AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde, learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, to whom notice had already been issued by the court. Writ jurisdiction is more and more abused than being put to proper use by warring officials of the State Government having vested interest in certain posts who hanker for the post and fight tooth and nail to get into that post.
Administrative Tribunals created under the Administrative Tribunals Act and even the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are all tools for achieving their object for such warring officials.
The present writ petition presents a scenario where the writ petitioner - a person who was working as Range Forest Officer attached to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forest Squad, Bangalore, and who has been working for more than three and half years in this position, very reluctant to leave this post though he is transferred to Chintamani and calls in aid the fact that he is due for retirement on superannuation, in April 2013 and therefore he should riot be disturbed from his present place, as the present place i.e., Bangalore is the place of his choice and in terms of para 5[1] of the guidelines relating to transfer of State Government officials, he should be necessarily retained here.
The third respondent, on the other hand, who was working as a Range Forest Officer, Watershed Development Department of Kolar, who perhaps with some efforts had got himself transferred to the post that was being held by the writ petitioner and who had hopes and aspirations to occupy the post on the writ petitioner being moved out, found that the writ petitioner was refusing to leave his present place and post on one pretext or the other and had not occupied or taken charge of the post at Chintamani on the premise that the State Government had not given him the posting though he had been transferred.
It was in this background, the State Government perhaps to appease the writ petitioner had instead transferred the third respondent to Chintamani canceling his earlier transfer to mobile squad at Bangalore and therefore no wonder the third respondent approached the Tribunal complaining against this order of the Government canceling his transfer to Bangalore and transferring him to Chintamani.
Writ petitioner had approached the Tribunal Chintamani, he was not given a posting and therefore he was left high and dry without any place to work, whether at Bangalore in the mobile squad or at Chintamani. These two applications before the Tribunal were clubbed together and the State Government produced an order dated 3.2.2012 before the Tribunal where under the posting of transfer of third respondent from Kolar to Chintamani is cancelled and his transfer to Chintamani and giving a posting to him at Chintamani.
It is in this background, the present writ petition by the person who has to now go to Chintamani.
this Court had granted an ex parte interim order on 27.4.2012 while issuing emergent notice to the respondents. It is thereafter, the third respondent who is represented by counsel Sri. B B Bajentri, has also filed his statement of objections and has moved the application seeking for vacating the interim order.
We have heard Sri. Nagarajappa, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2, Sri. B B Bajentri, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
Sri. B B Bajentri, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits this writ petition directed against the order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the State Government is not tenable before this Court and the petitioner should approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, in the first instance, and therefore interim stay should be vacated and. the petition should be dismissed.
Sri. Nagarajappa, Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, submits that the order of State Government dated 3.2.2012 has already been perused by the Tribunal and the Tribunal taking note of this order has passed the order against which the present writ petition is directed; that the Tribunal taking note of the order of the State Government and due to this order of the Government disposing both applications together and virtually dismissing both applications, the present writ petition is in order etc.
Irrespective of whether the order dated 3.2.2012 is one which can be questioned directly before this Court or should come through the Tribunal, we find there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition nor applications before the Tribunal and even otherwise they only deserve to be dismissed.
No State Government employee has a right to any particular place. It is obvious that both writ petitioner and third respondent are very keen to serve only as Range Forest Officer in the mobile squad at Bangalore headed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests at Bangalore. No Government employee should evince interest in particular post. That is not conducive for public services and not in public interest.
We therefore dispose of this writ petition directing the State Government to provide postings by way of transfer or otherwise both to the petitioner and third respondent to any other place other than in the mobile squad at Bangalore and if the request of the petitioner for his retention at Bangalore in view of his impending retirement is one in consonance with the guidelines relating to transfer, to examine the same, subject to the directions as above. It is open for the State Government to consider such request and to pass orders suitably. Interim order granted earlier is vacated.