Smt Shalini P N vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3943 Kant

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

     WRIT PETITION NO. 4616/2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:


SMT. SHALINI P.N.,
W/O SRI. TEJAS
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
H.D.KOTE, TERRITORIAL RANGE
MYSURU DIVISION.
RESIDING AT RFO QUARTERS
H.D.KOTE TALUK, H.D.KOTE
MYSURU DISTRICT-57114.
                                         ....PETITIONER

(BY SRI. G.S.NAVEENKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
       CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
       DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
       ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
       M.S.BUILDING
       DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE-560 001.
                                2




2.      THE PRINCIPAL
        CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
        (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)
        ARANYA BHAVAN
        18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
        BANGALORE-560 003.
                                               ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VENKATASATHYANARAYANA, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NO.5499/2021 AT ANNEXURE-B AND AS WELL AS
THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION
NO.2/2022 AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.5499/2021.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                               ORDER

Present petition is filed seeking to set aside the

order dated 14.12.2021 passed in Application

No.5499/2021 as well as the order dated 10.02.2022

passed in Review Application in R.A.No.2/2022 by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in and by

which, the Tribunal rejected the application as well as

the review application filed by the petitioner herein on

the premise that the transfer guidelines dated

07.06.2013 is not applicable to the case of the

petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that;

(a) he is working as a Range Forest Officer at

H.D.Kote Territorial Range, Mysore Division since

24.08.2020. The 1st respondent by order dated

22.07.2021 had transferred the petitioner from

H.D.Kote Territorial Range, Mysore Division to Anekal

Territorial Forest Range, Anekal, Bangalore on the

administration grounds. Since the 2nd respondent had

not issued the movement order despite of written

representation by the petitioner, the petitioner had

approached the tribunal by filing the aforesaid

application.

(b) The tribunal by its order dated 14.12.2021

rejected the application holding that the transfer

guidelines dated 07.06.2013, under which the order

dated 22.07.2021 had been issued by the 1st

respondent, is not applicable to the transfer of 'other

officials' to which category the officials Range Forest

Officers cadre belong. The Tribunal further referring to

its earlier order dated 14.12.2021 passed in

A.No.5524/2021 observed that the 1st respondent had

not followed the mandatory provisions of Karnataka

State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Forest

Officers and other Officials) Act, 2016 and the Rules

made thereunder. Accordingly, dismissed the

application.

(c) This Court by its order dated 05.01.2022

passed in W.P.No.23653/2021 (S-KAT) had set aside

the earlier order of the Tribunal passed in

A.No.5524/2021, holding that post of the Range Forest

Officer does not come within the ambit of posts notified

under Schedule- I and Schedule- II on the Rules made

thereunder. Besides, there was a letter dated

03.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent clarifying that

Range Forest Officers have not been brought under the

purview of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner filed a

review application in R.P.2/2022 bringing to the notice

of the Tribunal with regard to the aforesaid judgment

of this Court. However, taking into consideration of the

fact that the aforesaid judgment of this Court was

passed on 05.01.2022 i.e., subsequent to dismissal of

the application filed by the petitioner on 14.12.2021,

the Tribunal declined to review its order. However,

Tribunal has observed that in future cases it will be

governed by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of this

Court in the matter of transfer of Range Forest Officers

and other officials with regard to Schedule-II and

directed the petitioner to approach this Court seeking

appropriate remedy. Accordingly, petitioner is before

this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the records.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is

working as a Range Forest Officer which category does

not come within the ambit of Schedule -II as held by

this Court in its judgment dated 05.01.2022 in

W.P.No.23653/2021.

5. In as much as the issue involved in the

present petition is covered by the aforesaid judgment,

the petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated

14.12.2021 passed by the Tribunal, is set aside and

respondents are directed to issue movement order to

the petitioner not later than 15 days from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RU