Karnataka High Court
Shri Srinivasa D vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19585-DB
WP No. 9665 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 9665 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SRINIVASA D,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI DASANAYAKA,
RESIDING AT NO 2064,
10TH CROSS, MARUTHI TENT ROAD,
JANATHA NAGARA, MYSURU - 570009,
WORKING AT RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
RULE 32 OF KCSR, STPF PLATUNE,
MADDUR - 571 428,
(BANDIPUR TIGER RESERVOIR).
AT PRESNETLY RANGE FOREST RULE 32 OF KCSR
STPF, PLATUNE, MADDUR - 571428,
Digitally MANDYA DISTRICT (BANDIPUR TIGER RESERVOIR).
signed by C ...PETITIONER
HONNUR SAB (BY SRI GIRIDHAR H, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT AND:
OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY, M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
HEAD OF THE FOREST (HOFF),
ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESHWARA,
BENGALURU - 560003.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19585-DB
WP No. 9665 of 2024
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
BANDIPURA DIVISION,
CHAMARAJANAGAR 571313,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
4. SHRI VIVEK S,
SON OF SHRI SHIVAPPA B,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
FOREST OFFICER NAGU WILDLIFE RANGE,
BANDIPUR TIGER RESERVE,
HOSA BERU HALU, SARAGUR TALUK,
MYSURU - 580023,
R/AT NO A6, FOREST QUARTERS,
ARANYA BHAVAN, ASHOK PURAM, MYSURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE-A FINAL ORDER
DATED 06.03.2024 MADE IN APPLICATION No.4902/2023 BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE IN
THE POST AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER, NUGU WILDLIFE
RANGE, BANDIPUR TIGER RESERVE, HOSA BERU HALU,
SARAGUR TALUK, MYSURU BY RESTORING ANNEXURE-A7
CORRIGENDUM (XV) BEARING No.KFD/HOFF/B1(EST)
(65/2023-PnR-KFD AND OFFICE ORDER No. 66/2023-24
DATED 17.11.2023 TO ANNEXURE-B APPLICATION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY ANU SIVARAMAN J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19585-DB
WP No. 9665 of 2024
ORDER
The writ petitioner herein has filed the petition with the
following prayer:
"Writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-A Final
Order dated, order dated 06.03.2024 made in
Application No.4902/2023 by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru and allow the
Petitioner to continue in the post as Range Forest
Officer, Nugu Wildlife Range, Bandipur Tiger Reserve,
Hosa Beru Halu, Saragur Taluk, Mysuru by restoring
Annexure-A7 corrigendum (XV) bearing
NO.KFD/KOFF/B1(EST)/65/2023-PnR-KFD and Office
order No.66/2023-24 dated 17.11.2023 to Annexure-
B Application."
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
3. Parties are being referred to as in this Writ Petition
for convenience unless otherwise specifically stated.
4. The petitioner was the 4th respondent before the
Tribunal in Application No.4902/2023. He challenged the order
dated 17.11.2023 marked at Annexure-A7, in sofar it modified
the earlier posting orders granted to him. It was contended that
it was only to accommodate the petitioner herein that the
NC: 2024:KHC:19585-DB
4th respondent had been posted as Range Forest Officer at
Nugu Wildlife Range, Bandipur Tiger Reserve, Hosa Beru Halu,
Saragur Taluk, Mysuru district by Annexure-A5 order had been
displaced by Annexure-A7.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a reply statement contending
that the 4th respondent had completed his tenure and that he
was issued by posting order on 16.11.2023. Thereafter, on the
next day, the order was modified based on the direction given
by the 1st respondent and hence there was no illegality in the
modification order dated 17.11.2023. The petitioner herein had
also filed reply statement contending that since the official
memorandum dated 16.11.2023 had been passed by the 2nd
respondent without any approval from the Chief Minister, the
modification of the said order by the official memorandum
dated 17.11.2023 also did not require any such prior
permission. It was stated that the modification by 17.11.2023
would not amount to a premature transfer and that the 4th
respondent had no ground to challenge the same.
NC: 2024:KHC:19585-DB
6. The Tribunal considered the contentions advanced.
It was found that the 4th respondent was working as Range
Forest Officer, in Forest Mobile Squad, Mysuru. The 2nd
respondent by order dated 28.08.2023 had transferred the 4th
respondent and directed him to report before the competent
authority for posting orders. The 4th respondent reported before
2nd respondent authority on 04.10.2023 and was waiting for
posting order. Thereafter, the order dated 16.11.2023 was
passed, posting him as Range Forest Officer at Nugu Wildlife
Range, Bandipur Tiger Reserve, Hosa Beru Halu, Saragur Taluk,
Mysuru. It was noticed that the 4th respondent had reported to
duty on 17.11.2023. However, on the same day, Annexure-7
was passed on the instructions on the concerned Minister
cancelling Annexure-5 order. It was found that the petitioner is
only a Rule 32 holder of the post and that the 4th respondent
who was holding the post was in regular charge and was
entitled for preference in the matter of posting. This conclusion
was reached relying on the Rules as well as judgments of this
Court.
7. It was further found that though the order dated
17.11.2023 had been approved by the Minister of the
NC: 2024:KHC:19585-DB
concerned department, the approval of the Chief Minister was
not obtained. On these grounds, the application was allowed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner
contends that there was no question of obtaining the prior
approval of the Chief Minister since the order dated 16.11.2023
also did not have any such prior approval. It is contended that
the order dated 17.11.2023 was only a modification of the
earlier order and therefore, it is not available for the 4th
respondent herein to contend that it was premature transfer at
all. It is further contended that Annexure-F would show that the
writ petitioner had been permitted to assume charge pursuant
to Annexure-A7.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on
either side as well as the learned Government Advocate and
have considered the contentions advanced.
10. We have noticed that Annexure-A5 was only an
order granting postings to officers who were waiting for
posting, pursuant to their transfers. Going by the provisions of
transfer guidelines, there is nothing to indicate that such
posting requires prior approval of the Chief Minister. The
NC: 2024:KHC:19585-DB
contention that the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 was only
modification of the earlier order and would therefore not
require any prior approval of the Chief Minister, has been
considered by the Tribunal. In any view of the matter, the
factual aspects of the matter including the fact that the writ
petitioner was only holding charge of the post in a temporary
capacity and that the posting given to a regularly appointed
officer could not have been disturbed to accommodate such a
person has also been considered by the Tribunal.
11. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal or in
the conclusions reached. In the above view of the matter, we
are of the opinion that the question as to who was holding
charge of the post would be inconsequential inasmuch as the
impugned order dated 17.11.2023 stands quashed by the
Tribunal.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent
contends that the 4th respondent has been holding the post
pursuant to the orders issued by the Tribunal as well as this
Court. In that view of the matter, upholding the order of the
NC: 2024:KHC:19585-DB
Tribunal dated 06.03.2024, the order impugned before the
Tribunal dated 17.11.2023 was untenable. We are of the
opinion that the 4th respondent herein is entitled to hold the
post.
13. The Writ Petition fails and accordingly the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
GVP
