Shri P. Dinesh vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6333 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB
                                                    WP No. 16080 of 2023




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                     DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                      PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                                         AND
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                   WRIT PETITION NO.16080 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
              BETWEEN:


              SHRI P. DINESH
              S/O SHRI PUJAPPA
              AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
              TAHSILDAR GRADE 1
              BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
              KANDAYA BHAVAN,
              K G ROAD,
              BANGALORE 560 009.
              RESIDING AT NO.3451,
              5th CROSS, 10th MAIN,
              INDIRANAGAR II STAGE,
              BENGALURU - 560 038.
Digitally
signed by D                                                  ...PETITIONER
HEMA
              (BY SHRI V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
Location:
HIGH COURT        SHRI HARISH V. S., ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA
              AND:


              1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                   BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
                   REVENUE DEPARTMENT
                   M.S BUILDING,
                   BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                 -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB
                                          WP No. 16080 of 2023




2.   SHRI SRINIVAS H
     TAHSILDAR
     KGF TALUK,
     KOLAR DISTRICT.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIKRAM A HUILGOL, AAG ALONG WITH
    SMT.SHILPA S. GOGI, AGA FOR R1;
    SHRI PRITHVEESH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2)


      THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE     ADMINISTRATIVE     TRIBUNAL   BENGALURU,    VIDE   ORDER
DATED      20.07.2023   IN     APPLICATION   No.2354/2023      i.e.,
ANNEXURE-'B' AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER IN AP. No.2354/2023, BEFORE THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU AND ETC.


      THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 08th    AUGUST 2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA J, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

Petitioner in Application No.2354/2023 on the file of

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru

(hereinafter for short, referred as KSAT) has filed this writ

petition seeking to quash the order passed in the said

Application No.2354/2023 dated 20.07.2023.

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

2. Writ Petitioner has prayed the following reliefs

in the present Writ Petition:

3. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner is

Junior Scale Officer in the Department of Religious and

Charitable Endowments, which is equivalent to Tahsildar

(Grade-I) in the Revenue Department. The Petitioner was

posted as Tahsildar (Grade-I), Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru

Urban District on deputation vide a Notification issued by

Respondent No.1 bearing No.E-RD 63 ATS 2021 dated

26.02.2021 and the petitioner had reported to duty to the

said post on 01.03.2021. Thereafter, petitioner was

transferred from Anekal Taluk to Tahsildar (Grade-I),

Bengaluru South Taluk vide Notification No.E-RD 146 ATS

2022, dated 13.09.2022. On 16.06.2023, Respondent

No.1 issued impugned Notification bearing No.E-Kam.E.64

ATS 2023 repatriating the petitioner to his Parent

Department and he was asked to report to his Parent

Department and in his place, Respondent No.1 was

transferred and posted. No posting orders was given to

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

petitioners. The said Notification was challenged by the

petitioner before the Karnataka State Administrative

Tribunal in Application No. 2354/2023, urging various

grounds. The KSAT, after hearing the matter, by impugned

order dated 20.07.2023 rejected the application of

petitioner, that is, challenged in the present writ petition

on the grounds stated in the writ petition.

4. Respondent No.1 did not file any response to

the petition before KAT. Respondent No.2 in his reply has

contended that petitioner had been serving in the Revenue

Department on deputation from the year 2017 and had

worked in various posts, including post of Tahsildar,

Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, Task

Force and Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.

The petitioner has completed maximum tenure on

deputation. Hence, he has no right to continue in the post

of Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk. The

deputationist could be repatriated to their parent cadre at

any point of time and they do not get any right to be

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

absolve to the deputation post. The petitioner has

completed the maximum tenure of two years as per the

Transfer Guidelines. He has no right to be continued in

the said post.

5. The contention of the petitioner that respondent

No.2 is not competent to hold the post of Tahsildar

(Grade-I) is not tenable in law. It is the decision of the

Government which prevails. He has further contended

that the petitioner has not alleged any malafide reasons

for his transfer and also any hardship caused to him by the

said transfer. Petitioner was not transferred but

repatriated to his parent Department and he was ordered

to go back to his parent Department. That does not

amount to transfer. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss

the petition.

6. The Tribunal, has rejected the petition mainly

on the ground that he has already completed period of two

years on deputation. Therefore, there is no any violation

of the Government Order of the year 2013 and petitioner

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

has no right to challenge transfer of Respondent No.2 to

his position on the ground that he is not of the rank of

Tahsildar (Grade-I), because, it is the right of the

Government and moreover, the petitioner was serving in

the Revenue Department on deputation, has no right to

challenge the said orders. With these reasons, the Tribunal

has rejected the petition by impugned order dated

20.07.2023.

     7.   We     have       heard   the      arguments     of

Shri.V.Lakshminarayana,       learned      Senior    Counsel

appearing for writ petitioner and Shri.Vikram A Huilgol,

learned Additional Advocate General for State on behalf of

Respondent No.1 and Shri.Prithveesh.M.H., learned

Advocate for Respondent No.2.

8. The learned Senior Counsel Shri.V.Lakshmi-

Narayana on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that

the petitioner had worked on in-charge basis from the year

2017 and it was for a very short period of few days. It

was in-charge arrangements. During the course of the

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

arguments, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that for

first time, he was transferred on deputation by order dated

26.02.2021 as per Annexure-A8 and he was deputed as

Tahsildar (Grade-I), Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban

District. Thereafter, by Annexure-A10, the Government by

order dated 13.09.2022 transferred petitioner as Tahsildar

(Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk, which was vacant post

and within a period of about nine months, once again, he

has been transferred and repatriated to report to his

parent Department. The impugned Notification at

Annexure- A12 is contrary to the Guidelines issued by the

Government for Transfer and Deputation. Therefore, the

said impugned order of transfer is illegal.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has

further submitted that the Guidelines prescribed in the

Transfer Guidelines of the year 2013, were ignored while

passing the impugned transfer order. Petitioner worked as

Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk only for a

period of about nine months and not completed the period

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

of two years. This fact was not at all considered by the

Tribunal. As per the Transfer Guidelines produced at

Annexure-A3, the Government could not have repatriated

the petitioner to his parent department within a period of

nine months. This point was not properly considered by

the Tribunal. On the contrary, the Tribunal, without any

basis, has observed that petitioner has completed period

of two years on deputation, therefore, he cannot make any

grievance about his transfer and repatriation to his parent

department. The said finding is incorrect. The learned

Senior Counsel has further submitted that Respondent

No.2 is of the cadre of Tahsildar (Grade-II) and he has

been transferred and posted to the cadre of Tahsildar

(Grade-I), which is contrary to the law. He could not be

posted to Tahsildar (Grade-I) and he is not competent and

eligible to be placed to the said post. It is not the case of

Respondent No.1 that the said transfer is under Rule 32 of

the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Therefore, the said

transfer is illegal.

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

10. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that

as per the Deputation Guidelines of the year 1981, before

taking any hands from other department, there should be

consultation between the Secretaries and thereafter only,

any officer belonging to the other department could be

taken on deputation and the same procedure has to be

followed while repatriating such an officer to the parent

department and in this case, no such consultation was

made by the concerned departments. Therefore, on this

ground also, the said transfer is illegal. In support of his

submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on

catena of judgments along with the list.

11. The learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the State has submitted that petitioner was

taken on deputation and posted to the cadre of Tahsildar

(Grade-I). Initially, he was posted to Anekal Taluk and

thereafter, by order dated 13.09.2022, he was deputed to

the post of Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk,

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

which was vacant and his service is no more required to

the Revenue Department, therefore, by impugned order

date 16.06.2023, he was repatriated to parent

department. Actually, it does not amount to any transfer.

