Savita Renuka vs The State of Karnataka

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—I have taken up this matter for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

The petitioner, who is working as the Chief Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Aurad-B has called into question the first respondent''s order, dated 19.7.2014 (Annexure-D), insofar as it pertains to posting the respondent No. 4 in the place of the petitioner.

Sri Ravi B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in the cadre of the Office Manager. In the descending order there are cadres of Senior Health Inspector, F.D.C. and Junior Health Inspector. The respondent No. 4 belongs to the cadre of Junior Health Inspector. He is not eligible to hold the post of Chief Officer of a Taluka Panchayath.

Sri Patil submits that the notification, dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure-B) transferring the petitioner as the Chief Officer, Taluka Panchayath, Aurad states that as and when the officers from the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Services (''KMAS'' for short) are available, the non-KMAS officers have to go back to their earlier positions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be disturbed until and unless a KMAS Officer is posted to her place. He also brought to my notice the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Rules, 1970. Serial No. 4 of Schedule II providing for the method of recruitment stipulates that only the Managers belonging to Municipal Service, Revenue Officers belonging to Municipal Service, Senior Health Inspector belonging to Municipal Service and Managers in the office of DMA can be absorbed as Chief Officers Grade II. The respondent No. 4 does not even meet the bare eligibility criteria to be absorbed as the Chief Officer Grade II. Therefore, he could not have been posted to the place presently occupied by the petitioner.

Sri Manvendra Reddy, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the impugned transfer is in the course of general transfers effected as per the policy of the Government. He submits that under the impugned order as many as 39 officers are transferred. There are no malafides in transferring any of them. The transfers are done depending on the exigencies of the administration.

Sri P. Vilas Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the notification (Annexure-B) transferring the petitioner to Aurad Taluka Panchayath itself states that it is temporary arrangement and that the transfer is until further orders. He submits that as the arrangements are of temporary nature and as there is no regular recruitment or absorption, the petitioner is not justified in complaining of the violation of the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Rules, 1970.

The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. It is trite that the transfer is an incidence of service. It is the inherent right of the master or employer to transfer his/its employees depending upon the exigencies of administration. No employee has any vested right to demand he/she be continued in a particular place perpetually.

The notification posting the petitioner to Aurad Taluka Panchayath itself says that it is temporary and until further orders. It is not that her posting is for any fixed tenure. Condition No. 2 of the said notification only contains the rider that as and when the officers from KMAS are available, the petitioner has to go back to the earlier position. But the same cannot be used and stretched to mean that until such time that the officers from KMAS are available, she cannot be transferred at all.

The petitioner does not have the locus standi to challenge the posting of the respondent No. 4 to Aurad Taluka Panchayath on the ground that he does not have the eligibility. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 are not the rival candidates for a post in any cadre, although they may be rivals for the posting for a particular place.

In the result, I negative the challenge raised to the posting of the respondent No. 4 to the place of the petitioner. However, I notice with concern that the petitioner is not given any posting. No place is shown for the petitioner in the impugned transfer notification. There would be certain amount of ad hocism when the transfers and postings are made depending on the requirements of the situation. But the same does not mean that there should not be any fair play in the action of the Government.

On instructions, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate submits that the posting orders would be issued to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of one week from today.

While deciding the place for posting the petitioner, the Government has to ensure that the petitioner''s posting is in keeping with the position, which she had had till now. The Government shall do everything possible to give to the petitioner the posting, which would not be lesser or lower than the one or inferior to the one, which is given to the respondent No. 4.

This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.