Writ petitions challenging administrative transfers are not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the Administrative Tribunals Act.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent insofar as petitioner is concerned and consequently to declare respondent No.3 to be ineligible to hold the post of Chief Officer, Hagaribommanahalli TMC and restore the petitioner to the post of Chief Officer at Hagaribommanahalli TMC.

2. Petitioner was appointed as First Grade Revenue Inspector (FGRI) at Harihar Municipality on compassionate appointment in view of death of his father. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of First Grade Revenue Officer (FGRO) as Group-C officer at Hosadurga Municipality. On 01.07.2019, again he has promoted as Chief Officer KMAS-Grade-II of Kotakar Town Panchayat, Taluka-Ullal and District Dakshina Kannada. The petitioner has been rendering the service of KMAS-Grade-II as Chief Officer, he was promoted and appointed as KMAS-Grade-I-Group-B at Mugalkhod Municipality of Belagavi District. Subsequently, the petitioner has been transferred through a Government Notification as Chief Officer, Grade-I-Group-B at Hagaribommanahalli TMC. Petitioner claims that he has reported to Hagaribommanahalli TMC as Chief Officer and he has rendering his services without any interruption. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1 has displaced the petitioner and transferred to Mudalagi TMC by placing respondent No.3 in his place of post, who is ineligible as he is Grade-III Group-C and also non-KMAS cadre. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said transfer of respondent No.3 in his place and petitioner to the place of respondent No.3 is before this Court questioning the same seeking for consequent reliefs.

3. It is vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after recruitment and promotion which is made in the rank of Chief Officer Grade-I, when there are no suitable candidates available, then the appointment can be made through the deputation of an officer from KAS (Junior Scale) and in the present case, the 3^rd respondent belongs to Grade-III Group-C and hence 3^rd respondent lacks the necessary qualifications and competence to hold the position of Chief Officer Grade-I Group-B. Accordingly, he contends that the impugned transfer order passed by the 1^st respondent is illegal and is not sustainable.

4. The petitioner relies upon an affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent-Director of Municipal Administration that ineligible candidate has no legal right to hold the post of Chief Officer and the same is declared to be ineligible and same is also affirmed by this Court in a Judgement, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the impugned transfer order, the petitioner approached this Court and secured an interim order and since then he has continued to work in the present place at Hagaribommanahalli as Chief Officer (Grade-I). Under these circumstances, he submits that this petition may be allowed as respondent No.3 is ineligible and not fit to occupy the post Chief Officer (Grade-I) and he also contends that the 3^rd respondent has not yet reported to Haribommanahalli and he is still functioning in the same place of posting as was earlier at Mudalagi.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel representing the 3^rd responded vehemently contends that the writ petition is not maintainable on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner suppressed certain material facts and he ought to have approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for shor