SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri T P Ramesh Kumar vs The Commissioner on 24 April, 2014

Karnataka High Court Sri T P Ramesh Kumar vs The Commissioner on 24 April, 2014Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.12327/2014 (S-TR) BETWEEN:

Sri T.P. Ramesh Kumar,

S/o. late T. Kala Thimmegowda,

Aged about 40 years,

Second Division Clerk,

Head of Legal Cell, BBMP Building, N.R. Square,

Bangalore – 560 001.

…PETITIONER

(By Sri V. Srinivas, Adv.)

AND:

1. The Commissioner,

BBMP, N.R. Square,

Bangalore – 560 002.

2. The Asst. Commissioner (Adm), BBMP, N.R. Square,

Bangalore – 560 002.

3. The Head of Legal Cell,

BBMP, N.R. Square,

Bangalore – 560 002.

…RESPONDENTS

(By Sri R. Subramanya, Adv.)

2

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records and quash the office order dated 4.3.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-D to the W.P. and consequently restore the petitioner in the Legal cell itself till the petitioner completes 3 years and quash the relieving order dated 10.3.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-G.

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER

Petitioner, an employee of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, has filed this writ petition, to quash an office order dated 04.03.2014, as at Annexure-D, issued by the Additional Commissioner (Admn.), BBMP, Bangalore i.e., respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner was transferred on 03.01.2013 from the office of the Chief Health Officer, to the Head of Legal Cell of BBMP. He reported to duty in the Legal Cell on 04.01.2013. The petitioner having been transferred on 04.03.2014 vide Annexure-D, to the post of Second Division Assistant, BBMP Girls High School, Dayananda Nagar, Bangalore, this writ petition was filed by contending that the order of transfer has been passed in violation of 3

resolution of the BBMP Council dated 30.08.2012, wherein, certain guidelines in the matter of transfer has been prescribed and also the resolution dated 14.11.2013, not to make any transfers within a Zone.

3. Sri. V. Srinivas, learned advocate, contended that the petitioner having just completed a year in the Legal Cell of BBMP, was not liable to be transferred, in view of the resolution dated 30.08.2012 of the Council of BBMP. He submitted that a representation submitted on 05.03.2014 has not been considered and the impugned order being arbitrary, interference is called for.

4. Sri. R. Subramanya, learned advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner is holding a transferable post and respondent No.2 being the Delegated Authority, under S.67 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, has effected the transfer/posting vide Annexure-D, in the exigencies of service and the same being an administrative order, interference in writ jurisdiction is not called for. 4

5. Perused the writ record and considered the rival contentions.

6. In the case of SRI MRUTHYUNJAYA N.V., Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, W.P.NO.56276/2013 decided on 12.12.2013, a transfer effected from the Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Bangalore Rural, to the office of the Executive Engineer, Hebbal Division, BBMP, Bangalore, having been assailed and upheld by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, when challenged in a writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court, by taking note of the definition of ‘transfer’ under Rule 8(49) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, has held that the transfer from one office to another office within the same headquarters cannot be treated as transfer and none can make a grievance against such an order of transfer from one office to another office on the ground that it is premature or arbitrary.

7. Interference by the Court, with administrative decision/transfer order, can only be in rare cases, as has been held by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. (See B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1986 SC 5

1955; Mrs.Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532; Union of India vs. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1993 SC 1605; and Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357), since transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative interest. However, if there is ‘malice’ based on firm foundation of facts pleaded and established and not merely on insinuations and vague allegations, there can be interference.

8. In RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P., (2009) 15 SCC 178, Apex Court has held that the Courts are always reluctant to interfere with transfer of an employee, unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provision or suffers from mala fides.

9. In the instant case, it is to be observed that the challenge to the impugned order of transfer vide Annexure-D, is not based on the violation of any statutory provision regulating service conditions of the petitioner or by an Authority not competent to do so. The case of the 6

petitioner is that there is premature transfer and hence, the same is arbitrary.

10. Undisputedly, the petitioner is holding a transferable post. As per Annexure-D, the petitioner was shifted from the Legal Cell situated at the Head Office to the Girls High School, situated at Dayananda Nagar, within Bangalore City. Thus, there can be no hardship to the petitioner, on account of the transfer/posting vide Annexure-D. In the circumstances and in view of the settled principles of law, noticed supra, I do not find justification to interfere with the transfer/posting order as at Annexure – D & consequential relieving order vide Annexure-G.

Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Sd/-

JUDGE

sac*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation