Karnataka High Court
Sri Sridhara Murthy vs Sri Santhosh S on 24 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.8308 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRIDHARA MURTHY
S/O V. MUNIKEMAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
NADAKACHERI, DASANAPURA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 002
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
PRESENTLY R/AT. NO.673
"KOUSHIK-KUSHAL NILAYA"
1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS
NEAR NELAMAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE
KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA
T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ANIL KUMAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SANTHOSH S
S/O N. SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BENGALURU 560 009
-
2
R/AT NO.119, CANARA BANK LAYOUT
SAHAKARA NAGAR, BENGALURU
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560 001
3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DIVISION
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
II FLOOR, "C" BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING
SHANTINAGAR, K.H. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 027
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND
GRANT HIM THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS: ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON 01.03.2024
IN APPLICATION No.3505/2023 ALONG WITH APPLICATION
No.4377/23 BY DISMISSING THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-
3
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed challenging the common order
dated 01.03.2024 of the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'
for short) passed in Application No.3505/2023 a/w.
Application No.4377/2023. The Tribunal allowed the
applications, setting aside the Official Memorandum dated
01.08.2023 issued by the third respondent and the Official
Memorandum dated 27.09.2023 issued by the second
respondent, insofar as the first respondent and the
petitioner herein are concerned.
2. The Writ Petitioner was respondent No.4 in
Applications No.3505/2023 and 4377/2023 filed by
respondent No.1 herein before the Tribunal. The first
respondent was working as R.R. Shirestedar at the Taluk
Office in Chintamani. The second respondent herein
transferred the first respondent to the post of Deputy
Tahsildar, Jala-1 Hobli, Bagalur Nadakacheri, Yelahanka
Taluk by the O.M. dated 06.01.2020. Within three years, he
-
was transferred by the O.M. dated 15.02.2023 as a Revenue
Audit Officer in the office of the Regional Commissioner,
Bangalore. This transfer order was challenged by the first
respondent in Application No.817/2023. The Tribunal
allowed this application on 23.02.2023 and quashed the
transfer order, directing the respondent-State to allow him
to continue in his post at Yelahanka.
3. In contravention of this order of the Tribunal, the
third respondent herein transferred one B.R. Anand to the
first respondent's post by the O.M. dated 03.07.2023,
consequently transferring the first respondent as Deputy
Tahasildar (Judicial Head Munishi) in the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore by way of the O.M. dated
24.07.2023. The first respondent reported for duty on
25.07.2023 and his duty report was also accepted on the
same day. Five days thereafter, the third respondent herein
recalled said order transferring the first respondent vide the
O.M. dated 01.08.2023 and transferred him to the post of
R.R. Shirestedar at the Taluk Office in Kolar, and the first
respondent was relieved from the office of the Deputy
-
Commissioner on 03.08.2023. The first respondent
challenged the O.M. dated 01.08.2023 passed by the third
respondent in Application No.3505/2023, wherein the
Tribunal proceeded to pass an interim order on 04.08.2023.
4. During the pendency of said application before
the Tribunal, the second respondent issued another transfer
order vide the O.M. dated 27.09.2023 posting the present
petitioner in the place of the first respondent at the Office of
the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, considering the post
to be vacant. Aggrieved by this order of transfer, the first
respondent preferred Application No.4377/2023 before the
Tribunal. After hearing the contentions of the parties, the
impugned common order was passed by the Tribunal
allowing said applications preferred by the first respondent,
as a result of which the order transferring the present
petitioner was also set aside. It is against this common
order that the present petition has been preferred.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner had been prematurely
-
transferred from Dasanapura Hobli to Bengaluru North. He
had challenged the transfer by filing Application
No.4112/2023 and the Tribunal had granted an order of stay
of the transfer. However, while so, he was posted in
Bengaluru Urban by Order dated 27.09.2023 as approved by
the Chief Minister. He had therefore withdrawn his
application and reported for duty at Bengaluru Urban but he
was not permitted to continue there, pursuant to the orders
passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner is left without any
posting orders, it is contended.
6. The learned counsel for first respondent would
contend that the first respondent had been relieved from
Yelahanka consequent to the order dated 03.07.2023 and
had been directed to report to the third respondent awaiting
posting orders. The order dated 24.07.2023 was only an
order of posting and not a transfer at all. Therefore, the
recalling of the said order on 01.08.2023 was totally illegal.
The Tribunal having granted a stay of the order dated
01.08.2023, there was no vacancy at Yelahanka in which the
petitioner could be appointed. Therefore, the entire exercise
-
of the order dated 27.09.2023 was grossly illegal apart from
being an affront to the orders of the Tribunal, it is urged.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent
places reliance on the following decisions:-
• Union of India and another v. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147, Paras
45 & 46;
• Sri.S.N.Gangadharaiah v. The State of
Karnataka and another by Order dated
13.04.2015 in W.P.No.58375/2013 (S-KAT);
• K.G. Jagadeesha v. The State of Karnataka and
another by Order dated 06.10.2016 in
W.P.No.48988/2016 (S-KAT);
• Alla Saheb v. The State of Karnataka and others
by Order dated 14.11.2016 in
W.A.No.200488/2016 (S-TR);
• Sri. Rajashekar M. v. The State of Karnataka
and others by Order dated 13.11.2018 in
W.P.No.45916/2018 (S-KSAT);
• Sri. Prem Singh v. The State of Karnataka and
another by Order dated 28.02.2020 in
W.P.No.212920/2020 (S-KAT); and
-
• Smt Parimala V. Hulagannavar v. The State of
Karnataka and others by Order dated
12.09.2022 in W.P.No.103511/2022 (S-KAT).
8. The learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that the petitioner had not complied with the
interim order and reported for duty at Kolar. If he does so,
appropriate posting orders will be issued to him, it is
submitted.
9. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
find that the factual aspects of the matter have been
considered by the Tribunal in detail. It is an admitted fact
that the first respondent had been posted to Yelahanka and
he had joined duty there. The order dated 01.08.2023
recalling the said posting stood stayed by the Tribunal. In
the circumstances, evidently, there was no vacancy to
accommodate the writ petitioner at Yelahanka on
27.09.2023. The question whether the first respondent was
permitted to join duty or not would be irrelevant since the
Tribunal, which had the jurisdiction to do so, had granted a
stay of the order dated 01.08.2023.
-
10. In the above circumstances, the course open to
the petitioner is only to report for duty and thereafter seek
appropriate posting orders. We are not inclined to interfere
with the order of the Tribunal. The challenge fails. However,
in case, the petitioner reports for duty, he shall be issued
with posting orders within two weeks.
11. Consequently, the writ petition fails, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Pending I.A.No.3/2024 for permission to prosecute the
case is closed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
