ORDER :

1. The petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘KSAT’), Kalaburagi Bench in Application No.20047/2019 as per Annexure-E and allowing the said application.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is a Deputy Controller in the Department of the Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Services in the pay scale of 36300-53850. On 29.06.2018 the first respondent issued a transfer notification posting the petitioner as Principal Chief Accounts Officer in the office of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Limited (for short ‘KBJNL’), Basavana Bagewadi, Vijayapura district. One K.N. Gangadhar who was holding that post earlier was transferred from that place. The petitioner assumed charge of that post on 02.07.2018. On 01.10.2019, the first respondent issued another transfer order posting third respondent to the place of petitioner. The petitioner approached the KSAT by filing an Application No.20047/2019 challenging the said transfer notification. By the impugned order, the KSAT dismissed the application and hence this writ petition.

3. We have heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and the respondents’ counsel.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner belongs to the cadre of Deputy Controller in the pay scale of 36300-53850. According to the recruitment rules of KBJNL, the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer is meant for an officer of the cadre of Deputy Controller in the pay scale of 36300-53850. The third respondent belongs to the cadre of Joint Controller, in the pay scale of 40050-56550. The Government notification dated 29.10.1996 made a provision for appointing the Principal Chief Accounts Officer from the cadre of Joint Controller, but when KBJNL framed the rules in the year 2012, the said post was earmarked for an officer of the cadre of Deputy Controller. The rules prevail over the Government notification. The petitioner had not completed his full term in the office of KBJNL, Basavana Bagewadi. Transferring the third respondent to his post was illegal and malafide. It was not in the public interest in the real sense. The KSAT has relied upon Government notification 29.10.1996 which is not in force. The KSAT has misplaced reliance on a judgment in the case of Somnath, Chief Accounts Officer vs. State of Karnataka which is not applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore it was his argument that the writ petition needs to be allowed, the order of the KSAT set aside and the Application No.20047/2019 on the file of KSAT allowed. He has garnered support for this argument from the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in the case of Shivakumar vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.202412/2018)

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent argued that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the transfer notification. The rules framed by KBJNL in the year 2012 have not been given into effect, it was not gazetted. Therefore the Government notification dated 29.10.1996 still prevails. According to the notification, the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer is to be filled by deputation from the cadre of Joint Controller. The third respondent belongs to this cadre and therefore there is nothing illegal if the third respondent was posted to the place of the petitioner. He further argued that posting the petitioner to the office of KBJNL, Basavana Bagewadi was purely temporary, his transfer notification indicates that he was transferred on OPG basis. This means his posting was temporary. Moreover, it was a deputation. It was not a regular transfer. The petitioner accepted his posting to Basavana Bagewadi on OPG basis and he cannot now say that he should not have been transferred prematurely. The tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that the petitioner’s application is devoid of merits and therefore this writ petition is liable