Dismissed

Smt Saroja Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024WP/26625/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a transfer order. The Court held that employees holding posts on an in-charge or independent charge basis do not possess a right of lien and are therefore not entitled to claim relief under transfer guidelines. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of hardship as the transfer was within the same building.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs made easy.

Smt Saroja Patil Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46463-DB WP No. 26625 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 26625 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT SAROJA PATIL, W/O SHASHIKANTH MUGALI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.1, PWD SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001, RESIDING AT 'HSG SURYA', NO.239, 15^TH MAIN, B S K II STAGE, BENGALURU-560070. NOW POSTED AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT (MONITORING CELL), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATIONS AND BUILDINGS (SOUTH), PWD ANNEXE BUILDING, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI PRITHVEESH M K, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:46463-DB WP No. 26625 of 2024

¶18

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATIONS AND BUILDINGS (SOUTH), PWD ANNEXE BUILDING, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

SRI.GAJENDRA L, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT (MONITORING CELL), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATIONS AND BUILDINGS (SOUTH), PWD ANNEXE BUILDING, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. CURRENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.1, PWD SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S R KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY AND SRI VIDYANANDA ARALI, ADVOCATES FOR C/R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.3900/2024 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46463-DB WP No. 26625 of 2024

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶26

A civil servant is grieving before the Writ Court against the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 19.09.2024, whereby her application No.3900/201 came to be negatived. In the said application, she had called in question her transfer order dated 31.07.2024. A copy of which has been filed and it has been issued by the first respondent. As a consequence, the third respondent is occupying the post which the petitioner had held.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the Tribunal denied relief against the said transfer inter alia on a ground premise that the government order dated 25.06.2024 promulgating the transfer guidelines does not apply to the cases wherein the transferred employee lacks lien to the post which he held under Rule 32 of KCSR.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46463-DB WP No. 26625 of 2024

¶29

In support of his submission, he cites our own decision in W.P.No.24945/2024 between SRI.AMARESH vs. THE

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA, disposed off on 24.10.2024. He also adds that the third respondent was there in the said post for a period of four years earlier which he wants to cling on to, now also. So arguing, he seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶31

Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing the 3^rd respondent oppose the petition making submission in justification of the reasons on which the impugned order of the Tribunal has been constructed. Private counsel submits that the reasoning of Tribunal as reflected in paragraph 8 of the impugned order is not falterable and the same accords with the rules of reason & logic; that the place to which the petitioner has been now shifted by virtue of the Government Order is in the very same building and therefore, in the absence of any elements of hardship, Writ Courts would not interfere.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46463-DB WP No. 26625 of 2024

¶33

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶34

and having perused the petition papers, we are broadly in agreement with the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that ordinarily Transfer Guidelines of the kind are not invokable by the employees who hold the post on in-charge/independent charge basis under Rule 32 of KCSR, since they have no right of lien to the same. Hon'ble Justice Rama Jois says in his famous book ‘Services under the State” at page 522 as under:

¶35

"Independent charge is no promotion: Placing a subordinate officer in independent charge of the current duties of a vacant post does not amount to promotion to the higher post. Officiating appointments and in-charge arrangements are well understood terms in civil service..."

¶36

The said arrangements are made due to the exigencies of service. The persons who hold the post on incharge/independent charge basis do not have right of lien to the position and that they cannot exercise any substantive powers attached thereto as held by a learned Single Judge of this court in B.N.Dhotrad vs. The Board

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46463-DB WP No. 26625 of 2024

¶38

of Directors/cum Appellate Authority¹ . We have also

¶39

told that this view has secured imprimatur of Co-ordinate Benches of this court. That being the state of law, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any errors much less substantial ones.

¶40

The vehement submission of learned counsel

¶41

for the petitioner that the 2026 Transfer Guidelines employ the idea of change of place qua change of post as it used to be earlier, and that the same as construed in

¶42

W.P.No.24945/2024 between AMARESH vs. STATE OF

¶43

KARNATAKA, disposed off by us on 24.10.2024, comes to the aid of his client, does not merit a deeper advertence, since the subject transfer of the petitioner is within the building itself and not even to the neighbouring one. Some amount of genuine prejudice is a sine qua non for invoking writ jurisdiction. Such a view gains support from the decision of Apex Court in VARADHA RAO vs. STATE OF

¶44

1 ILR 2006 KAR 3163

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:46463-DB WP No. 26625 of 2024

¶47

KARNATAKA² . The related contention that even after transfer, petitioner is again continued under Rule 32 itself, does not add legal merits to his case, inasmuch as even

¶48

there, he does not have right of lien to the post.

¶49

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶50

(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶52

SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

¶53

2 (1986) 4 SCC 131

Smt Saroja Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saroja Patil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundara Babu Vs the Tahsildar

Nagabhushan Reddy Vs the Tahsildar

Sri Binoj Koshy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Basavaraj Menashinakai, Vs the State of Karnataka