IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
L. NARAYANA SWAMY, R. DEVDAS, JJ.
Narayanappa - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5042 of 2019
Decided On : 04-06-2019
Transfer - Administrative Law - Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal - Transfer guidelines of 2018-19 - Article 162 of the Constitution of India - Government Order dated 07.06.2013 - Premature transfer - Violation of transfer guidelines - Chief Minister's recording of reasons - Retention of Sub-Registrars in Bengaluru city - [TRANSFER] - [ADMINISTRATIVE LAW] - [Article 162 of the Constitution of India, Government Order dated 07.06.2013] - The court discussed the violation of transfer guidelines, the statutory force of transfer guidelines issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and the requirement for the Chief Minister to record reasons for a transfer. The court emphasized the need for a transparent and equitable transfer policy rooted in the principles of social justice, and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Sub-Registrar, challenged an order transferring the 3rd respondent from Shivajinagar, Bengaluru to the Head office, Bengaluru, within a period of three months, as premature and violative of the transfer guidelines. The petitioner argued that the subsequent notification dated 30.10.2018 was required to bring an earlier notification in compliance with the restriction on transfers not beyond 4% of the cadre strength.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent notification did not modify the earlier notification to bring the transfer order in compliance with the guidelines. The court deemed the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as just and proper based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court also highlighted the need for a transparent and equitable transfer policy rooted in the principles of social justice.
Issues: Premature transfer, violation of transfer guidelines, statutory force of transfer guidelines, Chief Minister's recording of reasons for transfer, retention of Sub-Registrars in Bengaluru city.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a transparent and equitable transfer policy rooted in the principles of social justice and discussed the violation of transfer guidelines, the statutory force of transfer guidelines issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and the requirement for the Chief Minister to record reasons for a transfer.
Final Decision: The petition stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R. Devdas, J.
1. The petitioner who was the 3rd respondent before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') is before this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 08.01.2019, passed by the Tribunal.
2. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are serving in the cadre of Senior Sub-Registrars. By notification dated 30.07.2018, the respondent State Government transferred about 122 Senior Sub-Registrars/Sub-Registrars and in the said notification, the petitioner, who was then serving as Sub-Registrar, Hesaraghatta, was transferred as Sub-Registrar, Molakalmuru, while the 3rd respondent who was serving as Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, was transferred as Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. However, by another notification dated 30.10.2018, the petitioner, who was under transfer to Molakalmuru, stood transferred to the place of the 3rd respondent, as Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. Under the same notification, the 3rd respondent was transferred from Shivajinagar, Bengaluru to Head Office, Bengaluru, to a vacant post. The 3rd respondent herein approached the Tribunal in application No.7790/2018, seeking quashment of the notification dated 30.10.2018. By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the application and quashed the order of transfer of the 3rd respondent, consequently, retaining the 3rd respondent as Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. The petitioner herein is assailing the order of the Tribunal.
3. Smt. M.V. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that the notification dated 30.07.2018, whereby 122 Sub-Registrars were sought to be transferred was found to be in excess of 4%, as provided in the transfer guidelines of 2018-19, effective from 23.06.2018. The learned Senior Counsel, while taking the Court through the file notings, submitted that the State Government having found the lacunae, was forced to re-look into the notification dated 30.07.2018. Therefore, post-facto approval was taken from the Hon’ble Chief Minister and thereafter, another list of transfer was prepared, as found at paragraph No.69 in the file notings. In the said list, the names of the petitioner herein and the 3rd respondent find a place. The petitioner who was under transfer to Molakalmuru, was sought to be transferred to Shivajinagar, Bengaluru and the 3rd respondent was sought to be transferred from Shivajinagar, Bengaluru as Senior Sub-Registrar, office of Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Bengaluru. However, at paragraph No.72, the transfer of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, as per paragraph No.69, was cancelled. At paragraph No.93, the proposal at paragraph No.69, with certain modification was once again put up before the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The proposal at paragraph No.93, was accepted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and consequently, the impugned notification dated 30.10.2018, was issued.
4. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore submits that the subsequent notification dated 30.10.2018, was required to be issued to bring the earlier notification dated 30.07.2018, in compliance with the restriction found in the transfer guidelines, permitting transfer, not beyond 4% of the cadre strength. In the light of the above, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the subsequent notification dated 30.10.2018, cannot be considered as premature transfer. Moreover, it is submitted that no prejudice is caused to the 3rd respondent who has been posted within Bengaluru city.
5. Per contra, Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the impugned order of transfer, transferring the 3rd respondent from Shivajinagar, Bengaluru to the Head office, Bengaluru, within a period of three months, is clearly premature and violative of the transfer guidelines. The 3rd respondent who was transferred on 30.07.2018, from Basavanagudi to Shivajinagar, reported for duty at
Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.