Petitioner, a receiving officer holding additional charge as coordinating officer, challenged a notification deploying another official to his post. Court held petitioner lacked locus standi and dismissed the petition, leaving the legal nature of the deployment open.
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 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24847 OF 2024 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G.B. MARAPPA S/O. LATE BETTAPPA, AGED 57 YEARS, WORKING AS RECEIVING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF THE POST OF CO-ORDINATING OFFICER, CENTRAL RELIEF COMMITTEE, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-91 BENGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC ,ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.SA.KA.EE.286 PA.KA.SE.2024 DATED 03.09.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO POSTING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN PLACE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate writ to quash the notification bearing No.Sa.Ka.Ee.286 Pa.Ka.Se 2024 dated 03.09.2024 issued
by the respondent No.1, in so far as it relates to transferring and posting the respondent No.3 to his place.
Recruitment) and conditions of service of the employees of the Central Relief Committee Rules, 2021 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules 2021' for short). As per Rules 2021, the post of a Coordinating officer had to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Office Superintendent. There is no provision for deputation to the post of Coordinating Officer.
and he is discharging duties as a Coordinating officer since then. He contends that by the impugned notification dated 03.09.2024, the respondent No.1 deputed the respondent No.3 an employee of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation to work as Coordinating Officer in place of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Department to work in the place of petitioner as Superintendent. He contends that this Court granted an order of stay and thereafter, Smt. Sudhamani was transferred elsewhere. Consequently, writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is bad in eye of law and deserves to be quashed.
Superintendent. He contends that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the order of deputation and he has no locus standi to question the deputation. He contends that if any person is aggrieved by such deputation, it is only the persons who are holding the post of Superintendent. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is not aggrieved
by the impugned order and hence no indulgence can be shown to him to continue in additional charge of the post of Coordinating Officer.
be filled up from amongst the cadre of Receiving Officers. None the less, the petitioner was placed in-charge of the post of Superintendent. The post of Coordinating Officer had to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Office Superintendent. Therefore, the petitioner had no prospects to be promoted to the post of either Office Superintendent or Coordinating Officer. However, he was placed in-charge of the post of Coordinating Officer. Therefore, the respondent No.1 in terms of its order dated 03.09.2024, had deputed the respondent No.3 to the post of Coordinating Officer, Grade – I to the place of petitioner.
The petitioner being only a Receiving Officer has no right to continue as Coordinating Officer on in-charge basis, once the State Government has exercised its power to depute an official.
further orders. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were no incumbents in the post of Office Superintendent to be promoted to the post of Coordinating Officer, the respondent No.1 is justified in deploying the respondent No.3 to occupy the post of Coordinating officer. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the said order of deployment and therefore, is not aggrieved by the said order.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a receiving officer has locus standi to challenge the deployment of another officer to a coordinating officer post.
Whether the petitioner is aggrieved by the order deploying an employee to the post of Coordinating Officer.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the lack of provision for deputation to the post of Coordinating Officer.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI. G.B. MARAPPA
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL RELIEF COMMITTEE
SRI. M. MALLIKARJUN
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
