CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

a) Call for records from the first Respondent;

b) Set aside the impugned order dated

28.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in Application No.3513/2024 (Annexure-A) and consequently allow the application of the petitioner as prayed for before the Hon'ble Tribunal in Application No. 3513/2024 (Annexure-B) to meet the ends of justice."

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner on promotion as Executive Engineer was posted to the Planning and Road Asset Management Centre (PRAMC) on 04.08.2022. He is due to retire from service on 31.07.2025. While so, vide Notification dated 19.07.2024, the second respondent was posted in the petitioner's place without showing any posting to the petitioner. He challenged the same before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), filing Application No.3513 of 2024 on 23.07.2024.

4. The second respondent entered appearance and filed a reply statement before the Tribunal and resisted the application. Interim order of stay was not granted to the petitioner, pursuant to which the Writ Petition No.20209 of

2024 (S-KSAT), was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of on 01.08.2024, directing for the consideration of the applications. On 01.08.2024, posting orders were also issued to the petitioner posting him as an Executive Engineer at the Rail Infrastructure Development Company (Karnataka) Limited (KRIDE), Bengaluru. The Tribunal considered the application and by the impugned order dated 28.08.2024, rejected the same finding that the petitioner has been working in the same place since 2015 and has been given a posting in Bengaluru itself vide order dated

01.08.2024.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been posted as Executive Engineer only on 04.08.2022 on deputation for a period of three years. It is stated that since he is due to retire on 31.07.2025, there is absolutely no reason for displacing him on 19.07.2024. It is contended that the third respondent was not waiting for posting orders and had been granted orders of posting on 03.01.2024 and 18.01.2024 and it is without complying with such orders that the second respondent had sought a posting of his choice in the petitioner's place. It is further contended that the subsequent posting order dated 01.08.2024 cannot do service for a posting order to the petitioner to enable the posting of the second respondent in the vacancy created by the transfer of the petitioner. It is contended that the posting order dated 01.08.2024 cannot validate the otherwise illegal exercise of posting of the second respondent to a post occupied by the petitioner on

19.07.2024.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:-

•

Dr.T.S.Muralidhar v. The State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.105251/2023 dated 01.09.2023];

• Sri.K.M.Vasu v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike reported in 2020 (1) KLJ 594;

• C.Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.24572/2015 dated 22.07.2015] and • C.S.Yathiraj v. The State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.20665/2023 dated 05.10.2023]

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent would, on the other hand, contend that the transfer order dated 19.07.2024 was one issued in public interest and in administrative exigencies and that the petitioner, who had been serving in the same office since 2015 cannot have any valid contention as against the order of transfer. It is submitted that Exs.R10 and R11, documents produced would show that the second respondent was indeed waiting