IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17"' DAY OF zrupy 2009 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF_3US«TIC'E _ AND _ V V THE HON'BLE MR.JuSTIC;E"\/QGSABHAHIT'-- WRIT PETITION NQ.155(ki2[2OAQ. g (S-,A_-g:A"v.'1~. ' BETWEEN: ' " A S.G.HIREMATH, AGED 55 YRS, I ._ 5 _ _ ~ ASST.DIRECTOR OF AGRI::LILTLI_RfE,. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,'_ 1 s WATER SHED DEVELORI-I'E'NTT.DEPTI,j.._ BANGALORE. V' .. PETITIONER (By S'RI%"RAv.IiVfvER'iii%IA SHCOUNSEL FOR SRI KRISHNA DIxIT;_AD_\/--.)V ' - AND: " 1.THE»SjTATE OF I<A'RNATAI<A, REP-.',BY ITS RRIN'C«I9A.L SECRETARY, " V' - DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, , . MS.SL,DG,,»R.'R.._CIRCLE, B.ANG.A,1;Q_RE -jsysgo 001. 2;S_. I3. KON'GAIw'AD, S/O;--5HAR:vIAIvRA, AGED~~,ABOuT 31 YRS, ' ASST. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, WATER SHED DEVELOPMENT DEPT., -.R/'-.-AT. FLAT NO2449 SECTOR No.12, MAHANTESH NAGAR, V' __BELGAuM - 599 015. .. RESPONDENTS
has been passed without application of mind and that the
said order passed is in violation of the transfer guideline
issued by the Govt. by its order dated 22/I
4. It is the contention of the applicant”~t_hatjn’tran’sfe’r
is premature as per the provisio:ns”‘rn«ade._ in:the4__transfer’i
guideline dated 22/11/2001 V and:the-_appiic’av_nt’has
transferred in the middle of thefiacadernic.yearzafridfvtransfer if
has been made only to .accom’mod_ate”rthe Sf””r’es*pondent ~
petitioner herein who beVlo_ng’s.,t:o,:’Belga’urn’»__Dist., who has
worked in Belga.unrri_Dis:,t,H abVou’t:,.3V(l years out of which,
in Belgia’u”rh”Tavi.ukuit;seif:’fo,:r years and the transfer
is not in public; in view of the Lok Sabha
election for””mjich.,heA’had’°’been assigned election duty and
~._a w’ro:ngA—rinformatiorfwas sent to the Chief Electoral Officer
“appiicant is not engaged in eiection duty,
based on the concurrence of the CEO was obtained
the transfer during the election period. The review
of the applicant has been rejected mechanically,
and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
22>
5. The application was resisted by respondents 1 to
4 and 6 contending that the Cadre Management Authority
came to the conclusion that the applicant has n.ot_f.giv..en
any reason for retaining him at Belgaunfiiiw’a~~ri,ti:__ffo_.r”.
accommodating him in a nearby place and”t’he’_~order_wi_il
only be effective at the end of the aca.demi_c’-.year’Vainadtiigé
has been approved by the’«-Qahiefx’-iviinisterifanci,on
approval, the earlier order was also
confirmed by the Cadre_lViVan2a’g’e’r’n’glfi§~_Authority. The
applicant is a Commission’s
approval vvas: and there is no
objection to the Lok Sabha election.
ire’spAo_nd’e’nt resisted the objection by
.–.,.._con:te’nding~~.that “h’e”riaVs already obeyed the transfer order
i_V_’d’a:tedi. and the impugned order is a weli-
co’n_siidered’i:o.r’der made in public interest and does not call
*.,for ari’y,Vaa_Ai’nterference and there is no vioiation of transfer
“‘–“_ga.i_ideiines.
7. The KAT after hearing the learned counsel
appearing for parties, by an order dated 29/53/2009 heid
U’
that the transfer of the applicant was a premature transfer
and it was in the middle of the academic year and contrary
to the guideline dated 22/11/2001. The rribuneliitghas
directed the Cadre Management Authority
dated 12/12/2008 to consider the review__
applicant in conformity with the pilrovisiioris”‘cont-aihinedin
Govt. Order dated 22/11/2091 aindfithe p,e’i,’us’al” oi’;’.tl°.e”ag
original records reveal revi’ew°=aiuthority has
brushed aside the appl’i~c_ant_”slllpétfipfi-._Qn theiground that
the petition did not conVta’in_Valn’y particuA.’lIa:Vr_’points requiring
consideration,” ‘a’pga’i’t fiiom stating’ 5tiiat….the 5″‘ respondent
had spent -in Beigaum Dist. and on this
ground,theearl*ier’A:oi*d:e_r44Vhas been reaffirmed and the
Cad.rfe’iVi.anagem_ent Authority has misread the provisions
:’.ti-efherer guidelines dated 22/11/2001. The
of stay applicable to the applicant is 4
years “-.and”he has been transferred in just 1 year and 2
mon_thsI The Cadre and Management Authority should
lhaveflconsidered this objection and dealt with it because it
for the transferring authority to record the reasons for
considering the transfer of the applicant prematurely as it
K5»
is a case amounting to extraordinary circumstances.
