SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Kar) 354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Alla Saheb - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Karnataka Through its Principal Secretary Department of Urban Development Vikas Soudha- Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.204024 of 2016 (STR)
Decided On : 24-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri P. Vilaskumar Marthand Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA

Headnote:LABOUR AND SERVICES – Transfer – Guidelines for transfer of Government servant – Notification effecting transfer and postings not containing name of petitioner – Merely because respondent stated to have been transferred to place where petitioner is serving, does not ipso facto amount to transfer of petitioner himself – No transfer order of petitioner was passed by authority – Remedy available to petitioner is to approach higher authorities – Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

1. The petitioner Alla Saheb S/o Hussain Saheb Doddamani, aged 57 years, presently working as Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Cell, Urban Development Administration, Vijaypur, has filed this writ petition in this Court on 23.08.2016 with the following prayers:

“(1) Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order of Transfer vide dated 18.08.2016 passed by respondent No.1 in so far as posting the respondent No.5 in the place of petitioner, in interest of justice which is at Annexure A;

(2) Order for any other reliefs as deems feet.”

2. Mr. P. Vilaskumar Marthand Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that respondent No.5 Mr. Sharanappa C. Oni, Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Cell, Belagavi, under the impugned Notification of the Transfer and Postings Annexure A dated 18.08.2016 has been posted vice the present petitioner at Vijaypur transferring him from Belagavi. Even though the name of the present petitioner does not find a place in the said Notification of Transfer and Postings of various authorities of the Cadre of Municipal Executive Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer/Environment Engineers/Junior Engineers and other category of employees, since the respondent No.5 has been posted in the said order vide Sl.No.3 for the post of Executive Engineer at the place where the present petitioner is working at Vijaypur, therefore, he has got a cause of action to challenge the said transfer order of respondent No.5 since the petitioner is bound to be posted out of the present posting place of Vijaypur and such posting of the petitioner out of the place of Vijaypur would be in violation of the guidelines laid down for Transfer and Postings of Group A officers as contained in the Government Order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001, dated 22.11.2001 followed by the subsequent Government Order No.Case.22.SNV 20143, Bengaluru, dated 07.06.2013 which inter alia laid down:

(i) That minimum period of stay in one place for Group A officers which includes the post of Executive Engineer at 3 years;

(ii) That premature transfer would require prior permission of the Chief Minister and

(iii) That such transfers cannot be effected after the month of June of that particular year.

3. He submitted that such guidelines have the character of being statutory guidelines and the aforesaid Government Order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001 dated 22.11.2001 has been held to have the statutory force in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandru H.N., Vs State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 1585. He relied upon paragraph8 of the said judgment.

4. The advance copy of the writ petition was supplied to Mrs. Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate yesterday who accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and needed some time to file certain documents along with statement of objections. However, orally the learned Additional Government Advocate has stated before the Court that to her knowledge there is a Circular extending the time for making Transfer and Postings orders even beyond June and that time has been extended.

5. Be that as it may. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned Notification containing Transfer and Postings order Annexure A dated 18.08.2016 and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons.

Firstly, this Court does not find any cause of action yet to have arisen to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the Notification Annexure A dated 18.08.2016 effecting Transfer and Postings of several such officers of Group A does not contain the name of the present petitioner.

Merely because, respondent No.5 Mr. Sharanappa C. Oni is stated to
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top