Dismissed

Sri N Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024WP/8479/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the repatriation of a deputationist from the Tribal Welfare Department to his parent Social Welfare Department. The Court held that the deputationist had no vested right to the post and that the Tribunal's order was not infected with legal infirmity.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri N Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8479 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. N. MUNIRAJU S/O R. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PROJECT COORDINATOR INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT MYSURU-570 001 R/AT. NO.1907, 3^RD CROSS III PHASE, DATTAGALLI, KANAKADASA MYSURU-570 022

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SHRI. M.B. NARAGUND, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W. SHRI. MANU B.P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT 5^TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

2 . THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT NO.34, I FLOOR, LOTUS TOWERS RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

¶16

¶17

3 . SHRI MALLESH M.K. MAJOR DISTRICT MANAGER KARNATAKA MAHARISHI VALMIKI SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED MYSURU-570 001

¶18

….RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SHRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.3770/2023 AS PER ANNEXRUE - 'G' AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.06.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶24

"To set aside the order dated 27.02.2024

¶25

passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.3770/2023 as per Annexure - G and allow the said application as prayed for."

¶26

The petitioner had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), challenging the order dated 21.08.2023 issued by the first respondent. It is

¶27

¶28

¶29

stated that by the order, the third respondent, who was working as District Manager of the Karnataka Maharishi Valmiki Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation Limited was transferred and posted as Project Co-ordinator of the Integrated Tribal Development Project, Mysore in place of the petitioner.

¶30

Learned senior counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Social Welfare Department. It is contended in the Writ Petition that he was initially transferred to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation Limited, Mysore by deputation from where he was further deputed to the Karnataka Adi Jambava Development Corporation Limited, Mysore, where he was working as District Manager. While so, by order dated 09.11.2022 he was transferred and posted to the post of Project Co-ordinator, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Mysore in place of one Smt. Prabha B.S. He

¶32

reported for duty on 09.11.2022. Smt. Prabha B.S. challenged the transfer in Application No.5506/2022 and the challenge was repelled by the order of the Tribunal dated

¶33

¶34

¶35

02.12.2022. However, by the order impugned before the Tribunal, the first respondent posted the third respondent as Project Co-ordinator and the writ petitioner was rendered without any posting and was repatriated to his Parent Department.

¶36

It was contended before the Tribunal that the transfer was effected prematurely before the normal term in the present place was completed. It was further contended that even if the posting of the petitioner with the Scheduled Tribe Department is to be considered as a deputation, his repatriation to her parent department should be on the specific consent of the parent department as well. It is submitted that Annexure-A1, order of transfer of the petitioner to the present place i.e., as Project Co-ordinator, ITDP (Integrated Tribal Development Project) Mysore on 09.11.2022 would show that it was approved by the Chief Minister as well as the concerned Minister while AnnexureA4, order dated 21.08.2023 was approved only by the Chief Minister. It is submitted that no reasons were stated for the premature transfer of the petitioner. There was no

¶37

¶38

¶39

consultation between the borrower department and the parent department for repatriation of the deputed hand and no verification of the earlier orders. It is contended relying on Rule 50(3) of the KCS Rules that the normal tenure of deputation could extend to five years and that since the petitioner had not even completed one year in the present post; he could not have been transferred out or repatriated without assigning proper reasons.

¶40

The official respondents filed a detailed reply statement contending that the writ petitioner had been posted to the Tribal Welfare Department by deputation and had no right to contend that he had any fixity of tenure in the post of Project Co-ordinator which was to be held by a person belonging to the Tribal Welfare Department. It is submitted that a qualified and eligible person being available from the Tribal Welfare Department itself, the petitioner, who was a deputationist, was sent back to the parent department on repatriation after cancelling the orders of deputation. It was contended that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules provided for filling up the post of Project

¶41

¶42

¶43

Co-ordinator by direct recruitment and by promotion and that extension of deputation was not possible to accommodate the writ petitioner.

¶44

The third respondent also placed detailed pleadings on record contending that the applicant admittedly belongs to the Social Welfare Department and he was on deputation earlier to Dr B.R. Ambedkar Development Corporation Limited, Mysore and thereafter to Adi Jambava Development Corporation Limited, Mysore before being posted as Project Co-ordinator, Integrated Tribal Development project by notification dated 09.11.2022. It is contended that the third respondent is a fully qualified hand available for posting as Project Co-ordinator who belongs to the Department of Tribal Welfare itself and therefore, the petitioner has no claim to continue in the Tribal Welfare Department.

¶45

The Tribunal considered the contentions advanced

¶46

and found that the petitioner belongs to the Social Welfare department and he is only a deputationist in the Tribal Welfare Department. Since the third respondent, who

¶47

¶48

¶49

belongs to the Tribal Welfare Department is available to hold the post of Project Co-ordinator of ITDP, it was found that when a regular hand is appointed within the department, the deputationist has to give way.

