Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj Jainapur S/O Tukaram ... vs The Karnataka Power Corporation ... on 21 February, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.226028/2020 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
BASAWARAJ JAINAPUR
S/O TUKARAM JAINAPUR
AGE: 51 YEARS
OCC: ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
O/O O & M DIVISION,
GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD., BIDAR.
R/O NEAR ASHA FUNCTION HALL,
NEW ADARSH COLONY,
CHIDRI RING ROAD, BIDAR-585328.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI P.NITESH VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
CORPORATION LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
2. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
(ADM. & H.R.) GESCOM,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
O & M DIVISION, GESCOM,
BIDAR-585401.
5. SURYAKANTH
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
(INTERNAL AUDIT) GESCOM,
O & M SUB-DIVISION,
BIDAR-585401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRANSFER PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 VIDE ORDER NO.KA.VI.PRA.NI.NI./B58/88538/2018-19
DATED 20.06.2020 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS
THE TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER TO HUMNABAD AND
PLACING RESPONDENT NO.5 IN HIS PLACE AT BIDAR.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09.02.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has
been appointed as Assistant under respondent
No.1/Corporation and thereafter, he was promoted upto
the post of Accounts Officer. It is further stated in the writ
petition that the petitioner had also involved in the
association activities of SC & ST Employees. As per
Annexure-D, the petitioner was transferred and posted to
the office at Bidar (GESCOM). It is further stated that as
per the transfer guidelines issued by the Government,
order of transfer of the petitioner vide Annexure-A dated
20.06.2020 is contrary to law and as such, petitioner has
presented this writ petition.
2. Heard Sriyuths P. Vilas Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Nitesh Vilaskumar, for
the petitioner; Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.1/Corporation; Sudarshan M., learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4; and Mahesh Patil,
learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.5.
3. Sri P. Vilas Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has been malafidely transferred to the existing
place. That apart, he submitted that as on today,
petitioner has not been relieved from the earlier post. It is
the categorical argument of the petitioner that, in the said
transfer order, it is mentioned that transfer has been made
at the request of the parties mentioned at Annexure-A, but
the petitioner has not requested for transfer and therefore,
sought for interference in the writ petition.
4. In this regard, he placed reliance on the
judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Alla Saheb vs. State of Karnataka and
others in W.A.No.200488/2016 disposed of on
14.11.2016 and in the case of Sri C.B.Chikkalagi vs.
The State of Karnataka and others in
W.P.No.226384/2020 disposed of on 28.09.2020.
Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned
counsel appearing of the respondent-Corporation argued
that the petitioner is working as Accounts Officer, in O & M
Division, Bidar in the existing place for more than eight
years and respondent No.5 has worked in the office of
Internal Audit of O & M Division, Bidar, and accordingly,
for administrative reasons transfer has been effected. In
this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajendra Singh vs. State of UP and
others reported in (2009)15 SCC 178 and argued that
the petitioner has no vested right to remain posted at a
place of his choice. He further argued that interference of
this Court in the transfer matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is limited and therefore, sought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Mahesh Patil, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.5 contended that respondent
No.5 has taken charge and therefore, petitioner has no
legal right in this writ petition.
7. I have carefully considered the contentions and
grounds urged in this writ petition by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
8. This Court by order dated 03.07.2020 stayed
Annexure-A in respect of transfer of the petitioner subject
to the fact that respondent No.5 has not taken charge. In
this regard, respondent No.1 has filed memo dated
01.09.2020 stating that respondent No.5 had taken charge
on 22.06.2020 to the transferred post of Accounts Officer
at O & M Division, GESCOM at Bidar, in terms of the
impugned transfer order (Annexure-A) in the presence of
respondent No.4 and in this regard, he has produced CTC
extract dated 22.06.2020.
9. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that
the petitioner has worked as Accounts Officer in O & M
Division, GESCOM, Bidar, for more than eight years and
the respondent-Corporation taking into account the
administrative aspects has transferred the petitioner by
impugned order dated 20.06.2020. It is the case of the
petitioner that he is involved in the association activities of
SC & ST Employees. However, petitioner cannot get the
said benefit unless he produces the relevant material
before the Court that he is having an active participation in
the functioning of the said association. That apart, perusal
of the writ papers further indicate that the transfer has
been effected during the month of June. Therefore, no
interference is required in this writ petition by exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Insofar as arguments advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel relating to the application of guidelines issued by
the Government insofar as transfer of the employees, the
Division Bench of this Court in the order dated
08.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.8634/2020 in the case of
Sri. C Manjunath vs. The State of Karnataka and
others wherein at paragraph-28 of the order has observed
as under:
"28. Petitioner has not made out any
good ground of malafide exercise of power
either by the respondent-State or by the Chief
Minister. When the State Government has
produced Annexure-R1 and there being no
dispute to said fact by the petitioner, the order
of transfer having been made for
administrative exigencies and in the public
interest, contention of the petitioner that said
order of transfer is made without assigning any
reason, does not hold water. We do not agree
with such proposition as no judicial review
would be available for the petitioner when
there is compliance of Clause 9(b) of the
Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013."
10. I have also noticed from the records that the
petitioner filed CCC No.200119/2020 (Civil) before this
Court regarding compliance of the order dated 03.07.2020
and the Division Bench of this Court dropped the contempt
proceedings against the respondent/ Corporation. In that
view of the matter, transfer is an incidence of service. In
view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
catena of decisions, interference of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India relating to transfer is
limited. Accordingly, I do not find any acceptable ground to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the
respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, writ petition is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