12. The learned Additional Advocate General further

has submitted that admittedly, petitioner is not belonging

to Revenue Department and he is belonging to Religious

and Endowment Department. He was posted as a

Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk on deputation.

He has been on deputation as Tahsildar (Grade-I) in

Anekal Taluk as well as Bengaluru South Taluk from the

year 2021 as per Annexure-A8. He completed the tenure

of two years of deputation during the month of February

2023. Thereafter, he has no right to claim protection

under the Transfer Guidelines as per Annexure-A3,

because his term is already completed. Considering these

facts, the Tribunal has rightly rejected his petition and it

does not call for any interference.

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

The learned Additional Advocate General further

submits that the Tribunal has not wrongly calculated the

period of deputation, on the contrary, in the impugned

Judgment/Order passed by the SKAT, it is specifically

mentioned that the period of in-charge arrangements

made by the Government placing petitioner for a short

period were not at all considered. Therefore, the

submission of the learned Senior Counsel in this regard,

contrary to the fact, is incorrect.

13. The learned Additional Advocate General has

further submitted that petitioner is in the Revenue

Department on deputation, therefore, he has no right or

he cannot refuse to go back to his parent department

when he is repatriated. Therefore, on this count, the

petition itself is not maintainable. He has no right to

challenge transfer of Respondent No.2 to his position. The

learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted

that undisputedly, the Secretary of the Revenue

Department is also Secretary of Religious and Endowment

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

Department. Therefore, sending of requisition to

Endowment Department, consultation of the secretary of

the said Department and thereafter, posting the petitioner

on deputation to the Revenue Department does not arise

and hence, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the

Transfer Guidelines of the year 1981 and contend that the

repatriation order of petitioner to his parent department, is

without consultation of concerned Secretary, does not hold

any water.

14. The learned Additional Advocate General has

further submitted that the impugned order of transfer and

repatriation of petitioner to his parent department is in

accordance with law. Transfer or cancellation of

deputation is incidental to the appointment of any

Government servant. Therefore, prayed to reject the

contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The

learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted

copy of the file pertaining to transfer orders passed dated

16.06.2023.

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

15. The learned Advocate appearing for Respondent

No.2 has submitted that petitioner is not belonging to

Revenue Department and he is a lent hand from Religious

and Charitable Endowments Department. Earlier, he was

placed in-charge of Tahsildar (Grade-I), Benglauru South

Taluk and Anekal Taluk. He has suppressed the said facts.

He was deputed as Tahsildar (Grade-I) of Anekal Taluk by

order dated 26.02.2021. Thereafter, he was deputed as

Tahsildar (Grade-I), Benglauru South Taluk by order dated

13.09.2022 and by the impugned order, he is repatriated to

his parent department. In the impugned order at Annexure-

A12, he has not been transferred to any place and it is the

parent department which has to give the posting to him in

accordance with the Rule. In the impugned order passed

by the KSAT, direction was issued to the Government to

give him postings within a period of three weeks.

Accordingly, the Government has issued Notification

bearing No.Kom.E.102. Mu.Se.Vi.2023 dated 03.08.2023

posting him as Assistant Commissioner in the Religious and

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

Charitable Endowments Department, Office of the Deputy

Commissioner, Benglauru Rural District. In view of the

changed circumstances, petitioner has no right to

challenge the impugned order.

16. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 has

further submitted that as per Rule 8 of the Transfer

Guidelines of 2013, maximum period of deputation shall

be two years and the petitioner had completed the period

of two years in February, 2023. Therefore, he cannot

make any grievance against the repatriation order dated

16.06.2023. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.3

has also relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in

support of his contentions and prays to dismiss the writ

petition.

17. The learned counsel on both the sides relied on

the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well

as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court regarding transfer

policy or sanctity of the Transfer Rules of 2013. In the

impugned order, the KAT has relied on the judgment of

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

this Court rendered in the case of RABINDRANATH A

HANCHINAL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1

and K.T.SUBHAS CHANDRA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF

COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS2.

The Tribunal has not considered the said judgment on the

ground that is not applicable to the facts of the case.

18. In the case of SRI PREM SINGH Vs. THE STATE

OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER3 rendered by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is held that the Transfer

Guidelines of the year 2013 has statutory force and

violation of the said Guidelines amounts to violation of law

and such transfers are illegal and should be interfered.

19. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of TEJSHREE GHAG AND OTHERS Vs.

PRAKASH PARASHURAM PATIL AND OTHERS4 pertaining

to transfer from one post to another non-equivalent post

resulting in loss of pay and held that such transfers are

W.P.No.22647/2020 dated 11.11.2020

W.P.No.47197/2013 dated 17.12.2013

W.P.No.212920/2020 dated 28.02.2020

(2007) 6 SCC 220

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

contrary to law. The law laid down in the said judgment is

not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned

Advocate for the petitioner has relied it to contend that

transfer of Respondent No.2, who is in the cadre of

Tahsildar (Grade-II), to the post of Tahsildar (Grade-I) as

illegal and invalid. The said contention in the present

petition is not tenable; because, the petitioner is not

belonging to Revenue Department and he is lent hand

from Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

The officer belonging to Revenue Department who is of

Tahsildar (Grade-I), if replaced by Tahsildar (Grade-II),

then, he may question such transfers. In the present

case, the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent

department for seeking posting. Therefore, the law laid

down in the said judgment does not help him.

20. The petitioner has relied on the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

SARVESH KUMAR AWASTHI Vs. U.P.JAL NIGAM AND

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

OTHERS5. In the said case, due to political pressure, the

officer was transferred and repatriated to his parent

department. Hence not relevant to facts of present case.

Similarly, in the case of SRI RAJASHEKAR.M. Vs. THE

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS6, the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has held that Transfer Guidelines has

statutory force and shall be followed. In this case,

repatriation of petitioner is not premature. Hence it does

not help the petitioner.

21. In the case of SRI SHIVAPPA H LAMANI Vs.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA7 before the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal, Benglauru, it is held that Tahsildar

(Grade-I) cannot be replaced by Tahsildar (Grade-II).

Posting of Tahsildar (Grade-II) to the post of Tahsildar

(Grade-I) is not permissible.

22. In the case of SMT.P.V.POORNIMA VS. STATE

OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS8, the Co-ordinate Bench of

(2003) 11 SCC 740

W.P.No.45916 dated 13.11.2018

Application No.6146 of 2021 dated 24.01.2022

W.P.No.2661/2020 dated 29.07.2020

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

this Court held that transfers and postings frequently as

per whims and fancies of executive head due to political

pressure or other consideration and not in the public

interest without any reasons are not tenable. That needs

interference by the Courts.

23. In the case of SHRI KANTEPPA VS. THE STATE

OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS9, the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court has held that pre-mature transfer without

assigning any valid reasons is impermissible.

24. In the case of SRI V G HITTALAMANI Vs. THE

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS10, the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has held that the transfers of

Government servants without postings are malafide or in

blatant violation of the Guidelines of 07.06.2013 and are

impermissible and such transfers are invalid and the Court

has to interfere in such circumstances.

W.P.No.204826/2019 dated 29.05.2020

W.P.No.43919/2016

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

The above judgments are relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions.

25. In the case of KUNAL NANDA Vs. UNION OF

INDIA AND ANOTHER11, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held

that a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim

for permanent absorption in the department where he

works on deputation, unless his claim is based upon a

statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law.

26. In the case of M.N.PUTTARAJU Vs. THE STATE

OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS12, the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court by relying on the judgment in the case of Kunal

Nanda Vs. Union of India and another (referred supra) has

held that the deputationist has no vested right and even if

deputation is for a fixed period, the deputationist can be

repatriated for reasons to be recorded and after affording

an opportunity.

(2000) 5 SCC 362

W.P.No.26048/2022

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

27. In the case of H.S.CHANDRASHEKAR VS. THE

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS13, the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has held that when the order of

deputation would specifically indicate that deputation of

deputationist was "until further orders", in other words,

deputation was not for any fixed term or period, no right

is crystallized in favour of deputationist under the said

order of deputation to contend that he is entitled to

continue for a period of two years.

28. In the case of SRI M KEMPEGOWDA AND

OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER14,

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying on the

judgment of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India (referred

supra), has held that deputationist has no vested right to

continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the

department to which he had gone on deputation.

W.P.No.12528/2020 dated 24.11.2020

W.P.Nos.2783-2788/2018 dated 23.10.2018

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

29. In the case of T.M.SHASHIKUMAR Vs. STATE

OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS15, the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court has held that the deputationist has assailed the

order of repatriation on the ground that it was pre-mature

and the said contention was rejected by this Court.

      30.   In    the   case     of      SRI    RAVINDRANATH       A

HANCHINAL        Vs.    THE    STATE       OF     KARNATAKA     AND

ANOTHER16, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with

regard to posting of a lower cadre officer to the posting to

higher cadre officer has held to be valid if the transfer is

not made with a malafide intention and no materials are

placed on record to demonstrate any malice in such

posting.

31. In the case of Dr.K.T.SUBHAS CHANDRA Vs.

THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS17, the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court has held that if there is no malice in transfer of

a Government servant and transfers were made in the

W.P.No.26253/2019 dated 24.06.2019

W.P.No.226457/2020 dated 11.11.2020

W.P.No.47197/2013 and connected matters dated 17.12.2013

- 22 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

public interest, cannot be a ground for nullifying the

transfer orders.

32. Similarly, Respondent No.2 has relied on the

following judgments wherein it is held that deputationist

has no right to seek for absorption or transfer of officers of

the Government in the public interest:

1) B.B.M.P. Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.5324/2023 and connected matters) decided on 31.03.2023;

2) Mahiboobsab Sab Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.201907/2022) decided on 14.03.2023;

3) Y.A.Kale Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.105079/2022) decided on 17.11.2022;

4) Sri M.B.Raju Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.14286/2021) decided on 16.08.2022;

5) Sri Nagesh M.D. Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.19132/2021) decided on 08.02.2022;

6) A.C.Rajanna Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.17729/2021) decided on 09.11.2021;

- 23 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

7) Shivaling Kondaguli Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.26294/2012) decided on 03.08.2012;

8) Sri Venugopala M. Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.26294/2012) decided on 03.08.2012;

9) Mohd.Masood Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150.

33. Let us consider the facts of the present case

and application of the above said law to the facts of the

present case. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a Group

A of Junior Scale officer serving in the Religious and

Charitable Endowments Department. His rank is equivalent

to Tahsildar (Grade-I) of the Revenue Department. It is

also not in dispute that while he was serving as Group-A

officer in the Religious and Charitable Endowments

Department, he was given additional charge of Tahsildar

(Grade-I) of Bengaluru South Taluk from 25.07.2017 to

03.08.2017 and in another interval, he was again placed

in-charge of the said post from 20.08.2017 to 06.10.2017;

- 24 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

he was again placed in-charge of Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk

from 29.11.2017 to 31.08.2018; Again, he was placed in

additional charge of Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk from

17.03.2018 to 23.06.2018.

34. Transfer and posting of petitioner on deputation

vide Notification bearing No.E-RD 63 ATS 2021 dated

26.02.2021 is produced at Annexure-A8. According to the

said Notification, he was deputed to the post of

Shri.C.Mahadevaiah, Tahsildar (Grade-I), who was

retiring, in Anekal Taluk of Bengaluru Urban District due to

superannuation. The said deputation was from the date of

Notification till further orders. It is the not the case of

petitioner that while deputing the petitioner to the said

post, there was any consultation between the Secretaries

of Revenue Department as well as the Religious and

Charitable Endowments Department. It is also pertinent

to note that no specific period was mentioned to post him

on deputation. Reading of Annexure-A8, indicates that

since Tahsildar of said Taluk has retired and there was no

- 25 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

hands to post immediately and hence in the interest of

public, he was deputed to the said position. It appears,

without any grievance, petitioner occupied the said

position and served as Tahsildar (Grade-I), Anekal Taluk

of Bengaluru Urban District.

35. The government has issued another Notification

bearing No.E-RD 146 ATS 2022 dated 13.09.2022. By the

said Notification, the petitioner was transferred from the

post of Tahsildar (Grade-I), Anekal Taluk of Bengaluru

Urban District to the vacant post of Tahsildar (Grade-I),

Bengaluru South Taluk. The learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner submits that posting of petitioner to

Tahsildar (Grade-I) of Bengaluru South Taluk is a transfer

and not deputation. The said submission is not acceptable

for simple reason that admittedly, he was not belonging to

Revenue Department in the cadre of Tahsildar (Grade-I).

On the contrary, he was a Group-A officer serving in

Religious and Charitable Endowments Department; It

appears that the Authority who issued Annexure-A10 did

- 26 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

not mention that it was a "deputation". Only due to

absence of such word "deputation" cannot be reason to

hold that it was transfer and not deputation.

36. It is also pertinent to note that even though the

petitioner was transferred within a period of one year and

six months, he had no grievance about the said transfer

from one place to another place, which was not in

accordance with the Transfer Guidelines of the year 2013.

The deputation/transfer order of the petitioner vide

Annexure-A10, was not with consultation of Secretaries of

Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and

Revenue Department. The petitioner has not produced

any proceedings in this regard.

37. By the impugned Notification at Annexure-A12

dated 16.06.2023, the Respondent No.2 is transferred to

the post of Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk in

place of petitioner and petitioner was repatriated to his

parent department. The said Notification was issued by

the under Secretary, Revenue Department (Services-III).

- 27 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

38. It appears during the interregnum period, the

Government had issued Karnataka Civil Services (General

Recruitment) (amendment) Rules, 2021 vide Notification

bearing No.DPAR 179 SRR 2020 dated 30.07.2021,

wherein an amendment was made to the Rules, stating

that the officer belonging to the other Department cannot

be posted as Tahsildar (Grade-I) and Tahsildar (Grade-II)

of Revenue Department. The said Notification was

challenged by the petitioner herein along with some

others, before the KSAT in Application Nos.3733, 3734,

3728, 3731 and 4005 of 2021. The KSAT after hearing

both the sides, by the order dated 27.11.2021 held that

the said amendment would be prospective, that is, would

come into effect from the date of Notification and not

applicable to the deputation orders passed prior to the said

Notification. It appears that in view of the said orders, the

deputation of petitioner herein was continued.

39. The main contention of the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner is that the repatriation order

- 28 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

passed by the Government as per Annexure-A12 is

contrary to the provisions of Circular bearing No.DCA 16

ARB 81 dated 18.11.1981 issued by the Government of

Karnataka. According to which, before posting of an officer

on deputation belonging to one department (lending

department) to another department (borrowing

department), heads of both departments shall be

consulted and posting order shall be made. Similarly,

before repatriation of officers on deputation to his home

department. There shall be prior consultation and

agreement between both departments. In this case, said

rule is not followed. Therefore, the said repatriation order

passed by Revenue Department is without consultation of

the Secretary of the Religious and Charitable Endowments

Department and hence is void and illegal.

