Sri Rajeev N Pandit Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.24972 OF 2019 (S-TR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAJEEV N PANDIT S/O B.S. NAGARAJ AGED 51 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, P.B. NO.1, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR - 572101

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M. BABU RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT KOUSHALYA BHAVAN, DAIRY CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560029

¶13

JOINT DIRECTOR DIVISIONAL OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, KOUSHALYA BHAVAN, DAIRY CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560029

¶14

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI MEMORIAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE GADAG - 582101

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶16

PRINCIPAL

¶17

SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI MEMORIAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE GADAG - 582101

¶18

SECRETARY CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE P.B. NO.1, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR - 572101.

¶19

PRINCIPAL CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE P.B. NO.1, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR - 572101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶22

SRI.SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4;

¶23

VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2025, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 i.e. SRI. S.S.YADRAMI IS DELETED)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER NO.BEm V KA KU TA Yo GIA/V Va/-09A/2013-14 DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT-2 (ANNEXURE-L) AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE AT CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, P.B.NO.1, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR-572101 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has challenged communication bearing No.¨ÉA«PÀ/vÀ/PÀÄvÀAiÉÆÃ/fLJ/«ªÀ-09J/2013-14 dated 25.04.2019

¶30

addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.5. He has sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to continue him at the respondent No.5 with all consequential benefits.

¶31

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Training Officer at the respondent No.4 - institute in terms of a letter of appointment dated 16.12.1996. The post held by the petitioner was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 01.04.1999. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.04.2001 to the Director of Employment and Training, Bengaluru, to transfer him to any other aided Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in Bengaluru. Considering the request of the petitioner, after the prescribed protocol was followed, the Management of Shree Jagadguru Tontadarya Vidyapeeth in terms of the letter dated 02.05.2001, permitted transfer of the petitioner to any other Industrial Training Institute subject to obtaining prior approval from the Department. Thereafter, the Director, Employment

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶34

and Training, passed an office order on 22.11.2001 permitting transfer of the petitioner from the respondent No.4 - institute to respondent No.6-institute. The petitioner was relieved from the respondent No.4-institute on 03.12.2001 and he reported to duty at the respondent No.6-institute on 03.12.2001. The petitioner claims that he is working at the same place for more than eighteen years. Later, the respondent No.2 issued a circular dated 16.03.2019 stating that there is no provision under grant-in-aid Code, 1997 to transfer the employees of aided institutions to other institutions and that therefore, steps had to be taken by the management of aided-institutes to cancel all such transfers and to repatriate the services of the concerned person to his/her parent institute and a report in that regard was called from the management of the aidedinstitutes which was to be submitted within three days from the date of the circular. Respondent No.5 addressed a letter dated 21.03.2019 bringing to the notice of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner was working for more than 18 years as a Junior Training Officer with the respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.2 in terms of a communication dated 25.04.2019, directed the respondent No.5 to cancel the

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶36

transfer order of the petitioner and repatriate him to the parent institution, namely, respondent No.4 - institute and to report compliance to the office of the respondent No.2.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is

¶38

before this Court.

¶39

The petitioner contends that from the year 2001, he has worked for nearly 18 years at the respondent No.6 - institute. He contends that as per the grant-in-aid Code of the year 1997, the Directorate of Employment and Training is competent to transfer the employees from one institution to another institution and there is no bar / prohibition against such transfer. He contends that the petitioner had addressed a letter to the respondent No.4 on 13/16.05.2019 seeking permission to join the respondent No.4 in case the petitioner is relieved from the respondent No.6. The respondent No.4 in terms of the letter dated 25.05.2019, replied that the post of Junior Technical Officer in its institution has been filled and that there is no vacancy. The petitioner therefore contends that the impugned letter dated 25.04.2019 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.5 directing the

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶41

respondent No.5 to take steps for transferring the petitioner from respondent No.6 - institute to the respondent No.4 - institute is illegal and has virtually deprived employment to the petitioner.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No.2 could not have issued the impugned letter directing the respondent No.5 to repatriate the services of the petitioner to an institution, where there is no post of Junior Training Officer available.

¶43

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the impugned letter directing the respondent No.5 to repatriate the services of the petitioner was necessitated in view of the Circular issued by the State Government that employees of aided institutions cannot be posted at other institutions. He, therefore, contends that the impugned communication was pursuant to the Circular issued by the State Government.

¶44

Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted

¶45

that the respondent No.2 had issued the Circular dated

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶48

28.02.2019 clarifying that there is no provision under the prevalent grant-in-aid Rules for transfer of grant-in-aid staff of private institutions and therefore, the transfer of the petitioner had to be cancelled. It was in that regard, the impugned communication was issued by the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.5 to repatriate the services of the petitioner to the parent institution.

¶49

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶50

It appears that the respondent No.4 - institute and the respondent No.6 - institute were admitted to grant-in-aid by the State Government. The petitioner was earlier employed as a Junior Training Officer at the respondent No.4 - institute and due to certain medical emergencies in his family, he made a request on 23.04.2001 to the Director of Employment and Training, Bengaluru for transfer to any other ITI which was admitted to grant. The Director of Employment and Training, Bengaluru, considering the request of the petitioner had granted permission after obtaining prior approval from the

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶52

department. The petitioner has admittedly worked in the respondent No.6 - institute for more than 18 years. The respondent No.2 cannot now turn around and claim that there is no provision for transfer of grant-in-aid staff of private institutions and repatriate the services of the petitioner to the respondent No.4 - institute. In view of the transfer of the petitioner from the respondent No.4 - institute to respondent No.6-institute, the vacancy that arose in the institution of the respondent No.4 is filled up, meaning thereby that there is no post available for the petitioner even if he is repatriated to the respondent No.4 - institute. Hence, the impugned communication addressed by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.5 directing it to repatriate the petitioner to the respondent No.4-institute deserves to be interfered with.

¶53

Consequently, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned communication bearing No.¨ÉA«PÀ/vÀ/PÀÄvÀAiÉÆÃ/fLJ/«ªÀ-

¶54

09J/2013-14 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.5 dated 25.04.2019 is quashed. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to continue as Junior Training Officer at the respondent No.6 - institute. It is needless to mention

¶55

9 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:11175 WP No. 24972 of 2019

¶57

that in view of this Order, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits which shall be settled by the respondent No.2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

¶58

a certified copy of this order.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶61

SMA

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri Rajeev N Pandit v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajeev N Pandit v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jagadish M K Vs State of Karnataka

B O Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Chaitanya P R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manohara Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Smt M K Lalitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Sivasaranappa S B Vs Raajya Vokkaligara Sangha