Sri. M.P Parameshwarappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11663 Kant

                             1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

        WRIT PETITION No.16290/2022 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI M.P. PARAMESHWARAPPA
S/O PARASHURAMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT MIG-69/R,
2ND STAGE, KASHIPURA MAIN ROAD
KALLAHALLI VINOBA NAGARA
SHIMOGA - 577 204.                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       VIKAS SOUDHA
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT
       CORPORATION
       9TH FLOOR,
       VISHVESHWARAIAH MINI TOWERS,
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.     SRI S.G. SRINIVAS
       DISTRICT MANAGER
       DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT
                              2


     CORPORATION
     SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI M.VINAYA KEERTHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 15.06.2022 AT SERIAL NO.1 IN
SA.KA.EE.57 MDS 2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A SO FAR AS PETITIONER AS CONCERNED AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Petitioner who is a Group-B Senior Grade Government

Employee under respondent No.2 - Corporation has called in

question the validity of the order at Annexure-A dated

15.06.2022, whereby respondent No.3 - Sri. S. G. Srinivas

has been posted as District Manager of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

Development Corporation, Shivamogga.

2. Petitioner submits that in terms of the order at

Annexure-C dated 22.07.2021, the petitioner was posted as

District Manager of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Development

Corporation, Shivamogga, in a vacant place and by virtue of

the order at Annexure-A, petitioner is sought to be

displaced within the security of tenure as per the transfer

guidelines. Petitioner has assailed the said order at

Annexure-A by relying on Rule 17(a) of the Karnataka Civil

Services Rules, while contending that two Government

servants cannot be appointed substantively to the same

permanent post. Reliance is also placed on the transfer

guidelines at Clause 6D(ii) while contending that the

requirement under Clause 6D(ii) is required to be strictly

adhered to by the Government.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate and

the private respondent would contend that posting of the

petitioner as per the order dated 22.07.2021 was only

incharge arrangement and if that were to be so, the

question of the petitioner seeking to challenge his relegation

does not arise and such relegation does not amount to

transfer and would not fall within the purview of transfer

guidelines.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 relies on

the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sri. R. S.

Pyatigoudar vs. The State of Karnataka and others -

W.P.No.202031/2019 dated 24.07.2019.

5. Heard both sides.

6. It is not in dispute that the posting of the

petitioner was only incharge post and the same is clarified

by the office order dated 18.06.2022 at Annexure-B, which

is self-explanatory. In fact, the order at Annexure-B

specifies that the petitioner herein is to go back to his

original post of Group-B, Taluk Development Officer. This

position is not in dispute. If the petitioner's posting was only

incharge arrangement, the petitioner cannot have any legal

right to object to his being relegated to his parent post and

the said legal position is also adverted to in

W.P.No.202031/2019 by the Division Bench in the

observation made at Paragraph No.9, which reads as

follows:

"On plain reading of the said provision, Rule 32 of KCS Rules will not confer any right to a party as such to continue with the said post, unless he is promoted to that particular post. Admittedly,

the petitioner is working as a Range Forest Officer and not yet promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests. He was posted on in charge arrangement under Rule 32 of KCS Rules.

Therefore, it is clear that, as a matter of right, he cannot claim that particular post or particular place. It is categorically stated in Rule 32 of KCS Rules that, it is only in charge arrangement and also for temporary measure. The clarification further made is that, the person should be eligible for promotion in order to officiate the promoted post under Rule 32 of KCS Rules. The eligibility criteria itself will not confer the right on the party to claim promotion unless the promotion itself is given, he cannot continue in the said post, if a competent person is already available to that post. Therefore, it is purely a discretion vested with the Government for the purpose of making such in charge arrangement till the competent person can occupy the said post. In that context, though the reasons are not adverted to in the transfer order itself, the facts and circumstances clearly go to show, for the said reasons, the respondents have posted the competent persons i.e., fifth respondent to the

said post disturbing the petitioner from that post."

7. Insofar as the contention that posting on

deputation must be strictly in accordance with Clause 6D(ii),

the said aspect cannot be called in question at the first

instance by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner

cannot object to the order whereby the respondent is

posted as District Manager. Petitioner has no vested right to

continue in the incharge post and accordingly, applicability

of transfer guidelines for such relegation of the petitioner to

his parent post would not arise.

8. Accordingly, petition is rejected subject to above

observations.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VP