The court emphasized the need for proper reasons and guidelines for posting lower cadre persons to higher cadre posts before obtaining the Chief Minister's approval, and held that the initial posting of the respondent to the encadred post was flawed and premature, rendering the respondent ineligible to challenge the transfer notification.

ORDER :

(Rajesh Rai K., J.) :

Heard Learned Counsel Sri. Prithveesh M K for the Petitioner and learned senior counsel Sri. S.P. Kulkarni for Sri. H.M.Umesh for Respondent No.3 and Learned AGA.

2. This Writ Petition arises out of order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'tribunal') in A.No. 2947/2023 dated 02.08.2023. Wherein the tribunal was pleased to allow the application by setting aside the impugned transfer notification bearing No. SiAaSuEi 181 AaSeEi 2023 dated 06.07.2023.

3. The facts in brief that led the petitioner to this court, as borne out from the pleading are as follows :

Petitioner who is currently a KAS (senior Scale) officer who was appointed by way of direct recruitment in the year 2006 initially as a tahsildar. Further, the Petitioner came to be promoted as KAS(Junior Scale) officer in the year 2015 and to KAS (Senior Scale) in the year January, 2021.

4. Pursuant to him being promoted as stated supra, vide order dated 02.02.2022 he was posted as Deputy Secretary, department of Social Welfare, Karnataka Government Secretariat. This posting order came to be questioned before the tribunal and tribunal upholding his transfer directed the petitioner to report to the transferred place. Posteriorly, on 27.01.2023 petitioner was further transferred to the post of Deputy secretary, Department of Home. Within one month of this order being passed, i.e, on 27.02.2023 petitioner was reverted back to his earlier place of posting i.e. as Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Welfare. But one Sri. M.J.Venkateshaiah who was working as Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Welfare was due to retire in two months. It is in this background, pursuant to the said order petitioner was relieved from the post of Deputy Secretary, Department of home on 16.03.2023 and reported to 1st respondent head office seeking for appropriate posting.

5. Posteriorly, on petitioner being without posting since 17.03.2023 respondent No.1 passed transfer notification, transferring him to the post of Additional Director-I Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer affairs where respondent No. 3 was working, vide bearing No.SoAaSiEi 181 AaSeEi 2023 dated 06.07.2023. This came to be challenged by the respondent No.3 herein on it being premature and without prior approval of Chief Minister. Tribunal examined the rival contentions and proceeded to set aside the impugned order on the ground that it being premature and respondent No.3/petitioner herein is ineligible to hold the post as provided by C and R rules pertaining to the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. It is in this coveted background the respondent No.3/petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court challenging the order passed by the tribunal supra.

6. It is contended by the petitioner that the original posting of respondent No.3 to the place in question i.e. Additional Director-I of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs vide order dated 09.11.2021 is in itself is bad in law. As the post of Additional Director-I supra is an encadred post and as per government order dated 18.12.2017 which is produced at page 64 of the writ petition and hence the said post can only be filled by person who is in the grade of IAS (Viz. page-74). The said provision also mentions a rider wherein in the absence of there being no eligible persons from the cadre of IAS to be posted to the said place, then it shall be filled by a person who is in the cadre of KAS(super time scale).

7. The petitioner draws the attention of this court to Annexure A1 to the application before the tribunal and contends that the respondent No.3/applicant before tribunal is a KAS (senior scale) officer and hence as per government order mentioned supra the respondent No.3 has no eligibility to hold the said post.

8. It is in this background, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.3 who has approached the tribunal has no locus standi to challenge the impugn