Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 490 (KAR)

V. GANAPATHI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2007-08-08

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2007
V. GANAPATHI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( 1 ) WRIT Petition by an employee of the respondent No. 2 - Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited who is aggrieved by the order of transfer issued by the employer dated 26-5-2007 (copy at Annexure B)transferring the petitioner working as District Manager at Gulbarga to function as District Manager at Bidar. ( 2 ) UNDER the very order, the respondent no. 3 who was working as a District Manager at Bagalkot has been transferred and put in place at Gulbarga wherefrom the petitioner was transferred. ( 3 ) IT is questioning the legality of this transfer order, the petitioner has approached this court, inter alia, contending that the power of transfer is not exercised for bona fide purpose; that it is ordered by the Managing Director of the organisation only due to political pressure and not any bona fide exercise of power and therefore the order should be quashed. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS had been put on notice. Respondent No. 1-State is represented by Sri s. Z. A. Khureshi, learned Additional Government Advocate, Respondent no. 2-employer by Sri. V. Y. Kumar and Sri K. S. Mohit kumar, learned counsel and respondent No. 3 by Sri. M. C. Narasimhan, learned Senior counsel appearing for M/s. Narasimhan Associates, instructed by Sri. K. B, Narayana swamy, Advocate. ( 5 ) THOUGH the matter has come up for orders to be passed on the prayer for interim relief, with the consent of all counsel appearing for the parties, main petition itself is taken up for final orders. ( 6 ) SUBMISSION of Sri. Bhagwat and Sri. K. B, Narayana swamy, Advocate. ( 5 ) THOUGH the matter has come up for orders to be passed on the prayer for interim relief, with the consent of all counsel appearing for the parties, main petition itself is taken up for final orders. ( 6 ) SUBMISSION of Sri. Bhagwat and Sri. Pavanesh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present order at Annexure-B has a history; that even earlier there was an attempt to transfer the petitioner from Gulbarga to some other place, but that again had been questioned by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in WP No. 14784/2006 before this court questioning the legality of the recommendatory letter emanating from the Secretariat of Government of Karnataka in terms of letter dated 17-10-2006 (copy at annexure A) from the Under Secretary to the Government, department of Food and Civil Supplies department and Consumer Affairs addressed to the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2-organisation on behalf of the Principal Secretary to the department indicating that the third respondent's transfer from Bagalkot to gulbarga had been approved by the Chief minister and to take action accordingly as approved. ( 7 ) FURTHER submission is that in the said writ petition, the respondents had indicated no action was being taken nor was the recommendation given effect to and the writ petition was disposed of in the light of such submission as having become infructuous. But, taking advantage of the disposal of the writ petition, respondents have again become active in effecting the transfer of the petitioner from Gulbarga to Bidar only to accommodate the respondent No. 3. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following decisions of the supreme Court to fortify the submission that the transfer of the petitioner as well as the third respondent are both bad in law. (a) Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. U. P. Jal nigam and others reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740. (b) Smt. Gayatri Devi v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1998 Lab IC 1264. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present situation is also a clear case of transfer being effected due to political interference and therefore the order should be quashed. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed statement of objections. (b) Smt. Gayatri Devi v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1998 Lab IC 1264. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present situation is also a clear case of transfer being effected due to political interference and therefore the order should be quashed. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed statement of objections. The stand on behalf of respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner was working at Gulbarga since 19-7-2006 and was transferred as a part of routine administrative process and common public interest from gulbarga to Bidar and to the vacant post respondent No. 3 has been transferred; that the respondent No. 3 has since assumed charge as District Manager, Gulbarga and is functioning as such from 30-5-2007; that such being the state of affairs, no interference is warranted with the order at Annexure B; that the transfer is purely as an administrative measure and not due to any other reasons much less any political pressure etc. ( 10 ) SUBMISSION of Sri. V. Y. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that the communication dated 17-10-2006 (copy at annexure-A) was never acted upon and the present transfer order is of routine manner; that the petitioner had worked at Gulbarga for more than thirteen years in different capacities in the organisation; that it was found proper to transfer in public interest to any other place. ( 11 ) FURTHER submission is that the petitioner has not responded to transfer order and did not report to duty at Bidar and has virtually disobeyed the orders passed and even though there is no stay order in the present writ petition, petitioner has refused to work at Bidar for which reason the post is left vacant and public interest suffers. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the Courts will not normally interfere with the transfer order which is effected due to administrative exigencies in public interest and in this regard places reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court. (1) Union of India and others v. S. L. Abbas reported in 1993 (2) SLR 585 : AIR 1993 SC 2444 . (b) State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others reported in (2001) 5 SCC 508 : air 2001 SC 1748 . (1) Union of India and others v. S. L. Abbas reported in 1993 (2) SLR 585 : AIR 1993 SC 2444 . (b) State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others reported in (2001) 5 SCC 508 : air 2001 SC 1748 . and submits that a person does not have a right to remain at any place and cannot challenge the transfer order only for the reason that he is transferred to a particular place and seeking for a particular place is not a right. ( 13 ) IT is also submitted that a person who has been transferred and who has disregarded the order of transfer and has not reported to duty is not a person who can get any relief at the hands of the Court particularly as such non-reporting to the place where the person has been transferred amounts to absenting from work without any authorization etc. It is for this reason also reliance is placed on the decision of Anjan Sanyal's case supra. ( 14 ) A perusal of the petition pleadings, statement of objections and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, it becomes clear that the petitioner is transferred from Gulbarga more to accommodate the respondent No. 3 than for creating any hardship or problem to the petitioner or as a measure of any administrative exigency which necessitated the transfer of the petitioner from Gulbarga to Bidar. Letter dated 17-10-2006 (copy at Annexure-A)referred to above reads as under: (Vernacular matter omitted. . . . Ed.) ( 15 ) THOUGH the counter filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 asserts that the letter dated 17-10-2006 was never acted upon and it is not the basis of the present transfer orders, one cannot lose sight of the sequence of developments, particularly, the letter having come into existence in October 2006, petitioner having approached this Court, but the writ petition being ultimately dismissed as having become infructuous, during which time petitioner had remained at Gulbarga, but immediately after disposal of the writ petition, the transfer order at Annexure-B having been issued whereunder petitioner is transferred from Gulbarga to Bidar and the respondent no. 3 is transferred from Bagalkot to gulbarga. ( 16 ) IT is submitted at the Bar that the petitioner had worked at Gulbarga for less than a year and respondent No. 3 had worked at bagalkot for about two years. 3 is transferred from Bagalkot to gulbarga. ( 16 ) IT is submitted at the Bar that the petitioner had worked at Gulbarga for less than a year and respondent No. 3 had worked at bagalkot for about two years. ( 17 ) IN either case, they were not due for transfer as per the general norms followed for effecting transfers which is normally a person is allowed to work in a place for not exceeding three years. ( 18 ) THOUGH it is submitted by Sri V. Y. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that due to administrative exigencies, transfers are effected even after a year itself, while it may be so, that situation should be clearly one where administrative exigency justifies the same. ( 19 ) IN the present case, in terms of the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the parties referred to above, while it is clear that the petitioner has no right either to remain at gulbarga or to question his transfer to Bidar, it is also true that a transfer effected either due to political interference or at the behest of politicians is to be frowned upon. If both these norms are to be applied, what emerges is that while the transfer of the petitioner may not be a violation of any law or any principle, transfer in favour of respondent No. 3 from bagalkot to Gulbarga is clearly hit by the principles to be applied in matters of transfer and the transfer is one which is not purely as an exercise of power for administrative exigency. ( 20 ) IN the circumstances, I deem it fit that the transfer order under Annexure-B requires to be quashed only to the extent of providing a favourable transfer in favour of respondent no. 3 due to political interference as other wise the respondent No. 2 is not able to support this transfer on any other material or basis. The background with which respondent no. 3 had been transferred cannot be lost sight of though for the sake of denial, it is denied by the respondent No. 2 in the statement of objections. ( 21 ) I do not deem it necessary to quash the entire transfer order, particularly, the transfer of the petitioner from Gulbarga to Bidar. The background with which respondent no. 3 had been transferred cannot be lost sight of though for the sake of denial, it is denied by the respondent No. 2 in the statement of objections. ( 21 ) I do not deem it necessary to quash the entire transfer order, particularly, the transfer of the petitioner from Gulbarga to Bidar. Though it appears that the petitioner had been disturbed only because the respondent-employer wanted to accommodate the respondent No. 3 at the place due to some external pressure, the conduct of the petitioner does not inspire the confidence of this Court to encourage such persons by granting relief in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by this Court. ( 22 ) IT is the duty of any employee irrespective of his likes or dislikes for a place to which he is transferred to report at the transferred place and to agitate thereafter if he has any grievence. An employee in the Government service or public sector undertaking cannot make it an issue of prestige or ego to remain in a place or not to go to the place of transfer. Such tendency requires to be discouraged by the Courts. It is for this reason, I do not deem it fit to quash that part of the order under Annexure-B transferring the petitioner from Gulbarga to Bidar. It is high time that the petitioner resumes his work and it is open to the respondent-employer if it so deems fit to take such action as is warranted in accordance with the service conditions. But, insofar as the transfer of respondent No. 3 to gulbarga is concerned, that part of the order is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. ( 23 ) THOUGH Sri. Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has urged many practical difficulties, particularly, difficulty of respondent No. 3 being compelled to move out of Gulbarga within a short span of three months disrupting his other family members, I am of the view that the rule of law should prevail and a principle that the transfer obtained or made due to external pressures, particularly, from other political per' sonalities should be frowned upon by the courts. ( 24 ) IT is for this reason, submission is not accepted. ( 24 ) IT is for this reason, submission is not accepted. It is left to the discretion of the respondent No. 2-employer to post the respondent No. 3 to any place other than Gulbarga. The transfer order insofar as transfer of respondent No. 3 to Gulbarga alone is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. ( 25 ) WRIT petition allowed in part. Rule issued and made absolute to the extent indicated above. ( 26 ) IT is submitted by Sri. Pavanesh, learned counsel for the petitioner that awaiting order in the writ petition, the petitioner had gone on leave and for this reason alone the respondent should not take any adverse action against the petitioner. ( 27 ) IF such is the position, it is open to the respondent No. 2 to act in accordance with the service conditions governing the petitioner. Petition partly allowed.