An order of transfer does not vary to the disadvantage of a government servant any of his 'conditions of service' as specified under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules.

RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J.

( 1 ) WRIT Appeal No. 2 of 1986 is preferred against the order dated 4-12-1985 made by Doddakalegowda, J. in Writ petition No. 19310 of 1985 dismissing the writ petition. This Writ Appeal was directed to be heard along with Writ appeal Nos. 703 and 707 of 1983 as the questions arising were similar. The principal question in the appeals is whether an order of transfer of a Government servant, made by an authority other than the Government itself, is appealable before Government under rule 19 of Karnataka Civil Services (C. C. A.) Rules (C. C. A. Rules for short ).

( 2 ) WRIT Appeal Nos. 703 and 707 of 1983 arise out of a common order dated 19-4-1983 made by Rama Jois, J in Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1982 holding, inter-alia, that the petitioner had a right of appeal to Government under the said Rule 19 against an order of transfer writ Appeal No. 703 of 1983 is by the Commissioner of Transport. Writ appeal No. 707 of 1983 is by the petitioner in the writ petition who considers himself aggrieved by the rejection of certain other reliefs sought by him in the writ Petition. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 707 of 1983 was unrepresented at the hearing. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the said appellant may not be interested in pursuing the appeal since he has been given a posting in bangalore during the pendency of the appeal. Writ Appeal No. 707 of 1983 is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the appeal filed by the state, namely Writ Appeal No. 703 of 1983 survives for consideration since the State desires to pursue the matter to test the correctness of the view taken by rama Jois, J. in W. P. 7942/82 as to the amenability of an order of transfer to an appeal under the said Rule 19. Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1982 was filed by One T. G. Sreenivasa Rao challenging the order of the Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore, dated 5-12- 1981 transferring the petitioner who was working as a Stenographer in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Trans- port, to the R. T. O's Office at Bijapur. This order was the subject-matter of an appeal before the Government preferred under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules. By endorsement dated 28-1-1983, the Government rejected the appeal on the ground that the said order of transfer was not appealable under Rule 19 of the c. C. A. Rules. Both the order of transfer and the endorsement issued by the Government were challenged in the said writ Petition. Rama Jois, J. by his order dated 18-4-1983 allowed the Writ Petition in part; held the appeal maintainable under rule 19 and directed the State Government to dispose of the appeal preferred by the Petitioner in accordance with rule 19 of the CCA Rules on its merits.

( 3 ) SO far as the appellant-Varadha rao in Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1986 is concerned, he is a Senior Labour Inspector in the Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka and was transferred to Tarikere by order dated 1-8-1983 made by the Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka. He filed an appeal purporting to be one under Rule 19 of the c. C. A. Rules before Government questioning the order of transfer on several grounds including the one that the order was malafide. That appeal was dismissed by the Government by its order dated 26-11-1985 holding that no appeal against an order of transfer was maintainable under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules. This order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ petition No. 19310 of 1985. By an order dated 4-12-1985 Doddakalegowda, j. dismissed the writ petition and held that the view of the Government as to the maintainability of the appeal was correct. Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1986 is filed by the said Varadha Rao, against the said order of the learned single judge. There is, thus, a divergence of opinion between the two learned single judges as to the maintainability of the appeal.

( 4 ) SRI Chandrasekhariah, learned government Advocate, was heard for the State, which is the appellant in Writ appeal No. 703 of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document