Accordingly, the Cadre Management Authority has failed
to consider the application of the applicant with rega.rd~.._to
premature transfer and in violation of guidell:i.n’es~~’_’Vidiatedi’_
22/11/2001. It is a solemn assurance to t.l1’e’e.5jploye’es of ” if
the State Govt. that a proper system ::’of..effe.chting’ trahsfeiisil
is in place and transfer is ‘not made as vv~h.irnVs..3and–.Vl’
fancies of authorities, or under4_l:”‘t.h_e–pressurleiyofiriterested
parties or for other the material on
record reveal that transfer’ only to
accommodate…» at all in public
interest and Authority did not record
reasons transfer of the applicant
andaccordingiyppasseid the impugned order.
aggrieved by the said order dated
29/is/2oo9;li:
‘irespondent No.5 has preferred this writ
‘*.,petitio”n_ contending that the order of transfer was valid as
‘~.if”ihe_a”C:3dre Management Authority by order dated 1/4/2009
upheld the transfer of respondent No.2 and gave him
posting as Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bailhongal in
\)>
Beigaum Dist. itself and the said place is at a distance of
about 40 kms from Belgaurn and the order of
contrary to the law, facts and material
record.
9. We have heard the le.arn,ed senior cou4n’sel”=,
appearing for the petitioner, learned for
respondent No.1 and,the le.a’rned’j4cVo’unsel appefaring for
respondent No.2
10. been filed by
the 2″” “tha’rVV’p?etitioner is not entitied
to any writ petition and the same
is liable petitioner is entitled to be
contiijoed. at the._V_Vpresent place of work for a period of 3
years, he«–._has been disturbed within a period of one
and there was an interim “order of stay
_ granted and the application was disposed of on
with a direction to Cadre Management
Atithority to consider his transfer and pass appropriate
if orders and the Cadre Management Authority confirmed the
of order of transfer and as per the Bio–data of the petitioner,
\/”‘
right from the day of his appointment on 15/12/1978, he
has worked in Beigaum oniy, except one year in Koppai
during 1990~91 and Beigaum is his native district4aiVso_:’a.nd
the impugned order is a premature transfer
to the terms and conditions of the.~”g*u.i’deii’n~e’sand if
wherefore, the impugned order is if V
11. Learned Senior ‘-cjournseiv. appeajr’_inV§,v»4’Vfor the’
petitioner submittedV:’thVat tih’e*i’Vti’an’sfer way of
deputation and there diffe-refnce__.y:be.twyeen the transfer
and deputation..f;VIt_ isizffurthier -sVubrn.itt’ed’ that the transfer
has bee’n”‘ia’pp:r’oveE¥§V Cjhfhifeffdinister and also by the
Cadre Respondent No.2 has been
now posted”-to’ Baiiafhongai, which is at a distance of 40
B.eigaun1’*and wherefore, the order passed by the
the order of transfer is Eiabie to be set
a.sid;eanvd.’theiappiication filed before the Tribunal is iiable
“.._to be dismissed.
“12. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for
-“respondent No.1/State submitted that 2″” respondent has
aiready been transferred to Beigaum in view of the order
0′
10
passed by the review authority conforming the order of
transfer of the writ petitioner.
13. Learned Senior counsel appe’a_ring:-fl”
respondent No.2 argued in suppo;*t'”of”‘the
the Tribunal and submitted that transfer responde’nVt”-..g
No.2 was premature i.e., afte’r’~,one year .and.”‘3 of
service at Belgaurn aVn’d..V_therefo’re}; liable’ to be set
aside.
14. .given_rca_z4’ejfu’i’ Vconsideration to the
contentions: ~vof7-.t:h_:e V’ie_a–rn’ed«- appearing for the
partiesiand sc’ruvtin.i_zied the-njateriai on record.
15. ‘mat.eria_l record would cieariy show that
-*,_the of tran~–s–fer of the petitioner in place of 2″”
resp’ond’e.n’t ;a’t::Belgaum dated 21/10/2008 is an order of
transfer ancifnot deputation, as the deputation of both the
[writ petitioner and 2″” respondent has been made prior to
A Xtiwne order of transfer and it is a simple case of transfer and
deputation. However, the material on record wouid
fvacieariy show that being aggrieved by the said order of
u}
14
application No.1-464/2009 is set aside and the ap
ptication
No.1464/2009 is dismissed. [
V _A
” s
(9.0%, D:I_Ni$K:A’R¥i!.’§_) X
% CHIEF Jusrszcg
s ~- ssasnaum