¶50

Reliance was placed on the judgment of this

¶51

Court in P.G. Ramesh v. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary and others reported in

¶52

ILR 2008 KAR 8. The application filed by the writ petitioner was therefore, dismissed.

¶53

We have heard the learned counsel appearing on

¶54

all sides.

¶55

Learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the petitioner had initially been posted to the Tribal Welfare Department after the consent and consultation of both the Departments. It is submitted that the repatriation by Annexure-A4 is approved only by the Chief Minister. It is contended that both deputation as well as repatriation requires the express consent of both the Departments.

¶56

¶57

¶58

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent contended that the deputation and transfer are totally different and the contention that the transfer guidelines have not been complied with is completely misconceived in view of the fact that the order Annexure-A4, insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, is an order repatriating him to the parent department and not the one of transfer at all. It is stated that since the writ petitioner was on deputation from 26.07.2021 onwards, he had completed two years of deputation as on 21.08.2023 and the repatriation cannot be challenged on that ground also. It is further contended that the respondent has already taken charge of the post on 29.02.2024. It is contended that the question of consultation with the parent department does not arise since the Secretaries of both departments are one and the same person.

¶59

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents submitted that the petitioner, being a person deputed to the Tribal Welfare Department from the Social Welfare Department and since the deputation as well

¶60

¶61

¶62

as the orders of posting are specifically only till further orders, when the third respondent a fully qualified hand belonging to the Tribal Welfare department became available for posting as Project Co-ordinator, the petitioner's deputation had to end and he was liable to be repatriated to the parent department. It is submitted that the transfer guidelines or the requirements regarding premature transfer have absolutely no application in the present case.

¶63

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:-

¶64

Shri Kanteppa v. The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Dept. PWD, Ports and Inland Water Transport and others reported in ILR 2020 KAR 5511;

¶65

Miss. Seema H v. The State of Karnataka. Department of Forest and others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine KAR 8202;

¶66

Rajashekar M v. State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary, Department of Backward Classes Welfare and Others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3777; and

¶67

¶68

¶69

N Muniraju v. The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development and Others reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3956.

¶70

The learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶71

No.3 has relied on the following decisions:-

¶72

P.G Ramesh v. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary and Others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 8;

¶73

• Order dated 07.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.16080/2023 by the Hon'ble High Court;

¶74

• Order dated 31.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.5324/2023 C/W. Writ Petition No.4884/2023 by the Hon'ble High Court;

¶75

• Order dated 14.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.201907/2022 by the Hon'ble High Court;

¶76

• Order dated 24.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.12528/2020 by the Hon'ble High Court;

¶77

• Order dated 10.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.44995/2016 by the Hon'ble High Court;

¶78

• Order dated 08.02.2022 W.P.No.19132/2021 by the Hon'ble High Court; and

¶79

Order dated 16.08.2022 W.P.No.14286/2021 by the Hon'ble High Court.

¶80

¶81

¶82

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that it is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner belongs to Social Welfare Department. He had been posted on deputation to the Tribal Welfare Department. Though, it is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that any repatriation from deputation can be carried out only after the consent of the parent department is obtained, it is the specific case of the respondents that the departments concerned, which were at the relevant time headed by one and the same Secretary, had absolutely no objection to the petitioner being repatriated to the parent department.

¶83

In view of the fact that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules provide only direct recruitment and promotion as methods of appointment to the post, we are of the opinion that the contention that the writ petitioner has any kind of vested right to remain in a post borne on another department cannot be accepted. Further, the reference to Rule 50(3) of the KCS Rules also will not help the petitioner in view of the fact that the said rule only

¶84

¶85

¶86

provides an outer limit beyond which a person shall not normally be continued on deputation.

¶87

In view of the fact that the third respondent is admittedly a member of the Tribal Welfare Department, who is posted to the petitioner's place, the only claim that can be raised by the petitioner is that he be given an appropriate posting in the Social Welfare Department, which is his Parent Department. The fact that his earlier appointment to Mysore as Project Co-ordinator had been questioned unsuccessfully by another person cannot also be a ground to hold that he is entitled to hold the post since that challenge was repelled only on the ground that the person who had challenged the order of transfer had been continuing in offices in Mysore itself continuously without complying with orders of transfer issued to her from time to time.

¶88

In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity or error. We are not inclined to interfere with the said order.

¶89

¶90

¶91

The writ petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed .

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

CP*

Sri N Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri N Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. K.M. Somashekharappa Vs the State of Karnataka

G B Devaraj Since Dead by Lrs Vs Chikka Narayanappa Dead by Lrs

Smt. S.N. Shanthamma, Vs Smt. Hulluramma

The Appointing Authority and Deputy Secretary Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H M Farooq @ Mueen Farooq Vs Sri H.G. Kamaraddy

Sri. Mahesh. B. S. Vs Sri. K. Dilip Kumar