Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendraiah R H S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 105314 OF 2023 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
KM
SOMASHEKAR
SRI RAGHAVENDRAIAH R.H.,
Digitally signed by S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
K M SOMASHEKAR
Date: 2024.01.17
AGE. 39, OCC. RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
15:31:32 +0530 R/O. #06, WARD NO 29,
OPP DR. RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE
RAMANJANEYA NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
BELLARY 583104.
OFFICE ADDRESS.
RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
TERRITORIAL DIVISION, TERRITORIAL RANGE,
NEAR MORAJI DESAI SCHOOL,
ALLIPUR NEAR HOSPET BY-PASS-
BELLARY-583104.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MADAN
DESHPANDE AND SMT. ROOPA ANAVEKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND
ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO.442, 4TH FLOOR,
GATE NO.2 M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS, (HOFF)
-2- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
GOVERNMENT OF KARANATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ARANYA BHAWAN, 4TH FLOOR,
18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU 560003.
3. VINAY K.C.,
S/O. KYADIGALU CHINANDAPPA
AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCC. RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
O/O. RANGE FOREST OFFICE,
TERRITORIAL RANGE, HOSPETE, TERRITORIAL
VIJAYANAGAR DIVISION-583201.
R/O. 23RD WARD, ADHONI COLONY ROAD,
BEHIND SUCO BANK, SIRUGUPPA
BELLARI DIST-583121.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. VIJAYKUMAR BAJANTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED U/A 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER QUASHING
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.
10771/2023 DATED. 11.08.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) SINCE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED IN THE EYE OF LAW AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ORDERS AT ANNEXURE-
A. B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
OR ORDER FOR CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED
OFFICE ORDER FEE 158 FNG 2023 (E) DATED. 09.08.2023 PASSED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A2) AT SL.NO. 198 AND SET
ASIDE THE SAME AND ALSO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO
ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
TERRITORIAL RANGE, BELLARY WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS,
IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED & ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
05.01.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS
DAY, S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
ORDER
Petitioner, applicant in Application No.10771/2023
before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at
Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal'), is before this Court
challenging the correctness and legality of the order dated
11.08.2023 passed in the above application dismissing his
challenge to the order of transfer dated 09.08.2023 and
challenge to the Office Order bearing No.27/2023-24 dated
24.08.2023 posting respondent No.3 in place of the petitioner
as Range Forest Officer, Territorial Range, Ballari.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M.S.Bhagawat
for learned counsel Sri. Madan Y.Deshapnade for the
petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondents No.1 and 2, as well as the learned counsel
Sri. Vijaykumar Bajantri for respondent No.3. Perused the writ
petition papers.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are
working as Range Forest Officers in the Forest Department of
the State Government. It is submitted that the petitioner was
-4- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
posted to work as Range Forest Officer, Territorial Range,
Ballari, by order dated 25.08.2022 and in pursuance of the
said order, the petitioner reported to duty at the place of
posting at Ballari on 30.08.2022. Learned Senior Counsel
referring to the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 would
submit that the petitioner, who is a Group-B Officer, is
provided with a minimum tenure of two years at the place of
posting; the petitioner, who is working as Range Forest
Officer, Territorial Range, Ballari, had not completed even one
year of service as on the date of transfer and as such, the
transfer of the petitioner is premature. Further, the learned
Senior Counsel would contend that the premature transfer of
the petitioner is contrary to the Government Order dated
07.06.2013 which regulates the transfer of government
servants and he also submits that though the Government
Order dated 07.06.2013 permits premature transfer, no
reasons are recorded for premature transfer.
4. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that
subsequently, by order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure-F),
respondent No.3 was posted in place of the petitioner as
-5- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
Range Forest Officer, Territorial Range, Ballari. Learned
Senior Counsel would submit that initially, under order of
transfer of the petitioner, no one was posted in place of the
petitioner and only to accommodate respondent No.3,
petitioner is disturbed prematurely without recording any
reason. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that though the
petitioner is transferred within the Ballari District, the same
would be a transfer as held by the Full Bench of this Court in
S.N.Gangadharaiah Vs. State of Karnataka1. Further, learned
Senior Counsel also places reliance on the decision of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.105251/2023
disposed of on 01.09.2023 to contend that, transfer of a
government servant from one office to another office within
the same headquarters to take up the duties of a new post
would tantamount to transfer and as such, the Tribunal
committed grave error in rejecting the application of the
petitioner. Further, learned Senior Counsel would submit that
the Tribunal failed to examine the contentions raised by the
petitioner and even without issuing notice to the other side,
ILR 2015 KAR 1955
-6- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
dismissed the application. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel
prays for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondents No.1 and 2 would support the order passed
by the Tribunal and submits that no prejudice is caused to the
petitioner since the petitioner is transferred from one office to
another office within Ballari. Learned HCGP would further
submit that as the petitioner is not prejudiced, there is no
cause for the petitioner to challenge the order of transfer
dated 09.08.2023 (Annexure-A2), and prays for dismissal of
the petition.
6. Learned counsel Sri. Vijayakumar Bajantri for
respondent No.3 would also support the order passed by the
Tribunal and would submit that, in pursuance of his posting
under order dated 24.08.2023, respondent No.3 reported to
duty on 25.08.2023 and is working as Range Forest Officer,
Territorial Range, Ballari. Learned counsel would also submit
that the petitioner has not challenged posting order dated
14.08.2023 either before this Court or before the Tribunal.
Further, he submits that without challenging the posting of
-7- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
respondent No.3, the petitioner cannot challenge only re-
posting under Office Order dated 24.08.2023 (Anneuxre-F).
Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is not
prejudiced by the impugned transfer order since he is given
posting within Ballari. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that
falls for consideration is,
Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing
the writ petitioner's application challenging his
transfer under the government communication
dated 09.08.2023?
8. Our answer to the above point would be in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
(a) Transfer is not a condition of service but transfer is an
incidence of service as observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. No government servant has a right to stick on to a
particular post or to demand posting to a particular post.
-8- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
(b) The Government Order dated 07.06.2013 regulates the
transfer of government servants in the State of
Karnataka. The said government order provides for
minimum tenure of two years for Group 'A' and Group 'B'
Officers at a place of posting. The post of Range Forest
officer is a Group 'B' post which is provided with
minimum of two years tenure. The petitioner, earlier, was
working at Bidar and, by order dated 25.08.2022, the
petitioner was transferred from Bidar to Ballari to work as
Range Forest Officer, Territorial Range, Ballari. In
pursuance of the said order, the petitioner reported to
duty at Ballari on 30.08.2022. The petitioner was
transferred from the said post of Range Forest Officer
Territorial Range, Ballari, under government
communication dated 09.08.2023 (Annexure-A2) and
was posted to work as Range Forest officer, Intelligence
Division, Ballari against one S.V.Manjunath. No person
was posted in place of the petitioner. Subsequently, by
order dated 14.08.2023, respondent No.3 was posted as
Range Forest Officer in place of the petitioner. The
petitioner has not challenged the said communication
-9- W.P.NO.105314 OF 2023
before the Tribunal. Subsequently, under Officer Order
dated 24.08.2023, respondent No.3 was given reposting
as Range Forest Officer, Territorial Range, Ballari,
pursuant to which respondent No.3 reported to duty at
Ballari on 25.08.2023.
(c) As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel,
Sri. M.S.Bhagawat, in S.N.Gangadharaiah's case (supra),
this Court has made it clear that posting of a government
servant from one office to another within the same
headquarters, to take up duties of a new post would
tantamount to transfer within the meaning of Clause 3(d)
of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. In the
instant case also, the petitioner is transferred from one
office to another office in Ballari. The petitioner has failed
to establish the prejudice that would be caused on his
transfer from one office to another office within Ballari.
As stated above, no government servant has a right to
seek for a particular posting or to stick on to a particular
post. Since the petitioner is transferred within Ballari, the
Tribunal, in its discretion, rightly not entertained the
- 10 - W.P.NO.105314 OF
application. No fault could be found with the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal when the petitioner has
failed to establish the prejudice or inconvenience that
would be caused by virtue of the impugned order
transferring the petitioner from one office to another
office within Ballari. It is not the case of the petitioner
that transfer is malafide or that transfer is by an
incompetent authority. Hence, transfer cannot lightly be
interfered with as a matter of course or routine.
9. Thus, in view of the peculiar facts of the present
case, we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the
impugned order. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMS
