Umesh Guddad vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner in W.P. No. 108501/2014 is before this Court in this appeal assailing the order dated 08.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge.

By the said order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, wherein the petitioner had raised a challenge to the official notification dated 05.09.2014, where-under the petitioner had been transferred from the Town Municipal Council, Laxmeshwar. The order impugned before the learned Single Judge is at Annexure-A to the petition.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the order impugned before the learned Single Judge and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the order would contend that the person, who has been deputed to the place where the appellant was working, is not from the Municipal Department, but being from a finance department namely, the Karnataka State Finance Corporation, could not have been deputed to the post in the Municipal Council. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the transfer of the petitioner presently is in violation of the guidelines and should not have been made in the middle of the year, unless it was by way of general transfer as provided under the Regulations. It is his case that, he has not completed the tenure in the Town Municipal Council, to which he had been transferred by the order dated 30.09.2013 and therefore, he ought not to have been transferred from there.

The learned Government Advocate would however seek to sustain not only the order impugned in the writ petition, but also the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is his case that the very order dated 30.09.2013 whereby the appellant had been posted to the Town Municipal Council, was at the request of the appellant and also subject to the conditions which had been indicated in the order dated 30.09.2013. It is his case that the condition that a person working in a different department cannot be deputed is applicable only in a circumstance, if such posting is made by way of promotion and not by way of an arrangement to take care of the post. It is therefore contended that the order is sustainable and the same does not call for interference.

In the light of the rival contentions, the position that the appellant had been posted to work in the Town Municipal Council based on an order dated 30.09.2013 cannot be in dispute. Hence, the instant case has to be considered from that standpoint. A copy of the order dated 30.09.2013 has been made available to this Court. Perusal of the same would indicate that the said order has been passed based on the request, which had been made by the appellant. The posting of the appellant to the Town Municipal Council itself was out of the turn and not based on the guidelines, which provides for the annual posting. In that light, a perusal of the order dated 30.09.2013 would indicate that the request of the appellant had been accepted and he had been posted to the Town Municipal Council by clearly indicating to him that he would have to be shifted as and when another officer is posted to the said post. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view, the requirement that has to be complied when there is out of turn transfers/posting was a procedure, which had been followed when the appellant himself had been posted and the said order also indicated that the appellant could be shifted from the said position in the circumstances stated therein. Hence in the present facts, we do not find that there is violation of the guidelines.

On the aspect as to whether the posting of a person who is working in the State Finance Corporation to the Municipal Council amounts to violation, presently we find that the posting is not by way of promotion nor a permanent measure. Further in the instant case, since we have already noticed that the appellant himself had been posted as an out of turn measure and presently he has been deputed to the same post in which he was working earlier and in that circumstance, a person has been posted to the Town Municipal Council and since the said interim arrangement was envisaged while the order dated 30.09.2013 was made at the first instance while posting the appellant, we do not find the same to be a violation of any requirement.

Further, in any event, since the appellant had been assigned the said post as a temporary measure by the order with clear indications in the order and since the present posting which has been given to the appellant does not in any way reduce his rank or the salary, we find that such posting which has been made in the exigencies of service would not call for interference.

If the above aspects are kept in view, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has also kept these aspects in view and arrived at his conclusion. Hence the order does not call for interference.

Accordingly the appeal stands disposed of.

In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. 1/2014 and I.A. 2/2014 are also disposed of as unnecessary.