Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, RAJESH RAI K., JJ.
Sri. K.M. Prashanth Kumar, S/o. Mallesh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21643 of 2023(S-KSAT)
Decided On : 20-12-2023
Transfer - Administrative Law - Rule 6(a) of the Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013, Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines, Rule 9 of Transfer Guidelines, Rule 12 of the Transfer Guidelines, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court discussed the legality of the impugned Transfer Notification, the prior approval of the Chief Minister, and the petitioner's tenure at the place in question. It highlighted the interpretation of the Transfer Guidelines, the meaning of 'OTHER LANGUAGE' as a request or recommendation, and the principles of transfer of a Government servant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Town Planner, challenged a transfer notification that transferred him to a different position. The petitioner argued that the transfer was premature and not in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines, as it lacked prior approval of the Chief Minister.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was not in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines as it lacked prior approval of the Chief Minister. It also noted that the petitioner had a considerable tenure at the place in question, but emphasized that a government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice.
Issues: Legality of the impugned Transfer Notification, prior approval of the Chief Minister, and the petitioner's tenure at the place in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the communication from the Chief Minister was a request or recommendation, not a prior approval, and quashed the impugned Transfer Notification. It emphasized that a government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal was set aside, and the impugned Transfer Notification was quashed. The petitioner was directed to report to the place-in-question, subject to the respondent-State taking a fresh decision in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines, 2013.
ORDER :
The petitioner is knocking the doors of this writ Court aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in A.No. 3096/2023, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner.
2. Before we proceed with the contentions adverted by the parties to this Petition, the facts apposite for consideration of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are –
Petitioner who was initially working as an Assistant Town Planner, Office of Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Mysuru came to be promoted vide order dated 11.05.2016, to the post of Town Planner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru (for short ‘MUDA’). The petitioner has discharged his duties in the said place for nearly six years and pursuant to which, on 11.04.2022, petitioner was again promoted from the cadre of Town Planner to Assistant Director and subsequent to said promotion, he was posted as Member Secretary, Town Planning Authority, Malavalli, Mandya.
3. Further, he served in the post of Member Secretary in Mandya for a period of nearly two months and in pursuance of order dated 02.06.2022 viz, Annexure-A3, he was again posted as Assistant Director, Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru (for short 'MUDA'). He reported to the said place on 06.06.2022. It is in this background, the respondent-State passed a Notification of vice-versa transfer by transferring the petitioner to the place of 4th respondent herein and placing the 4th respondent to the place of petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2023 after hearing both the parties was pleased to reject the contention of the petitioner by confirming the impugned Transfer Notification, challenge to which is the lis before this Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that respondent No.4 was subjected to trap proceedings by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Police, Udupi, vide 14.01.2022 and a case was also registered against the said officer in Crime No. 3/2020 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and subsequent to his arrest, he was placed under suspension since his arrest dated 14.01.2022. Thereafter, pursuant to Government Order dated 12.08.2022, the invoked suspension order came to be recalled by respondent–State and pursuant to which by the same order respondent No.4 was posted as Assistant Director, Mangalore City Corporation, Mangalore. It is on this premise, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that transfer of respondent No.4 is premature one and also the same is not in accordance with rule 6 (a) of the Transfer Guidelines of 07.06.2013.
5. Learned Senior counsel further contended that, the petitioner was posted as Assistant director, MUDA, on 02.06.2022 and he has been displaced from his post within 13 months of him being posted to the said place which is contrary to Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines supra. He would also vehemently submit that, State Government has acted in violation of its own circular dated 31.08.2023, which mandated prior approval of the Chief Minister, post general transfer period i.e., post 01.06.2023 to 03.07.2023. Hence, the same is in the teeth of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K.G. Jagadeesh Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. in W.P. No. 48988/2016 and M. Rajashekar Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. in W.P. No. 45916/2018.
6. Further, learned Senior counsel also submits that there is no proper reasoning forthcoming as mandated under Rule 9 of Transfer Guidelines supra, in order to prematurely transfer the petitioner from his post and he places reliance on the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131. Wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to its earlier decision in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3 has observed that –
A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice, and a transfer can be made in administrative exigencies. The communication from the Chief Minister was a request or....
Government servants do not have a vested right to remain in a post; transfers must adhere to established guidelines and require prior approval from the Chief Minister to prevent arbitrary actions.
Premature transfer of a government servant must comply with the minimum tenure prescribed in the transfer guidelines, and transfer based solely on complaints without initiating necessary disciplinary....
Transfer orders in public service are valid unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
Transfer orders in government service must be made in public interest and administrative exigencies, and modifications to such orders require valid justification; courts will not interfere unless the....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
