H.K. Puttalakshmi vs Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department

Rule.

Mr. H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned AGA waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. G.T. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 waives notice of Rule.

With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the sides, the petition is finally heard.

The petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for the sake of brevity) whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order dismissed the application.

The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially working as the Veterinary Inspector. Thereafter she was promoted as Senior Veterinary Inspector and was posted in the Veterinary dispensary, Tavarekere, at Bangalore South on 16.02.2004. The third respondent was also working as the Senior Veterinary Inspector in the primary veterinary Centre at Bangalore. The post of Veterinary Inspector at Bangalore where petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 were working were abolished and as a result thereof, the petitioner was shifted in the month of March, 2016 to Pantharapalya, whereas respondent No. 3 was transferred to Habaturu Village, Periyapattana Taluk, in Mysuru District. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was on duty at the Veterinary Dispensary of Pantharapalya, respondent No. 3 was posted from Habaturu Village to the post at which the petitioner was working, by way of transfer. Under the circumstances, the petitioner preferred Application No. 3138/2016 before the Tribunal challenging the said transfer order. The Tribunal found that the earlier order in favour of the petitioner, was passed without concurrence of the concerned department in the Secretariat and therefore it cannot be said that there was mala fide act on the part of the Government in posting respondent No. 3 in place of the applicant-petitioner. The Tribunal also found that since the transfer order was as per the direction of the Hon''ble Chief Minister, the order been passed in public interest and therefore there is no good reason to interfere with the order of the transfer and hence the application was dismissed. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We may also record that when the matter was heard earlier, since it was a matter pertaining to transfer, we had directed the learned AGA to make the original tile of the Commissioner as well as of the State Government available for perusal. Today, the files were produced for perusal and the learned Addl. Government Advocate made submission on the basis of the contents of the file and the learned Advocate appearing for both the sides have not insisted for filing of formal affidavit or statement of objections. Hence, we have considered the matter accordingly.

It appears from the original file that the petitioner also made a representation for her posting at the Veterinary'' Dispensary nearby Bangalore but the consideration of her representation, though was at one point of time recommended by the concerned Minister, but the Commissioner who is competent authority for transfer, on account of the abolition of the post at which the petitioner was earlier working i.e., Tavarekere, Veterinary Dispensary, Bangalore South transferred the petitioner to Veterinary Dispensary at Pantharapalya. Hence, one can say that on account of the administrative reason due to abolition of the post, the petitioner was posted at Veterinary Dispensary Pantharapalya.

So far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, the original file shows that he not made any representation for transfer but his wife made a representation to the concerned Minister as well as to the Hon''ble Chief Minister for his transfer on medical grounds. The medical papers were produced of the years 2013, 2014 and also 2015. The Secretary of the concerned Department, under the directions of the higher authority directed the Commissioner to pass the order and one of the reasons at the relevant point of time was that as per the information supplied to the Secretary of the Department, the post was vacant, though in reality the post was already filled up by posting of the petitioner at Pantharapalya. So far as the Commissioner who is competent authority to transfer is concerned, he not independently applied the mind and had he applied the mind possibly, he would have learnt that the post was already filled up and therefore respondent No. 3 could not be posted at Pantharapalya. Even otherwise also, if the communication of the Secretary of the Department is considered with the administrative circumstances, if the post was already filled up, naturally no administrative authority will pass an order for posting of another Officer at the same place. Under these circumstances, there is not only non-application of mind but one can say that on account of extraneous consideration, the Commissioner had exercised the power for transferring respondent No. 3 from Habaturu Village, to Pantharapalya though the post was not at all available for such purpose and the post was already filled up earlier in the month of March 2016 by posting of the petitioner.

The aforesaid aspects, in our view been lost sight of by the Tribunal. It is not a matter that the Commissioner is not the competent authority for transferring the petitioner and respondent No. 3. On the contrary, as per the submission made by the learned AGA, the Commissioner is the only competent authority for transferring the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3.

Under the circumstances, we find that the impugned order before the Tribunal for transfer of respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The impugned order for transferring of the respondent No. 3 from Habaturu Village to Pantharapalya which was impugned before the Tribunal is also set aside. The petition also shall stand allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

In view of the final order passed in this writ petition. I.A.No. 1/2016 shall not survive and shall stand disposed of.