Smt. R Vani vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2434 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                         PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                           AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

         WRIT PETITION NO.5280 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SMT. R VANI
D/O M. RAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICE,
HASSAN-573201.
                                   ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
        VIKAS SOUDHA,
        BANGALORE-560001
        REPRESENTED BY ITS
        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2.      THE COMMISSIONER
        HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
        ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
        BANGALORE-560009.
                                  2




3.      THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
        HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
        ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
        BANGALORE-560009.

4.      SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR D
        S/O DORESWAMY,
        AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
        WORKING AS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
        NOW WORKING AT ARAKALAGUD,
        RESIDING AT KARLE VILLAGE AND POST,
        KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK
        AND DISTRICT - 573 201.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY   SRI.  H.M.YATHISH,   ADVOCATE FOR   CAVEATOR
/RESPONDENT NO.4;
SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN
APPLICATION NO.9012/2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA    STATE    ADMINISTRATIVE    TRIBUNAL   AT
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.06.2021, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, NATARAJ
RANGASWAMY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

The instant writ petition is filed challenging the Order

dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (henceforth referred

to as 'the Tribunal') in Application No.9012/2018. By the

aforesaid order, the Tribunal directed the respondent-

authorities to restore the place of posting of the

respondent No.4 at Hassan where he was earlier working

as the Assistant Administrative Officer.

2. The application filed by the respondent No.4

before the Tribunal discloses that he was working as a

Superintendent in the General Hospital, Holenarasipura,

Hassan. That the departmental promotion Committee in its

proceedings dated 26.04.2016, promoted the respondent

No.4 to the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer and

posted him at the General Hospital, Harapanahalli,

Davanagere District. Subsequently, in the general transfer,

the respondent No.4 was transferred as Assistant

Administrative Officer at District Health and Family Welfare

Office (for short, 'DHO'), Hassan. He contended that

pursuant to the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in

the case of B.K. Pavithra vs. Union of India [(2019) 16

SCC 129], the Government issued various circulars to

review the seniority. In that process, the respondent No.2

had issued a notification dated 17.04.2018 by which the

respondent No.4 was reverted to the cadre of

Superintendent. In the very same notification, a few

persons including the petitioner herein were promoted to

the post of the Assistant Administrative Officer. It is

claimed that the reversion of the respondent No.4 and

others was contrary to the circular and instructions issued

by the Government since at the time of reviewing the

seniority list, though it was stated that reservation to

reserved candidates was available in the ratio of 15% and

3%, the same was not provided and the respondent No.4

fell within 15%. He further claimed that in the seniority list

so prepared, since the reversion so made was without

providing the reservation to the reserved candidates as

required under law, the Department once again reviewed

the seniority and promotion by providing reservation.

Consequently, the reserved candidates who were working

as Assistant Administrative Officers were reverted.

Therefore, respondent No.2 passed an order dated

15.05.2018 amending the earlier notification dated

17.04.2018. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 by

referring to the amended order dated 15.05.2018, issued

official memorandum dated 24/26.07.2018 cancelling the

reversion of respondent No.4 and posting him as Assistant

Administrative Officer at General Hospital, Arakalagudu,

Hassan. The respondent No.4 contended that the

respondent No.2 had continued / retained all other persons

who were reverted, by the notification dated 17.04.2018,

to their original place and post. However, in his case, he

was selectively discriminated and posted as the Assistant

Administrative Officer at General Hospital, Arakalagudu.

He therefore, submitted a representation dated

28.07.2018 to the respondent No.2 requesting to restore

him in the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer at DHO

Hassan, where he was earlier working.

3. The respondent No.4 claimed that he came to

know later that the petitioner was promoted pursuant to

the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in

B.K. Pavitra's case (supra) and was posted at Nursing

College, Holenarasipura. However, she got it cancelled

and she was posted as the Assistant Administrative Officer

at DHO, Hassan. The respondent No.4 contended that in

view of such a notification, his place and posting was not

restored. He therefore challenged the official memorandum

dated 15.05.2018 issued by respondent No.2 posting the

petitioner herein to DHO, Hassan and the order/official

memorandum dated 24/26-07-2018 issued by respondent

No.3 posting the petitioner to General Hospital,

Arakalagudu, before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal noticed that all the other

Assistant Administrative Officers except the respondent

No.4 were posted back to the same place and post which

they held before reversion, after their reversion was

cancelled by the Government. The Tribunal found that the

respondent No.4 was therefore entitled to be reverted to

the same post at the same place. Hence, the Tribunal

cancelled the order of the transfer of the petitioner herein

to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer at DHO,

Hassan and directed the authorities to restore the place

and post of the respondent No.4 herein at Hassan, where

he was earlier working. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid

order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ

petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that after the respondent No.4 was reverted,

the post was vacant. The petitioner was appointed at the

Nursing college, Holenarasipura and on her request, to

post her against the vacant post that was earlier held by

the respondent No.4, she was posted as Assistant

Administrative Officer at DHO, Hassan. She claimed that

she took over charge and was working.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.4 contended that the petitioner was given a

substantive post at Nursing College, Holenarasipura, but

was later transferred to the DHO, Hassan, which was

occupied by the respondent No.4. He contended that this

arrangement was made only to accommodate the

petitioner herein. He also contended that while others were

reverted back to the same place and posting, only he was

discriminated and was posted to Arakalagudu as the

Assistant Administrative Officer. He also contended that

the petitioner was not eligible to be posted as Assistant

Administrative Officer at DHO, Hassan as such posting

could be done only by counselling as per the Statute and

Rules.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to

the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the

parties.

8. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.4

was earlier posted as the Assistant Administrative Officer

at DHO, Hassan. Pursuant to an order of reversion, he

was reverted as Superintendent. Thereafter, the order of

reversion was set aside and the place of posting of all

those persons who were affected by such reversion were

restored back to their original places. However, in so far

as the respondent No.4 is concerned, instead of reverting

him as the Assistant Administrative Officer at DHO,

Hassan, he was posted as the Assistant Administrative

officer at Arakalagudu. The petitioner claimed that the

post occupied by the respondent No.4 was vacant as

respondent No.4 was reverted and therefore, at her

request, she was posted at the DHO, Hassan.

9. When once the Government has taken a

decision to restore the position pursuant to the

cancellation of the order reverting the respondent No.4

and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot selectively treat

the respondent No.4 differently. If the place and posting

of all the other persons whose reversion was cancelled was

restored in their original places, the respondent No.4 is

also entitled to be treated alike.

10. In that view of the matter, the impugned order

passed by the Tribunal cancelling the posting of the

respondent No.4 as Assistant Administrative Officer at

General Hospital, Arakalagudu, Hassan, and setting aside

the order of posting of the petitioner as Assistant

Administrative Officer at DHO, Hassan is just and proper

and does not call for any interference by this Court. The

respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall forthwith post the respondent

No.4 as Assistant Administrative Officer at DHO, Hassan

and indicate suitable posting for the petitioner within one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma