Karnataka High Court
Smt Sheela N vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 13728 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHEELA N
D/O SRI. SURENDRA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
PERNOD-RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
4TH FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA
BENGALURU-560 027
(AS SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE
OF THE KAT APPLICATION)
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
SUBRAMANYANAGARA RANGE
RANGE NO.24, BUD-1
BENGALURU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. PRASHANTH H.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE)
REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
-
2
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
2ND FLOOR, TTMC, 'A' BLOCK
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGARA
BENGALURU-560 027
3. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.
S/O SRI. S.K. SHEKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WAS WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE
RANGE NO.24, BUD-01
BENGALURU.
(AS SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE KAT
APPLICATION)
R/AT NO.220, 3RD CROSS
NAGARABHAVI 1ST BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 072
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DATED
18.04.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS.642/2024,
VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
APPLICATION BEARING NO.642/2024, ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE
KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE - B.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.06.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-
3
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging Annexure-A, order
dated 18.04.2024 of the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short),
Bengaluru, allowing the Application No.642/2024 filed by
respondent No.3 herein against his transfer order dated
31.01.2024. The applicant before the Tribunal, who is
respondent No.3 herein was working as Inspector of Excise.
He was transferred to Mudigere Range, Chikkamagaluru
District on 31.01.2024. He contended that he was
prematurely transferred out from Range-6,
Subramanyanagara, Bengaluru Urban District-1 and the
petitioner herein was posted in his place by order dated
31.01.2024. It was contended that the order of transfer
was one of premature transfer and was to be set aside.
2. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and
the writ petitioner, who was respondent No.3 had entered
appearance and filed objections. The first and second
respondents also filed objections contending that the
transfer of respondent No.3, who was the applicant, was on
-
public exigencies and administrative convenience and that it
was approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It was further
contended that Annexure-A4 order had been passed
pursuant to directions issued by the Election Commission of
India transferring the applicant/respondent No.3 herein to
Mudigere Range, Chikkamagaluru District, as part of the
election proceedings. It was stated that it was to fill up the
vacancy which arose on account of the election transfer of
respondent No.3 that the writ petitioner was transferred.
3. The submissions that both the orders of transfer
i.e., Annexures-A4 and A5 were election transfers were
accepted by the Tribunal and it was held that the officers
were liable to be posted back to the post earlier held by
them. This finding is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the transfer of respondent
No.3 was a politically motivated transfer and that the
petitioner's transfer was not an election transfer but was a
general transfer with the prior approval of the Chief Minister.
It is stated that the petitioner had taken charge in his
-
transferred place i.e., Range-6, Subramanyanagara,
Bengaluru Urban District-1 and that she is to be permitted
to continue there. It is submitted that the Tribunal granted
interim order in favour of respondent No.3. Thereafter, the
matter was heard and the application was disposed of
holding that the transfer of the petitioner to the place of
respondent No.3 is also an election transfer and directed
respondent No.2 to transfer respondent No.3 and the
petitioner to their earlier places once the Election Code of
Conduct comes to an end. It is submitted by the learned
senior counsel that the specific pleadings of the Government
were ignored by the Tribunal to hold that the petitioner's
transfer was also an election transfer. It is contended that
since the petitioner had completed her normal tenure at
Parnad Record India Limited, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural
District, she was entitled to continue in his present place of
posting Range-6, Subramanyanagara, Bengaluru Urban
District-1. The writ petition is therefore filed challenging the
order of the Tribunal and seeking retention of the writ
petitioner treating her transfer to Range-6,
-
Subramanyanagara, Bengaluru Urban District-1, as a
general transfer.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that it is clear
from the reading of Annexures A-4 and A-5 orders that the
transfer of respondent No.3 to Mudigere Range,
Chikkamagaluru District, was admittedly an election
transfer. It is revealed from the order impugned before the
Tribunal that it was only to fill up the vacancy which arose
consequent on Annexure - A5 that Annexure - A4 order
dated 31.01.2024 was issued. It is stated that, it is
therefore clear that the same is also an election transfer
which was necessitated due to the earlier round of election
transfers, which were issued on the same day. Further, it is
contended that the State had a specific case before the
Tribunal that the order transferring the petitioner to Range-
6, Subramanyanagara, Bengaluru Urban District-1 was only
to accommodate respondent No.3, who was transferred due
to general elections and that the said transfer is liable to
operate only as long as the Election Code of Conduct is in
-
force. It is submitted that general transfer orders are
imminent and that the claim, if any, of the writ petitioner for
a posting will be considered in accordance with law and in
accordance with the transfer guidelines at the time of
general transfer.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3 would also contend that it is clear from the impugned
order as well as the pleadings placed on record that the
transfer of respondent No.3 as well as of the writ petitioner
herein were only election transfers and the order specifically
mentioned that the incumbents would be liable to be
transferred back to their earlier posts as and when the
Election Code of Conduct is withdrawn.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner places reliance on the statements made in the
objections preferred by the State before the Tribunal. They
read as follows:-
"3. It is submitted that the impugned
Official Memorandum dated 31.01.2024 bearing
No.ECE/AaUa/01/TRF/2024 Adalita, the 3rd
Respondent came to be posted at Range-06,
-
Subramanyanagara, Bengaluru Urban District,
(BUD-1) as Inspector of Excise. The said impugned
Official Memorandum came to be passed as per the
correspondence of the first Respondent vide letter
No. AaE 20 EPS 2024 dated 31.01.2024.
4. It is submitted that, it is pertinent to
state here that admittedly the Applicant came to be
transferred from Range-06, Subramanyanagara,
Bengaluru Urban District, (BUD-1), as Inspector of
Excise and was working in Bangalore Urban District
since 01.06.2020 for the last 4 years. As per the
Election Guidelines, he has been transferred from
the said place to Mudigere Range, Chikkamagaluru
District as Inspector of Excise by the first
Respondent by order No. AE 23 EPS 2024 (ii).
dated:31.01.2024. The copy of the same which is
produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R1.
6. It is submitted that, the transfer of the
Respondent No. 3 was initiated and the said transfer
came to be approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister.
Accordingly, the first Respondent by an vide order
No. AaE20 EPS 2024 dated 31.01.2024 transferred
the 3rd Respondent to Range-06,
Subramanyanagara, Bengaluru Urban District,
(BUD-1) the place at which the Applicant was
working. A Copy of the order dated 31.01.2024
passed by 1st respondent is produced herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-R2."
-
8. The learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would place reliance
on the judgments of a co-equal Bench of this Court in
Election Commission of India, New Delhi and another
v. State of Karnataka and others1 as well as in
R.O.Suresh s/o Onkarnaik R. v. State of Karnataka and
others2. It is contended that transfers effected on the
strength of directions issued by the Election Commission
cannot be equated to transfers governed by the guidelines
and would have to be reversed as soon as the Election Code
of Conduct came into effect. Learned AGA would therefore
contend that the prayers made in the writ petition as well as
the attempt made by the writ petitioner to continue at
Ashoknagara where he get be posted only as a part of the
election procedure is completely unfounded.
9. We have considered the contentions advanced.
The specific case of the petitioner before this Court is to the
effect that her transfer to Range-06, Subramanyanagara,
Bengaluru Urban District, (BUD-1) by order dated
2013(6) Kar.L.J.363 (DB)
2019 (3) AKR 178
-
31.01.2024 is a general transfer on completing her tenure at
Parnad Record India Limited, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural
District and therefore she is entitled to continue at the
present place of posting for her term.
10. Having considered the orders of transfer which
are at Annexures - A4 and A5, respectively, we notice that
the writ petitioner was transferred from Parnad Record India
Limited, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District to Range-06,
Subramanyanagara, Bengaluru Urban District, (BUD-1) by
order dated 31.01.2024. The order does not specifically
state that it is an election transfer. It also refers to the
approval of the Chief Minister. However, it is pertinent to
notice that there was an earlier order issued on the same
date i.e., Annexure - A4 which is specifically refers to the
letter of the Election Commission of India and transfers
Excise Inspectors specifically as per the guidelines of the
Election Commission due to general elections of 2024. The
respondent No.3 herein has been transferred from Range-06
Subramanyanagara, Bengaluru Urban District, (BUD-1) to
Mudigere Range, Chikkamagaluru District while the officer,
-
who was working at Mudigere Range, Chikkamagaluru
District has been posted in the Office of the Inspector of
Excise, Range - 44 (H.S.R. Layout), BUD-7, Bengaluru. The
said order i.e., Annexure A-4 specifically states as follows:-
"After the completion of the Election Code of
Conduct, the said officials shall report to the place
where they were serving before the election."
11. The respondents had taken a specific stand in
their reply that the order of transfer of the petitioner was
necessitated due to the election transfers issued on the
basis of the directions of the Election Commission.
Construing the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion
that since Annexure - A4 order was admittedly an order of
election transfer and since the persons transferred by
Annexure - A4 would have to be transferred back to their
original places once the Election Code of Conduct is
complete, the resultant and consequential orders of transfer
issued to the writ petitioner and other officers could also
only be election transfers.
-
12. Having considered the contentions advanced on
all sides and having taken note of the judgments which are
referred before us, we are of the opinion that to take a
different view of the matter would result in a situation where
the officers transferred as per Annexure - A4 including
respondent No.3 would be placed in a situation where there
would be no vacancy to accommodate them in the places
from where they were transferred as specifically required in
their orders of transfer.
13. The learned Additional Government Advocate
would further contend that if the contentions of the
petitioner are accepted, it would lead to a situation where
the transfers ordered on the basis of the Election Code of
Conduct which are intended to be recalled as soon as the
Code of Conduct is completed, would be rendered impossible
of performance. It is conducted that since the retention of
the officers, who are transferred due to the general
elections, is not intended either by the orders themselves or
by the directions issued by the Election Commission, such an
interpretation cannot be accepted under any circumstances.
-
14. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal on the
nature of the transfer of the petitioner. Since the petitioner
was transferred specifically to accommodate the persons
who had been transferred on account of the directions
issued by the Election Commission, the said order by which
the petitioner and others were transferred also can only be
construed as an election transfer. Moreover, the petitioner
had not completed her normal tenure at the earlier date of
posting on 31.01.2024 when the order of transfer was
issued. It is contended that she has done so now. If that be
so, it is for the petitioner to make appropriate requests or
options, as the case may be, when the exercise of general
transfer, which is imminent, is taken up by the competent
among the respondents.
15. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. The normal consequences of
election transfers shall follow.
-
16. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending
I.A.No.1/2024 for dispensation and I.A.No.2/2024 for
vacating stay, do not survive for consideration and the same
are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
