Karnataka High Court
Sri N Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 8479 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. MUNIRAJU
S/O R. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
PROJECT COORDINATOR
INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
MYSURU-570 001
R/AT. NO.1907, 3RD CROSS
III PHASE, DATTAGALLI, KANAKADASA
MYSURU-570 022
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. M.B. NARAGUND, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SHRI. MANU B.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NO.34, I FLOOR, LOTUS TOWERS
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
-
2
3. SHRI MALLESH M.K.
MAJOR
DISTRICT MANAGER
KARNATAKA MAHARISHI VALMIKI SCHEDULED
TRIBE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
MYSURU-570 001
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.3770/2023 AS
PER ANNEXRUE - 'G' AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS
PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.06.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"To set aside the order dated 27.02.2024
passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal in Application No.3770/2023 as per
Annexure - G and allow the said application as
prayed for."
2. The petitioner had approached the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), challenging the order
dated 21.08.2023 issued by the first respondent. It is
-
stated that by the order, the third respondent, who was
working as District Manager of the Karnataka Maharishi
Valmiki Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation Limited
was transferred and posted as Project Co-ordinator of the
Integrated Tribal Development Project, Mysore in place of
the petitioner.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Social
Welfare Department. It is contended in the Writ Petition that
he was initially transferred to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar
Development Corporation Limited, Mysore by deputation
from where he was further deputed to the Karnataka Adi
Jambava Development Corporation Limited, Mysore, where
he was working as District Manager. While so, by order
dated 09.11.2022 he was transferred and posted to the post
of Project Co-ordinator, Integrated Tribal Development
Project, Mysore in place of one Smt. Prabha B.S. He
reported for duty on 09.11.2022. Smt. Prabha B.S.
challenged the transfer in Application No.5506/2022 and the
challenge was repelled by the order of the Tribunal dated
-
02.12.2022. However, by the order impugned before the
Tribunal, the first respondent posted the third respondent as
Project Co-ordinator and the writ petitioner was rendered
without any posting and was repatriated to his Parent
Department.
4. It was contended before the Tribunal that the
transfer was effected prematurely before the normal term in
the present place was completed. It was further contended
that even if the posting of the petitioner with the Scheduled
Tribe Department is to be considered as a deputation, his
repatriation to her parent department should be on the
specific consent of the parent department as well. It is
submitted that Annexure-A1, order of transfer of the
petitioner to the present place i.e., as Project Co-ordinator,
ITDP (Integrated Tribal Development Project) Mysore on
09.11.2022 would show that it was approved by the Chief
Minister as well as the concerned Minister while Annexure-
A4, order dated 21.08.2023 was approved only by the Chief
Minister. It is submitted that no reasons were stated for the
premature transfer of the petitioner. There was no
-
consultation between the borrower department and the
parent department for repatriation of the deputed hand and
no verification of the earlier orders. It is contended relying
on Rule 50(3) of the KCS Rules that the normal tenure of
deputation could extend to five years and that since the
petitioner had not even completed one year in the present
post; he could not have been transferred out or repatriated
without assigning proper reasons.
5. The official respondents filed a detailed reply
statement contending that the writ petitioner had been
posted to the Tribal Welfare Department by deputation and
had no right to contend that he had any fixity of tenure in
the post of Project Co-ordinator which was to be held by a
person belonging to the Tribal Welfare Department. It is
submitted that a qualified and eligible person being available
from the Tribal Welfare Department itself, the petitioner,
who was a deputationist, was sent back to the parent
department on repatriation after cancelling the orders of
deputation. It was contended that the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules provided for filling up the post of Project
-
Co-ordinator by direct recruitment and by promotion and
that extension of deputation was not possible to
accommodate the writ petitioner.
6. The third respondent also placed detailed
pleadings on record contending that the applicant admittedly
belongs to the Social Welfare Department and he was on
deputation earlier to Dr B.R. Ambedkar Development
Corporation Limited, Mysore and thereafter to Adi Jambava
Development Corporation Limited, Mysore before being
posted as Project Co-ordinator, Integrated Tribal
Development project by notification dated 09.11.2022. It is
contended that the third respondent is a fully qualified hand
available for posting as Project Co-ordinator who belongs to
the Department of Tribal Welfare itself and therefore, the
petitioner has no claim to continue in the Tribal Welfare
Department.
7. The Tribunal considered the contentions advanced
and found that the petitioner belongs to the Social Welfare
department and he is only a deputationist in the Tribal
Welfare Department. Since the third respondent, who
-
belongs to the Tribal Welfare Department is available to hold
the post of Project Co-ordinator of ITDP, it was found that
when a regular hand is appointed within the department, the
deputationist has to give way.
8. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this
Court in P.G. Ramesh v. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary and others reported in
ILR 2008 KAR 8. The application filed by the writ petitioner
was therefore, dismissed.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on
all sides.
10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner contended that the petitioner had initially been
posted to the Tribal Welfare Department after the consent
and consultation of both the Departments. It is submitted
that the repatriation by Annexure-A4 is approved only by
the Chief Minister. It is contended that both deputation as
well as repatriation requires the express consent of both the
Departments.
-
11. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent contended that the deputation and transfer are
totally different and the contention that the transfer
guidelines have not been complied with is completely
misconceived in view of the fact that the order Annexure-A4,
insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, is an order
repatriating him to the parent department and not the one
of transfer at all. It is stated that since the writ petitioner
was on deputation from 26.07.2021 onwards, he had
completed two years of deputation as on 21.08.2023 and
the repatriation cannot be challenged on that ground also. It
is further contended that the respondent has already taken
charge of the post on 29.02.2024. It is contended that the
question of consultation with the parent department does
not arise since the Secretaries of both departments are one
and the same person.
12. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the
official respondents submitted that the petitioner, being a
person deputed to the Tribal Welfare Department from the
Social Welfare Department and since the deputation as well
-
as the orders of posting are specifically only till further
orders, when the third respondent a fully qualified hand
belonging to the Tribal Welfare department became available
for posting as Project Co-ordinator, the petitioner's
deputation had to end and he was liable to be repatriated to
the parent department. It is submitted that the transfer
guidelines or the requirements regarding premature transfer
have absolutely no application in the present case.
13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner has relied on the following decisions:-
• Shri Kanteppa v. The State of Karnataka by its
Secretary, Dept. PWD, Ports and Inland Water
Transport and others reported in ILR 2020
KAR 5511;
• Miss. Seema H v. The State of Karnataka.
Department of Forest and others reported in
2016 SCC OnLine KAR 8202;
• Rajashekar M v. State of Karnataka by its
Principal Secretary, Department of Backward
Classes Welfare and Others reported in 2018
SCC OnLine Kar 3777; and
-
• N Muniraju v. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Development and Others
reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3956.
14. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3 has relied on the following decisions:-
• P.G Ramesh v. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary and Others
reported in ILR 2008 KAR 8;
• Order dated 07.09.2023 passed in
W.P.No.16080/2023 by the Hon'ble High Court;
• Order dated 31.03.2023 passed in
W.P.No.5324/2023 C/W. Writ Petition
No.4884/2023 by the Hon'ble High Court;
• Order dated 14.03.2023 passed in
W.P.No.201907/2022 by the Hon'ble High Court;
• Order dated 24.11.2020 passed in
W.P.No.12528/2020 by the Hon'ble High Court;
• Order dated 10.09.2020 passed in
W.P.No.44995/2016 by the Hon'ble High Court;
• Order dated 08.02.2022 W.P.No.19132/2021 by
the Hon'ble High Court; and
• Order dated 16.08.2022 W.P.No.14286/2021 by
the Hon'ble High Court.
-
15. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that it is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner
belongs to Social Welfare Department. He had been posted
on deputation to the Tribal Welfare Department. Though, it
is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner that any repatriation from deputation can be
carried out only after the consent of the parent department
is obtained, it is the specific case of the respondents that the
departments concerned, which were at the relevant time
headed by one and the same Secretary, had absolutely no
objection to the petitioner being repatriated to the parent
department.
16. In view of the fact that the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules provide only direct recruitment and
promotion as methods of appointment to the post, we are of
the opinion that the contention that the writ petitioner has
any kind of vested right to remain in a post borne on
another department cannot be accepted. Further, the
reference to Rule 50(3) of the KCS Rules also will not help
the petitioner in view of the fact that the said rule only
-
provides an outer limit beyond which a person shall not
normally be continued on deputation.
17. In view of the fact that the third respondent is
admittedly a member of the Tribal Welfare Department, who
is posted to the petitioner's place, the only claim that can be
raised by the petitioner is that he be given an appropriate
posting in the Social Welfare Department, which is his
Parent Department. The fact that his earlier appointment to
Mysore as Project Co-ordinator had been questioned
unsuccessfully by another person cannot also be a ground to
hold that he is entitled to hold the post since that challenge
was repelled only on the ground that the person who had
challenged the order of transfer had been continuing in
offices in Mysore itself continuously without complying with
orders of transfer issued to her from time to time.
18. In the above factual situation, we are of the
opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from
any legal infirmity or error. We are not inclined to
interfere with the said order.
-
19. The writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CP*
