O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged an order dated

13.12.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in application No.4071/2023, by which it refused to accept the challenge of her transfer and her services being placed at the disposal of the State

Government.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

The petitioner was transferred as an Assistant

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Quality Control Sub- Division, Shimogga in terms of an order of transfer dated 05.08.2021. After she completed her tenure of two years in the same post, the respondent No.1 invoked Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCSR Rules' for short) and posted the respondent No.2 herein in place of the petitioner and placed the services of the petitioner at the disposal of the State Government. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal.

3. It was contended before the Tribunal that the petitioner could not be displaced by another Officer under Rule 32 of the KCSR Rules. The Tribunal considering the contentions urged, held that the petitioner had completed her tenure and therefore, she had no right to be continued in the same place and that the respondent No.1 was entitled to post any Officer to be in charge of the post occupied by the petitioner.

4. Nonetheless, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not provided with a posting, it directed the respondent No.1 to provide a posting to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Until then, it directed the respondent No.1 to continue the services of the petitioner at the same post. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this

Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding a substantive post and therefore, even after her tenure in the post expired, the respondent No.1 could not have invoked Rule 32 of the KCSR Rules to post the respondent No.2. He relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of where, the co- ordinate bench of this Court at paragraph No.8 held that:

8. Note – 3 set out above states that the period for which the incharge arrangements can be made depending upon the nature of the posts. The period prescribed is the maximum period, for which a person can be posted under this Rule. It is because, when a post becomes vacant, a suitable person for the said post is to be found and posted. It takes some time. In the meanwhile, Administration should not suffer. A person, who is working in the said department, who possess the requisite qualification, to be promoted to the said post, is appointed for a temporary period. This object is behind this Rule. But unfortunately, we see this provision is breached by the authority with impunity and contrary to the spirit of this Rule. The persons are placed incharge under this Rule by way of transfer to a post, which is not vacant and to accommodate these persons incumbent holding the post is transferred. The time-schedule prescribed in Rule III is to be adhered to. In exceptional cases, the said period could be extended beyond six months. But, that does not mean that these persons could be continued in the post by way of incharge arrangement for years. This is not contemplated under this Rule. If such procedure is resorted to, then it amounts to abuse of these provisions. It will have no legal foundation. Therefore, on 30.04.2012 when Bhoja Raja was working at Gowribidanur as Incharge Sub-Registrar under Rule 32 of the Rules and when respondent No.1 was working as a Senior Sub-Registrar at Vijayanagar, Bangalore, the transfer of the petitioner to the post held by respondent No.1 is contrary to Rule 32, because the post of a Sub- Registrar was not vacant at Vijayanagar. A vacancy cannot be created by transferring the incumbent persons to another office and incharge Sub-Registrar cannot be placed in his place to be there again as an incharge Sub-Registrar. In ot