Disposed¶36

Sri.C.Sampath Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025WP/3413/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

transfer; displacement; frequent transfers of civil servants; Assistant Executive Engineer; Public Works Department; Water Resources Department; Tumakuru; Transfer Notification dated 24.10.2024; KSAT Application No.4990/2024; Articles 226 and 227; disposal on AGA's undertaking; costs made easy; NC: 2025:KHC:14898-DB.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with costs made easy, on the recorded arrangement that the petitioner will continue at his Tumakuru posting and that any posting of another person there will be rectified by issuing appropriate orders. ¶36

Sri.C.Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.01.2025 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench negativing Application No.4990/2024 — by which the petitioner had challenged the Transfer Notification dated 24.10.2024 as to his displacement — warranted interference by the Writ Court.

¶29

Court's answer

On the representation made in court (with which the private respondent's counsel was also agreeable), the petitioner has been assigned the posting at Tumakuru and will continue there; if somebody else is posted there, that will be rectified by issuing appropriate orders.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of and costs are made easy; the merits of the Tribunal's order are not otherwise adjudicated.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, WP No. 3413 of 2025 (S-KSAT), decided 08.04.2025 (Krishna S Dixit & Ramachandra D. Huddar JJ.; oral order per Krishna S Dixit J.). Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to assail the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench order dated 23.01.2025 in Application No.4990/2024 (Annexure-A), whereby the Tribunal negatived the petitioner Assistant Executive Engineer C. Sampath Kumar's challenge to the Transfer Notification dated 24.10.2024 concerning his displacement. The official respondents (State of Karnataka, Public Works Department and Water Resources Department) through the AGA, and private respondent Sri S. Lakshmikanth through private counsel, resisted in justification of the impugned order. Without adjudicating the merits, and noting the AGA's submission that the petitioner has been assigned the Tumakuru posting and will continue there (any contrary posting to be rectified by appropriate orders), an arrangement with which the private respondent's counsel was also happy, the Court disposed of the petition, costs being made easy. No precedent was cited.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:14898-DB WP No. 3413 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3413 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.C.SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERAIAH P, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINER, UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HEAD OFFICE, RESIDING AT SRIVATSA NILAYA, BEHIND SRIRANGA GAS GODOWN, GANESH NAGAR, HANUMANTHAPURA, TUMAKURU – 572 133.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

SRI S. LAKSHMIKANTH, FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR, WAS ON DEPUTATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:14898-DB WP No. 3413 of 2025

¶19

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SUB DIVISON, TUMAKURU 572 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR V B., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/01/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4990/2024 BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

¶25

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court

¶29

for assailing the State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 23.01.2025 whereby his Application No.4990 of 2024 has been negatived. In the said Application, petitioner had called in question the Transfer Notification dated 24.10.2024 so far as his displacement was concerned.

¶30

After service of notice, the learned AGA appears for the official respondents and the private respondent is

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14898-DB WP No. 3413 of 2025

¶32

represented by a private counsel. They resist the petition by making submission in justification of the impugned order.

¶33

3. Learned AGA in all fairness submits that

¶34

frequent transfers of a civil servant are not in the best interest of administration; Petitioner has been assigned

¶35

the posting at Tumakuru now and he will continue there only. If somebody is posted there, that will be rectified by issuing appropriate orders. With this arrangement, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent is also happy since his apple cart too is not disturbed.

¶36

With the above observations, this petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.

¶37

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶38

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶39

DH/Snb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri.C.Sampath Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.C.Sampath Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr. v. Shwethadri Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B. G. Narendra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh Kumar G T Vs the State of Karnataka

Captain Srinivasa Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

H S Vamana Murthy Vs Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal

Sri N S Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka