Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajesh M R vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.12031 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJESH M R
S/O RAMAPPA M O
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
P.W.D. CIRCLE, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 009
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (SERVICES -A)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
NO.335, 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 003
3. SRI G.C.JAGADISH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
MAJOR
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, MYSURU
-
2
NOW UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
P.W.D. CIRCLE, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG FOR
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHARATH KUMAR B.G, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.04.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
IN APPLICATION No.1435/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER
AS PRAYED FOR BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN
APPLICATION No.1435/2024 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed against the order dated
19.04.2024 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short)
in Application No.1435/2024, challenging a notification dated
16.03.2024 by which the transfer order dated 17.02.2024
stood cancelled.
-
2. The petitioner and the private respondent are
Superintending Engineers in the Public Works Department
(PWD). The Petitioner was promoted as Superintending
Engineer and was posted to National Highway Circle,
Bengaluru, and reported for duty on 10.08.2022. By an
order dated 17.02.2024 as per Annexure - A3, transferred
and posted the petitioner as Superintending Engineer, Public
Works Department Circle, Bengaluru, in the place of Sri.
Mohan Chinnappa Hondadakeri, who was due to retire on
31.03.2024. On the same day, the first respondent issued
one more order dated 17.02.2024 as per Annexure A4,
transferring Sri. Pradeep.T to the place of petitioner at
National Highway Circle, Bengaluru which was due to fall
vacant on 31.03.2024 due to transfer of the petitioner. It is
contended that thereafter, the first respondent issued
another order dated 20.02.2024 as per Annexure A5,
wherein transfer of Sri. Pradeep.T to the place of petitioner
from 31.03.2024 was withdrawn and said Sri.Pradeep.T was
transferred to the place of the petitioner with immediate
effect. The petitioner, in order to comply with the
-
Notification of the first respondent, handed over the charge
to Sri. Pradeep.T on 01.03.2024 as per CTC at Annexure A6.
Since the petitioner was accommodated at Bengaluru itself,
he did not challenge the said order. The first respondent,
later issued order dated 16.03.2024, as per Annexure A7, by
which the earlier notification dated 17.02.2024 posting the
petitioner as Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle,
Bengaluru is cancelled and the third respondent is
transferred and posted to PWD Circle, Bengaluru, i.e., the
place of the petitioner which was to be occupied by him from
31.03.2024, thereby rendering the petitioner without
posting, which was under challenge before the Tribunal.
3. The respondents appeared and contended that
transfer of the petitioner as Superintending Engineer, PWD
Circle, Bengaluru, was ordered only in the retirement
vacancy of Sri. Mohan Chinnappa Hondadakeri on
31.03.2024. The said order was withdrawn on 16.03.2024,
even before the date of occurrence of the vacancy. It was
contended that the petitioner could not have joined duty in
the transferred post which was occupied till 31.03.2024 and
-
his unilateral action is having relieved from the earlier post
cannot grant him any benefit. The Tribunal dismissed the
application and directed the first respondent to post the
petitioner back to his earlier place. Aggrieved by the said
order, the present writ petition has been preferred before
this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that the petitioner had been relieved from N.H
Circle on 01.03.2024, pursuant to Annexure-A5 notification.
He contends that the post held by him is now occupied and
the order dated 16.03.2024 was unjustified and was not
informed by any reasons.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
places reliance on the judgment of Smt. P.V. Poornima v.
State of Karnataka and others decided on 29.07.2020 in
W.P.No.2661/2020 (S-KSAT), to contend that the
cancellation of transfer should also follow the procedure
provided for transfers. It is submitted that the parties
having altered their positions pursuant to the notification
-
dated 20.02.2024, there is no reason or justification for the
cancellation.
6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the
private respondent submits that a reading of Annexures A3
to A5 would clearly show that the transfer of the petitioner
was to take effect only after the retirement of Sri. Mohan
Chinnappa Hondadakeri on 31.03.2024. The fact that the
petitioner had been relieved from the post without any order
of the Government cannot make any difference to the
situation. It is further submitted that the impugned order
was passed before Annexure-A3 came into effect. The
learned Senior counsel places reliance on the decision in the
case of Dr. J. Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of
Karnataka and another reported in (1999) 1 SCC 422.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General would
also submit that the earlier order of transfer was specifically
effective only after 31.03.2024 and the cancellation long
before the said date can have no effect on the petitioner.
Further, it is contended that the same procedure which was
-
followed for effecting the transfer order dated 17.02.2024
had been followed for its cancellation as well. The files of
the two proceedings are made available in support of this
contention.
8. We have considered the contentions advanced.
The initial order dated 17.02.2024 only ordered a transfer of
the petitioner to P.W.D., Circle, Bengaluru in the place of
Sri. Mohan Chinnappa Hondadakeri, who was due to retire
on 31.03.2024. It is therefore clear that it is only when the
vacancy arose in the P.W.D., Circle, Bengaluru that the
transfer would be effective. The posting of Pradeep T to the
petitioner's place at National Highway Circle, Bengaluru was
also on the post falling vacant on the transfer of the
petitioner being effective. Before such vacancy arose i.e., on
16.03.2024, the transfer order had been cancelled.
9. The learned Additional Advocate General would
submit that whatever procedure was followed for the
purpose of issuing the order of transfer dated 17.02.2024
was followed in the case of cancellation of the said order
too.
-
10. In the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that the
transfer was to be effective only on a vacancy arising due to
retirement on 31.03.2024, the mere fact that the petitioner
had thought it fit to relinquish charge of the post concerned
in favour of T. Pradeep cannot, by itself, make any
difference to the situation. Annexure-A5, order also directs
the transfer of Pradeep. T, to the vacancy created due to the
transfer of the petitioner which would occur only after
31.03.2024.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that he could not have relinquished the charge
without the higher authorities being aware of it. It is further
contended that he had reported before the Department and
had been paid his salary till 16.03.2024 as well. However,
in view of the fact that the transfer was effective only after
the retirement on 31.03.2024 and since it was withdrawn on
16.03.2024 before the actual date when it could have been
implemented, we are of the opinion that the petitioner
cannot successfully challenge the same. Further, we notice
-
that the Tribunal had specifically directed the retention of
the petitioner at the place from which he was transferred.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner would
not be aggrieved by the order of cancellation in view of the
fact that the posting of the petitioner is now restored as
Superintending Engineer, National Highway, Bengaluru. We
do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the
petitioner.
12. The writ petition therefore fails, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Pending I.A.No.3/2024 for vacating stay is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
cp*
