD BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU - 570015

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶14

(BY SRI. ARUN K S - ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001.

¶18

THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (SOUTH) K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARLTMENT MYSURU DIVISION MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:14423-DB WP No. 20984 of 2023

¶22

SRI. M. PRAKASH ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SPECIAL DIVISION, MYSURU MYSURU DISTRICT - 570001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA – AGA ALONG WITH SRI. C S PRADEEP – ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3; SRI. V R SARATHY – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5.9.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 2982/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner assailed the order passed in Application No.2982/2023 dated 05.09.2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 in LOE127SESA2023 issued by the 1^st respondent in so far

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14423-DB WP No. 20984 of 2023

¶29

as the transfer and posting of the 4^th respondent to the place of petitioner is concerned and further to direct the respondent authorities to continue in his post till he completes the minimum tenure of two years as per the Government order dated 07.06.2013.

¶30

The facts that are apposite for consideration as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶31

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 12.12.2016 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer by order dated 17.12.2022. On his promotion, he was issued the movement order dated 21.01.2023 and he reported for duty on 31.01.2023. Thereafter, 1^st respondent issued the order dated 03.07.2023 and he has prematurely disturbed by posting of 4^th respondent to his place. Further, the petitioner is rendered without posting. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by challenging the said transfer notification. The Tribunal

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14423-DB WP No. 20984 of 2023

¶33

after considering the facts and circumstances of the case passed the impugned order as stated supra. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the

¶35

petitioner and learned AGA for respondents. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is disturbed by placing 4^th respondent in his post prematurely and he has not shown any posting. As such, the order of the Tribunal is against the law laid down by this Court in the cases of SRI M

¶36

RAJASJHEKAR V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [2019 (1) A K R 489] and K G JAGADEESH

¶37

V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTEHRS [2017 (2) A K R 434].

¶38

However, the learned AGA has contended

¶39

that the petitioner has not disputed that he has been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer under Rule 32 of KCSR vide Notification dated 28.11.2022

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14423-DB WP No. 20984 of 2023

¶41

and it is also not dispute that the 4^th respondent is a regular holder of the post of AEE. While, the petitioner was discharging his duties, the 4^th respondent was posted to the place of the petitioner at Varuna Sub-Division, Mysuru and even he has been deputed to election duty as AEE and in turn the petitioner has been posted as technical Assistant to the place of the 4^th respondent at Public Works Department, Special Division, Nazarbad, Mysuru. However, it is further ordered that the petitioner has to report back to the government for appropriate posting as he was transferred without posting.

¶42

Learned AGA in further submits that since the

¶43

Tribunal directed the petitioner to report back to the Government for appropriate posting, the Government is ready to give posting to the petitioner. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this petition does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:14423-DB WP No. 20984 of 2023

¶46

In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A. if any

stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

NC: 2024:KHC:14423-DB WP No. 20984 of 2023

¶54

KSJ & RRJ:

¶55

24.04.2024 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶56

ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'

¶57

This Court while disposing of the petition has directed the Government that the petitioner has to report back to the Government for appropriate posting and it is also observed that the Government is ready to give posting to the petitioner.

¶58

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if time frame is not fixed, the Government will not pass such orders.

¶59

The said submission is not opposed by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent so also learned AAG.

¶60

Accordingly, the Government is directed to give posting to the petitioner on or before 20.05.2024.

¶61

Registry is directed to incorporate the aforesaid sentence in the order and issue fresh copy.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Sd/JUDGE