Sri.K.V.Rajashekar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11737 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                       PRESENT
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
                         AND
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

       WRIT PETITION.NO.5343 OF 2022(S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K.V. RAJASHEKAR
S/O LATE R VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OFFICE ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU
R/AT NO.429, 2ND FLOOR
F CROSS, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 092
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       M.S. BUILDING
       BENGALURU - 560 001

2.     SRI. SHIVARAJA T.S.
       MAJOR, TAHSILDAR
       ATALJI JANASNEHI DIRECTORATE
       SSLR BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE
       BENGALURU-560 001
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
                                 2



(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADDL., ADVOCATE GENERAL
  A/W SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP FOR R1,
  SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 02.03.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
APPLICATION NO.599/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AS WELL AS
THE ORDER BEARING NO.E-RD 24 ATS 2022 DATED
05.02.2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A2     IN   ANNEXURE-A   TO    THE   ORIGINAL
APPLICATION AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   JUDGMENT    ON  16.08.2022, COMING ON   FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, RAJENDRA
BADAMIKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227

of Constitution of India challenging the order of the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application

No.599/2022 dated 02.03.2022 whereby the claim of the

petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated

05.02.2022 came to be rejected.

2. The facts leading to the case are that the

petitioner is holding the post of office assistant which is in

the cadre of Tahsildar. According to him while working as

a Shirestedar, he was promoted to the cadre of Tahsildar

on 19.01.2021 and posted to the present post. He took

charge on 20.01.2021. However, by impugned order dated

05.02.2022, the 2nd respondent has been posted to the

place of applicant and applicant is posted to the place of

2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by this order, he

approached the Tribunal for quashing the said order of

interse transfer which came to be rejected.

3. Heard both the sides.

4. It is to be noted here that all along the

petitioner has claimed that he was promoted to the cadre

of Tahsildar on 19.01.2021. However, from records, it is

evident that the petitioner was holding the post under Rule

32 of the KCSR and after submission of the written

statement by the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel has

admitted this aspect. But however, all along it is asserted

by him that he was promoted in 2021 to the post of

Tahsildar which is factually a false statement.

5. It is also an admitted fact that 2nd respondent is

in the regular Tahsildar cadre and the applicant is only

independent charge of higher post in the Tahsildar cadre.

The applicant claims that his transfer is prematured.

Further there is no serious dispute of the fact that in

pursuance of the impugned order the respondent No.2 has

taken charge of his post.

6. It is evident from the records that the petitioner

who is in the lower cadre of office assistant while 2nd

respondent is in the cadre of Tahsildar Grade-I. It is

further evident that posting of applicant to higher post

under Rule 32 of the KCSR is purely a temporary

arrangement. As such when the cadre officer is posted to

the place held by a person under Rule 32 being in lower

cadre, he is required to make a way for a cadre officer.

Admittedly, the petitioner has no lien in the post in the

higher cadre and he is not entitled for a tenure nor

protection of transfer guidelines which could apply to the

Government servants substantially borne in the cadre.

7. Much arguments have been advanced regarding

transfer guidelines of 2013 are being applicable even to

the persons posted under Rule 32 of KCSR. However, the

petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean

hands as he initially never asserted the fact that his

posting was under Rule 32 of the KCSR and initially he

asserted that he was promoted to the post of Tahsildar

which is not a factual aspect and he came up with the true

version only when the respondent No.2 filed objection

statement. From Annexure R2, it is evident that

respondent No.2 has already taken charge of his new

posting for posting under Rule 32 of KCSR, no minimum

tenure is prescribed. The Tribunal considered that the

petitioner who is in the lower cadre has held the post only

in a temporary capacity by provision of Rule 32 of KCSR

itself and cannot claim any tenurial benefits in this regard.

Initially, there was lot of confusion regarding this posting

and the Government notification has also lead to

confusion. But subsequently the notification dated

04.04.2022 produced by Government Advocate for the

respondent No.1 would clarify that the benefit in respect of

earlier notification is only in respect of pay scale and not

pertaining to cadre. An affidavit is also filed by the

concerned secretary in this regard. When the petitioner

has made a way to the officer in the cadre, he cannot

claim any tenurial benefits under the transfer guidelines.

Apart from that the petitioner does not have any right to

claim the same posting. Though there was an interchange,

it is to be noted here that a transfer is in Bengaluru itself

and that too an interchange. When the transfer place/city

is not changed and only place of working in the same city

is changed, it does not violate transfer guidelines of 2013.

Under these circumstances, the claim made by the

petitioner is not at all sustainable. From Ex.R3, it is

evident that the name of the petitioner is at Sl.No.199 and

he is only a Shirestedar and he was posted as office

assistant to Deputy Commissioner Office, Bengaluru City.

While Ex.R4 clearly disclose that the respondent No.2 is

promoted as Grade-I Tahsildar.

8. Apart from that transfer order is passed in view

of the public interest and in the interest of administrative

exigencies. Further the transfer order also disclose that

the transfer is within Bengaluru city itself and it does not

affect the place of working. What is the interest of the

petitioner in a particular posting is not at all forthcoming

and he being the only Shirestedar does not have any lien

over the post to which 2nd respondent is being posted. The

petitioner cannot claim posting as of right.

9. Under these circumstances, the petition being

devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, it stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NS CT:NR