Disposed

Sri M Girish v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2024WP/29319/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior sub-registrars challenged the Tribunal's refusal of interim relief against transfer orders. The High Court directed maintenance of status quo as to their postings until the Tribunal decides the pending applications, allowed ongoing counseling but barred acting on its outcome, kept all contentions open, and requested early Tribunal disposal.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained qua petitioners' postings till disposal of Tribunal applications; counseling outcome not to be acted upon.

Sri M Girish Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:43919-DB WP No. 29319 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 29319 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M GIRISH S/O Y T MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE FO THE SUB REGISTRAR, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE URBAN. RESIDING AT 896, 3^RD CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MR. SHIVAKUMAR D S/O LATE DODDAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, SARJAPURA BANGALORE URBAN, R/AT L-302, VAISHNAVI RATHNAM, S M ROAD, JALAHALLI CROSS, BANGALORE 560 057.

¶11

R RAMAPRASAD S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOTU 44 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, K R PURAM, BANGALORE URBAN, RESIDING AT 301, JAI BHUVANESHWARI LAYOUT, 3^RD CROSS, CAMBRIDGE COLLEGE ROAD, K R PURAM, BANGALORE 560 047.

¶12

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY D JOSHI., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. VACHAN H U.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43919-DB WP No. 29319 of 2024

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶17

THE INSPECTION GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, 8^TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB., AAG A/W SRI. S R KHAMROZ KHAN.,AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PETITIONERS PRAY THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER, DATED 29.10.2024, PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, IN APPLICATION No. 4953 TO 4955 OF 2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND GRANT STAY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 19.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 2, VIDE NOTIFICATION ORDER No. KamE/24/MSE1/2024 (ANNEXUREB) SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AT SERIAL Nos. 22, 34 AND 23 RESPECTIVELY IN ANUBANDHA 1, AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS/OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:43919-DB WP No. 29319 of 2024

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

This Petition by the civil servants calls in question a

¶27

common interim order of the Service Tribunal whereby reprieve has been denied, fixing 11^th November, 2024 as the date of hearing of the main matter.

¶28

All the senior advocates ably assisted by other advocates on record appearing for the Petitioners, in chorus submit inter alia that in the absence of Legislation or subordinate Legislation promulgated for the individual Departments the Transfer Guidelines promulgated vide Government Order dated 25.06.2024 would govern the transfer & deployment of civil servants of all Departments. There being no such legislation or para-legislation, these General Guidelines of transfer would govern the service conditions of the Department in question, to which Petitioners belong.

¶29

In support of the above, learned Sr. Advocates appearing for the Petitioners drew our attention to the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43919-DB WP No. 29319 of 2024

¶31

provisions of Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 promulgated under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. They added that heavens would not fall down if intended counseling for transfer is deferred till after the Tribunal disposes off the pending Applications.

¶32

Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the official Respondents resisted the Writ Petition contending that two sets of Transfer Guidelines have been promulgated in Executive Power under Article 162 of the Constitution, vide RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR vs.

¶33

STATE OF PUNJAB ,¹ and merely because they have legal force, it is not that they have been issued under any Legislation. He also drew our attention to two Full Bench decisions of this Court viz, CHANDRU H N v. STATE OF KARNATAKA² and S.N.GANGADHARAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA³ in support of his contention that one set of Transfer Guidelines cannot have precedence over the

¶34

1 AIR 1955 SC 549

¶35

2 ILR 2011 KAR 1585

¶36

3 ILR 2015 KAR 1955

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43919-DB WP No. 29319 of 2024

¶38

other set that are specifically issued for particular Departments. In short, he contends that regardless of what has been stated in the Government Order dated 25.06.2024, there need not be a legislative instrument to govern the Transfer Conditions of the employees in any particular Department and that the Executive Instructions would do. Therefore, he submits, the Tribunal has rightly denied interim relief to the civil servants in question. In a measure of fairness, he also said that the ongoing counseling be continued in its usual course subject to outcome of the cases before the Tribunal.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petition papers and also having made cursory advertence to the Rulings cited at the Bar, we are of the considered opinion that the status quo qua the places/postings of the Petitioners be maintained till after the Tribunal hears & disposes off the pending Applications finally. Learned advocates appearing for the Petitioners are right in telling that the heavens

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43919-DB WP No. 29319 of 2024

¶41

would not fall down by such a course. It hardly needs to

¶42

be stated that the State being a model employer, as constitutionally expected vide BHUPENDRA NATH HAZARIKA v. STATE OF ASSAM⁴ , it has to treat its employees with due fairness, especially in matters of transfer & posting. That obligation does not cease merely on the expiry of prescribed retention period(s).

¶43

We do not propose to treat the question debated before us inasmuch as, the said question along with other happens to be the fulcrum of cases, the Tribunal is seized off. Many other contentions we refrained from considering since the same can be advanced by the parties before the Tribunal which has accumulated expertise in matters like this.

¶44

We agree with the submission of learned AAG that the ongoing counseling process need not be interdicted; however, its outcome shall not be acted upon till after the Tribunal decides the pending Applications. We request the

¶45

4 2013 2 SCC 516

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:43919-DB WP No. 29319 of 2024

¶48

Tribunal to take up the same for early disposal in accordance with law regard being had to the likely repercussions of long pendency. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶49

Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.

¶50

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶52

Snb/Bsv

¶53

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Sri M Girish v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Girish 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

N. Prasad Vs the Union of India

Sri Raghunath .S Vs Canara Bank

Sri K v Naidu Vs Sri P Jagadish

Sri Santosh Kumar Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Suresh Hanidund, Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri T R Manjunath