Dismissed

Arati Anavekar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2024WP/9631/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A junior engineer on deputation challenged a transfer order repatriating her to her parent department. The court held she had completed and overstayed her four-year Group-C tenure and had suppressed that she had already been relieved and reported to the parent department. The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to give her a posting in accordance with law within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

State directed to give the petitioner a posting in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Arati Anavekar Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:15546 WP No. 9631 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 9631 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ARATI ANAVEKAR, W/O SANTHOSH SHET, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (SPECIAL GRADE), MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, URWA STORES, ASHOK NAGAR POST, MANGALURU - 575 006, RESIDING AT NO.33/2, 'SUNDAR', NEKKILEGUDDE, DEREBAIL, MANGALURU - 575 006. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. VISHNU J. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, URVA STORES, ASHOK NAGAR POST, MANGALURU - 575 006.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VESHWESHWARAIAH TOWER,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:15546 WP No. 9631 of 2024

¶15

POLICE THIMMAIAH CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

SRI. AKBAR BASHA ATTAR, JUNIOR ENGINEER, MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU - 575 006.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. HARISH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SHRIDHAR G. BIDRE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2024 BEARING NO. ISSUED BY THE R1, AS PER ANNEXURE-D AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the transfer notification dated 15.03.2024, vide Annexure-D.

¶23

The petitioner joined as a junior engineer in the office of the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, and is presently working as a junior engineer in

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:15546 WP No. 9631 of 2024

¶25

the office of respondent No.2-authority. The petitioner's parental department is Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru. He is assailing the transfer of respondent No.4 to the petitioner's place and consequently repatriating the petitioner to the parent department as per Annexure-D dated 15.03.2024.

¶26

This Court has granted stay of the impugned transfer notification. Respondent No.4 has filed an application for vacating of the interim order along with a statement of objections.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶28

learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 3 and Sri.Raghavendra G Gayatri., learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the records.

¶29

The petitioner was deputed to respondent No.2authority on 22.10.2016, which is evident from AnnexureA. For a brief period, she was transferred to Pattana Panchayithi, Kotekaru, Dakshnina Kannada District,

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:15546 WP No. 9631 of 2024

¶31

Mangaluru, vide order dated 09.06.2017 as per AnnexureB. She was again re-transferred to respondent No.2authority on 02.11.2019. Respondent No.4 has raised objection questioning the locus of petitioner challenging the re-transfer order as per Annexure-D. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has vehemently argued and contends

¶32

that the petitioner has served at respondent No.2authority since 2016, barring a brief period of 1 year and 5 months at Pattana Panchayithi, Kotekaru.

¶33

On examining the records, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's claim lacks merit. It is borne out from the records that the petitioner was deputed from the Directorate of Municipal Administration to respondent No.2-authority and has been serving at respondent No.2authority since 22.10.2016. Even if her previous service at respondent No.2-authority is ignored, her posting on 02.11.2019 clearly clinches the controversy relating to the tenure of petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is in the cadre of Group-C and has a tenure of four years. If she

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15546 WP No. 9631 of 2024

¶35

was posted on 02.11.2019 at respondent No.2-authority, she has not only completed her tenure but has virtually over stayed beyond four years, which is the stipulated tenure for a Group-C employee. On this short point, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner.

¶36

The petitioner's claim that, in terms of government executive order, two sanctioned posts in the cadre of junior engineers are available at respondent No.2authority cannot be acceded to. The petitioner, having completed her tenure and there being a repatriation order, ought to have reported to the parent department, i.e., respondent No.3. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. There is a clear suppression of facts. As evident from the documents placed on record by respondent No.4, the petitioner was relieved vide order dated 18.03.2024 and she has reported to the parental department on 27.03.2024 i.e., one day after filing of the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:15546 WP No. 9631 of 2024

¶39

present writ petition. Even on this count, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner.

¶40

With these observations, this Court proceeds to

¶41

pass the following;

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed;

¶44

ii. It is made clear that the State Government taking cognizance of the fact that the petitioner has reported to the parent department, shall forthwith give a posing in accordance with law within a period of eight

¶45

weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

HDK CT: BHK

Arati Anavekar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arati Anavekar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Lokesh M v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Mohan Vs the Managing Committee

Smt. Chikkamma Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri. Ganesh C., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Ramesh, Vs State of Karnataka

Virupaksha J Abbigeri Vs the Principal Secretary