Sri K. Ramachandra vs The State of Karnataka and Sri G.V. Yashodara, District Registrar

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—Learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 7215/2013, dated 19.11.2013, is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order, the petitioner''s transfer to Chikkaballapur is not interfered with.

The records reveal that the petitioner herein working as District Registrar in the office at Basavanagudi, Bangalore, is transferred to office of the District Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, by the order dated 30.4.2012. Within 1 1/2 years, the petitioner is again transferred from the office of District Registrar at Shivajinagar to office of the District Registrar at Chikkaballapur by the order dated 31.10.2013. To the place of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 is transferred from office of the District Registrar, Chikkaballapur. Thus, it is clear that by the order dated 31.10.2013, the petitioner is transferred to the place of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 is transferred to the place of the petitioner for administrative reasons.

Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the correctness of the order dated 31.10.2013 by contending that transfer of the petitioner from the office at Shivajinagar to the office at Chikkaballapur is premature, inasmuch as there cannot be transfer within three years from his posting at Shivajinagar Office. He relies upon the Government Order dated 7.6.2013 to contend that the transfer includes the posting of a Government servant from one office to another office within the same head quarters. Thus, according to him, the order dated 30.4.2012 transferring him from office of the District Registrar at Basavanagudi, Bangalore to the District Registrar''s office at Shivajinagar is practically an order of transfer, inasmuch as it is a transfer from one office to another office in the same head quarters. He further submits that as per the Government Order dated 7.7.2007, Bangalore District Registrar''s office is divided into five Registration Districts. Registrar''s office situated at Basavanagudi comes within the Registration District of Basavanagudi, whereas Registrar''s office at Shivajinagar falls within the Registration District of Shivajinagar. Thus, according to him, the Registration District of Shivajinagar is a different head quarters altogether and therefore petitioner''s earlier transfer from Basavanagudi to Shivajinagar is a transfer from one head quarters to another head quarters. The writ petition is opposed by Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 by contending that Bangalore City shall be treated as one head quarters and there cannot be any bifurcation of headquarters in the guise of creation of five Registration Districts. According to him, the bifurcation of work of registration into five Districts is only for registration purposes and not for any other administrative reasons. He draws the attention of the Court to Rule 8(49) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, to contend that transfer means the movement of Government Servant from one head quarters station to another head quarters station.

The Karnataka Civil Services Rules were initially framed pursuant to the order dated 1.3.1978 in exercise of the powers conferred by the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Pursuant to enactment of Karnataka Civil Services Act, the Rules relating to Recruitment and Conditions of service which are already framed and which are in force on the date of commencement of Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 are deemed to have been framed under the provisions of the said Act. These Rules override the executive orders passed by the State Government from time to time. Unless the Rules are amended, they hold the field. Under Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the definition of transfer'' reads thus:-- Rule 8(49): "Transfer" means the movement of a Government servant from one headquarters station in which he is employed to another such station, either (a) to take up the duties of a new post; or (b) in consequence of a change of his headquarters.

From the aforementioned Rule, it is clear that transfer means movement of a Government servant from one head quarters station to another head quarters station. Merely because the petitioner is transferred from Basavanagudi to Shivajinagar, i.e., from one Registration District to another Registration District within the same head quarters, he cannot claim that there is a change of head quarters. On the other hand, petitioner continued in the same head quarters i.e., at Bangalore.

Undisputedly, the petitioner was working at Bangalore for five years prior to his transfer to Chikkaballapur. He has spent more than prescribed period of 3 years at Bangalore. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in seeking quashing of the order transferring him to Chikkaballapur.

We also hasten to add here itself that respondent No. 3 should not have been transferred to Bangalore, more particularly when he has also spent more than 3 years at Bangalore prior to his transfer to Chikkaballapur. Since he worked at Chikkballapur for one year prior to retransfer to Bangalore, the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the transfer of respondent No. 3. We hasten to add here itself that the State Government should avoid such exercise of reposting of employees repeatedly to Bangalore. There is no reason as to why the Senior Officers should not be posted to other places in Karnataka. Be that as it may, since the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are just and proper, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.