40. It is the contention of the respondents that as

on the date of issue of Annexure-A12, the Secretary of the

Revenue Department as well as the Secretary of the

Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is one

- 29 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

and the same person. Therefore, separate consultation

was not required. Even at the time of initial deputation of

petitioner to the Revenue Department, no such

consultation was made and he had not aggrieved by the

same. Therefore, now, he cannot make any grievance on

the ground that there was no consultation between the

two departments before repatriating him to the parent

department. Moreover, he had not shown any prejudice in

this regard. Hence, question of posting of repatriation

order against rules does not arise. The submission of the

learned Advocate for the respondents and the learned

Additional Advocate General is tenable. When the

Secretary of both the Departments are the one and the

same person; the question of consultation do not arise and

said Secretary had passed the impugned transfer orders,

repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. The

Government has not violated the said Circular dated

18.11.1981. Therefore, on this count, Annexure-A12

cannot be held to be invalid.

- 30 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

41. It is a submission of the learned Senior Counsel

for petitioner that petitioner was deputed by Notification

dated 26.02.2021 to the post of Tahsildar (Grade-I),

Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. Thereafter, he was

transferred to Bengaluru South Taluk by Notification dated

13.09.2022 and by impugned Notification dated

16.06.2023 he was repatriated to parent department

within period of two years from Annexure-A10. Therefore,

it is pre-mature transfer.

42. The learned Additional Advocate General and

the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 have submitted

that petitioner was transferred on deputation by

Notification dated 26.02.2021 and for a short period, he

worked as a Tahsildar (Grade-I) of Anekal Taluk and

thereafter, he was deputed to the post of Tahsildar

(Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk. The said period of

deputation commences from dated 26.02.2021 and hence,

as on the date of impugned Notification dated 16.06.2023

as per Annexure-A12, he had completed period of two

- 31 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

years and four months, the same fact was discussed in the

impugned order by the KSAT. Petitioner had completed

period of two years of deputation. Therefore, he cannot

make any grievance against his repatriation to the parent

department.

43. The submission of the learned Additional

Advocate General is tenable. Annexure- A8, by which,

petitioner was deputed as Grade-I Tahsildar of Anekal

Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, due to retirement of

Tahsildar (Grade-I) of Anekal Taluk. It appears, he worked

in the said post till 13.09.2022. He worked as Tahsildar

(Grade-I), Anekal Taluk for a period of about one year and

six months. And by Annexure-A10, he was transferred as

Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk, wherein he

had worked till his transfer as per Annexure-A12 dated

16.06.2023, that is for a period of nearly about 8 to 9

months. Therefore, petitioner was on deputation as

Tahsildar (Grade-I) from 26.02.2021 to 16.06.2023. In

all, he has completed a period of more than two years on

- 32 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

deputation though it consist of two places in the same

District. Considering the same, the KSAT has held that

petitioner has completed tenure of two years on

deputation and hence, not interfered in the order of

transfer. We do not find any error in the said findings.

44. In Annexure-A3 i.e., transfer policy dated

10.06.2013, Rule 6B says that the maximum period of

deputation to a particular post shall be five years at a

time. It is submitted by the learned counsels for both side

that the said period of five years has been reduced to two

years, in case of Government servants belonging to

Group-A. In terms of the said Rule, the petitioner has

already completed period of two years on deputation, as

Tahsildar (Grade-I), though it may be in the two places. It

is also pertinent to note that in the previous posting as

Tahsildar (Grade-I) of Anekal Taluk, he had worked only

for a period of 1½ years and he was transferred on

deputation to the post of Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru

South Taluk, before completion of period two years. The

- 33 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

petitioner had no grievance about the said transfer and he

did not challenge the same. It appears, petitioner did not

like his repatriation to his home department, therefore, he

did challenge the same. Petitioner has not approached the

Court with clean hands. When the transfers or deputation

orders were in his favour or he got favourable places, he

did not challenge it, though the said transfers/deputation

were in-contravention of the provision of transfer orders

dated 10.06.2013.

45. In Annexure-A3 dated 10.06.2013 Rule 6(B)-II

reads as under: (We quote)

"Unless suitable person is not available to fill up a particular post in a department as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of that department, no government servant shall be deputed to such posts from other departments. Such deputation made if any, shall be reviewed every year and the deputationist shall be repatriated to the parent department soon after the availability of suitable departmental officers to hold that post."

- 34 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

The above said Rule is rider to the Rule 6(B) i.e.,

regarding maximum period of deputation. The above said

Rule clearly indicates that a person who was transferred or

posted on deputation, cannot claim any right to hold that

post to a particular period; if an officer is available in the

concerned department, such offices shall be posted to

such places/posts.

By the impugned Notification Respondent No.2, who

is belonging to Revenue Department, has been posted to

the place of petitioner and petitioner is repatriated to his

parent department. The said transfer is not against

Transfer Guidelines of 2013.

45. The next main contention of the learned

Advocate for petitioner is that Respondent No.2 is in the

cadre of Tahsildar (Grade-II) and the cadre of petitioner is

Tahsildar (Grade-I). As per the Government orders, a

lower cadre officer cannot be transferred to a post of

higher cadre officer. Therefore, posting of Tahsildar

(Grade-II) in the place of Tahsildar (Grade-I) is illegal. In

- 35 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

the view of the same, the impugned transfer Notification is

against the law. Hence, needs to be quashed.

46. The learned Additional Advocate General has

submitted that petitioner is deputationist and his cadre is

equivalent to Tahsildar (Grade-I). He is not belonging to

Revenue department. Therefore, he cannot make any

grievance about competence of Respondent No.2 to be

transferred to the place of petitioner. It is further

submitted that the Government or the affected officers by

the said posting may challenge the same. Petitioner is

repatriated and posted to his parent department, who has

to give posting to the petitioner. During pendency of the

petition before the SKAT, posting order was given by the

Government to the petitioner and posted him to the office

of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and

said posting order appears to be given, in view of the

directions given by the SKAT by the impugned order and

hence, the order of cancellation of deputation or

- 36 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

repatriation of the petitioner to his parent's department

cannot be invalid.

47. The submission of learned Additional Advocate

General is acceptable. Petitioner was serving in Revenue

Department on deputation. He has no right to continue in

the said cadre, according to his whims and fancies. It is

desire of the Government; moreover, he cannot question

the competence of Respondent No.2 to hold the post of

Tahsildar (Grade-I). The affected officer belonging to

Revenue Department may challenge the posting of a lower

cadre officer to the higher post, when it was not under

Section 32 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules. On the basis

of the said contention, the impugned order cannot be held

illegal. Similarly, finding of the SKAT in this regard by the

impugned order, does not call for any interference.

48. Under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, this

Court has got supervisory power on the Tribunals. This

Court can interfere in the findings of the Tribunal only if it

is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of

- 37 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

the law. But the Tribunal has considered the facts in issue

and contention of both the parties and rightly held that

there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned

transfer order, as per Annexure -A12. Petitioner appears

to be deputed under Annexure-A8 due to compelling

reasons of retirement of the Tahsildar during the month of

February 2021. Thereafter, he was transferred on

deputation to the post of Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru

South Taluk and petitioner has not contended any malice

or malafide reasons for his transfer from one post to

another post. It is not his case that due to political

pressure, Respondent No.2 was transferred to his place.

Even he did not refer about his difficulties due to the said

transfer. It is not his case that due to the issuing of such

order as per Annexure-A12, his personal life and family life

has been seriously affected. Under these circumstances,

the Government under the sovereign power and also for

proper administration of the departments and in the public

interest has cancelled his deputation and repatriated him

to his parent department. We cannot find fault with the

- 38 -

NC: 2023:KHC:32351-DB WP No. 16080 of 2023

said reasons to interfere in the said findings of the SKAT,

in the Petition No.2354 of 2023 dated 20.07.2023.

Moreover, during pendency of the petition, posting is given

to petitioner by his Parent Department and he appears to

be reposted to duty. Hence, cause of action may not

survive. Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

I. Writ Petition is dismissed.

II. The impugned order passed by the Karnataka

State Administrative Tribunal in Petition

No.2354 of 2023 dated 20.07.2023 is

confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

DH