Transfer of departmental heads must adhere to specified authority guidelines, invalidating unauthorized orders.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner - Chief Engineer of Panchayat Raj Engineering Department is before this Court under Article– 226 of the Constitution of India , aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2025, in Application No.4886/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’) by which his application questioning the Notification bearing No.RDP/304/SSK/2024, dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure-A4) issued by the first respondent transferring the petitioner as Chief Engineer at Commissionerate, Rural Development Department and posting the fourth respondent in his place as Chief Engineer, PRE Department.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is in the cadre of Chief Engineer was posted as Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Department under Notification dated 11.12.2019, by the second respondent– DPAR. Under the impugned notification dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure-A4), issued by the first respondent, fourth respondent is posted in the place of the petitioner and the petitioner is posted as the Chief Engineer, to office of the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Department. Questioning the said Notification, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.4886/2024, urging among other grounds, it is contended that first respondent has no authority or competence to post the fourth respondent in place of the petitioner as the Head of the Department. The Tribunal without considering the said ground dismissed the application, holding that the writ petitioner is working in the said Department for morethan 11 years and also made an observation that the first respondent is empowered to post the petitioner to a different post and to make internal arrangement within the Department. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri.T.Narayanaswany, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Subramani M.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri.V.Shiva Reddy for respondent Nos.1 to 3. There is no representation for respondent No.4, though served with Notice. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. Learned counsel Sri.T.Narayanaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in not considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, that the first respondent is not empowered or has jurisdiction to post fourth respondent in place of the petitioner and to transfer the petitioner, since the petitioner is holding the post of Head of the Department of Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. The learned counsel would invite our attention to ground no.3.B(ii) of the application in that regard. It is his specific submission that respondent No.2 – Principal Secretary of DPAR is the competent authority for transfer and posting of the Head of the Department. Thus, the learned counsel would pray for allowing the petition.

5. Learned Government Advocate, Sri.V.Shiva Reddy has filed an affidavit of the Secretary of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, before this Court today. A perusal of the said Affidavit at para-5, it is seen that the first respondent has admitted that the competent authority to transfer in respect of the post of Head of the Department / Chief Engineer is DPAR. However, it is stated that the posting and transfer of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, is an internal arrangement and subsequently it is sent for post facto approval of the Chief Minister and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only question that arises for our consideration is: Whether the first respondent could effect transfer or mak