B Mohammed Yousuf vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 4968 Kant

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17TH 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.5247/2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:


B.MOHAMMED YOUSUF,
S/O.LATE B.MADAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
RAJAJINAGAR DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY TRANSFERRED &
REPORTED AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR
AT BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 072.
                                          ....PETITIONER
(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE
      FOR SRI.BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       (REGISTRATION & STAMPS),
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
       M.S.BUILDING,
       BANGALORE-560 001.

2.     SMT.B.N.SHISHIKALA,
       W/O.MALLIKARJUN,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
       WORKING AS DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
       R/AT NO.83/D, 6TH CROSS,
                              2




      OPP. TO BSNL OFFICE,
      CHANDRA LAYOUT,
      BANGALORE-560 040.
                                          ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R-1,
      SRI.M.S.BHAGWATH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
      SRI.SATHISH.K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (a) CALL
FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT, (b) ISSUE OF
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DT.28.02.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA
STATE    ADMINISTRATIVE     TRIBUNAL,   BANGALORE    IN
APPLICATION NO.547/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & DISMISS
ORIGINAL   APPLICATION    NO.547/2022   FILED  BY   THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 & (c) SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER.

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



                             ORDER

Present writ petition is filed seeking issue of

writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated

28.02.2022, passed in Application No.547/2022, by

the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,

Bengaluru, in and by which, the Tribunal quashed the

order of transfer dated 02.02.2022 to the extent of

the petitioner and the Respondent No.2 herein.

2. Respondent No.2 herein filed the above

Application No.547/2022 before the Tribunal

contending inter alia that she is a Group 'A' cadre

District Registrar having been posted and working as

District Registrar, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,

in terms of notification dated 29.06.2020. That he

reported to duty on 30.06.2020 and has not

completed the minimum tenure of two years yet.

That by virtue of the Transfer order dated

02.02.2022, Respondent No.1 had transferred eight

District Registrars. That the petitioner herein has

been posted to the place of the Respondent No.2 and

Respondent No.2 is posted as Assistant Inspector

General of Registration, Computer Division,

Bengaluru. That such transfer and posting neither

had the approval of the Hon'ble Revenue Minister nor

of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. As such, the said

transfer order dated 02.02.2022 is contrary to the

transfer guidelines and the executive order dated

07.06.2013. That as per the order dated 24.11.2021

issued by the State Government, Department of

Transfer and Administrative Reforms, a transfer can

only be made against vacant post with the prior

approval of the concerned Minister. That the

impugned order, therefore, was one without the

authority of law and was liable to be set aside.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, Respondent

No.2 had filed Application No.547/2022 before the

Tribunal against the respondents and the petitioner

herein. Respondent No.2 had also filed another

Application No.602/2022 before the Tribunal,

aggrieved by her posting to the post of Assistant

Inspector General of Registration, Computer Division,

which according to the Respondent No.2 did not exist.

The Tribunal in view of the Respondent No.2 being the

common applicant in both the above applications and

involving common set of facts, disposed of the said

Applications No.547/2022 and 602/2022, by its

common Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2022, in

and by which, the Tribunal allowed the Application

No.547/2022 and set aside the transfer order dated

02.02.2022 to the extent concerning the petitioner

and the Respondent No.2 herein and dismissed the

Application No.602/2022. The Petitioner herein (who

is Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) being

aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal setting aside

the order of transfer, is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating

the grounds urged in the writ petition submits that

the petitioner was working as a District Registrar at

Gandhinagar and was transferred as District

Registrar, Ramanagara on 29.06.2020. By the same

order, i.e., on 29.06.2020, Respondent No.2 herein

who was working as District Registrar, Ramanagara

was transferred to District Registrar, Bengaluru Rural.

That the petitioner and Respondent No.2 had taken

charge in terms of the aforesaid order to the

respective posts. That by the impugned order dated

02.02.2022, Respondent No.1 has transferred

Respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Inspector of

Registration, Computer Division, Central Office,

Bengaluru and the petitioner has been transferred to

the post of District Registrar, Bengaluru Rural. That

by the aforesaid order dated 02.02.2022, Respondent

No.1 has given effect to the transfer of eight District

Registrars including the petitioner and the Respondent

No.2 herein in the public interest to meet

administrative exigencies. That the petitioner herein

has already assumed the charge of the said post on

03.02.2022. That the contention of the Respondent

No.2 that the transfer is premature cannot be

countenanced as she would be completing minimum

tenure of two years by end of June 2022. Hence, he

submits that no prejudice of any nature would be

caused to Respondent No.2 by the order dated

02.02.2022 passed by Respondent No.1. That the

Tribunal without taking into account this aspect of the

matter, on pure technicalities, set aside the order of

transfer, thereby causing prejudice and hardship to

the petitioner herein. Hence, seeks for allowing of the

petition.

5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits

that the impugned order of transfer is passed in

respect of eight District Registrars taking into

consideration the public interest and the

administrative exigencies. That Respondent No.2 has

completed substantial term in her office and hence,

no illegality can be found therewith.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2

justifying the order passed by the Tribunal submits

that the Tribunal in its well considered order, has

taken note of the fact that the impugned order of

transfer is contrary to the transfer guidelines dated

07.06.2013 and does not have the prior approval of

the Chief Minister besides being an order of

premature transfer. Hence, submits that the

petitioner has not made out any grounds for

entertaining the appeal and seeks for dismissal of the

same.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

8. This Court by its order dated 22.02.2022

passed in Writ Petition No.1757/2022 (S-KSAT)

involving identical set of facts wherein the transfer

was effected in respect of the petitioner therein which

was just a couple of months shy of the period

contemplated under the guideline had directed that

the order of transfer would be read and made

effective on and from the expiry of the minimum

tenure. Even in the instant case, it is an admitted

fact that the minimum tenure of two years of the

parties concerned would expire by the end of June

2022 which is just little more than three months from

now. Taking note of the decision of this Court in the

aforesaid Writ Petition No.1752/2022 and in view of

the identical facts and circumstances of the matter

involved in the present petition, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the similar order be passed in

this petition as well.

9. In that view of the matter, the order of the

Tribunal dated 28.02.2022 passed in Application

No.547/2022 quashing the transfer order dated

02.02.2022 in so far as with regard to the petitioner

and the Respondent No.2 herein is set aside making it

clear that the order of transfer dated 02.02.2022 as it

relates to the petitioner and the Respondent No.2

herein shall be read to become effective from

30.06.2020. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed

of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bnv