Vali Basha v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27241 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:

VALI BASHA S/O LATE MOULA SAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AUDIT OFFICER O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DIVISION HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA R/O NO.B-11, PWD QUARTERS GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE COMPOUND, BELLARY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.T. KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶2THE CHIEF ENGINEER C AND B (S) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2025:KHC:11715-DB( WP(No.(27241(of(2024( ( ( ( (

3., THE,CHIEF,ENGINEER, C,AND,B,(NORTH-EAST,ZONE), PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT, KALABURAGI-585,101, ,

4., THE,SUPERINTENDENT,ENGINEER, PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,CIRCLE, BELLARY-583,101, ,

5., THE,EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER, PUBLIC,WORKS,DEPARTMENT,, DIVISION,,HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGAR-583,201, ,

6., PRADEEP,KUMAR,H.M, MAJOR, ACCOUNTS,SUPERINTENDENT, O/O,JUSTICE,H.N.,NAGAMOHAN,DAS, ENQUIRY,COMMISSION, K.R.CIRCLE,,BANGALORE-560,001, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,VIKAS,ROJIPURA,,AGA,FOR,R1,TO,R5;, ,,,,,,SRI.,G.B.,MARUTHI,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R6), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND,227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,CALL, FOR, THE, ENTIRE, RECORDS, RELATING, TO, THE, IMPUGNED, FINAL,ORDER,DATED,19.09.2024,PASSED,IN,A.No-3919/2024, A/W, A.No-4138/2024, VIDE, ANNEXURE-G, SUPRA, PASSED, BY, THE,BENCH,OF,THE,KSAT,AT,BENGALURU,PERUSE,AND,QUASH, THE,SAID, FINAL,ORDER,OF,THE,TRIBUNAL,BY,ISSUING,THE, WRIT,OF,CERTIORARI,TERMING,AS,ILLEGAL,,ARBITRARY,AND, NOT,SUSTAINABLE,IN,NATURE,AND,ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Petitioner, a Civil Servant is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 19.09.2024 whereby, his grievance aired in Application Nos.3919/2024 and No.4138/2024 having been treated, relief has been denied.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the retention period fixed under the extant Transfer Guidelines being two years, the premature transfer is unsustainable, there being no approval by the Chief Minister as required under the extant statutory Transfer Guidelines. This aspect having been missed by

the Tribunal, he submits, there is apparent error on the face of the record and therefore, relief needs to be accorded to his client.

¶3Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents resisted the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and reasons on which it has been constructed. They submit that, the `Tippani' i.e `Note' dated 06.07.2024 itself operates as the Chief Minister's approval, there being no prescribed statutory form; even otherwise, the period of two years having admittedly now lapsed, petitioner has no right to cling on to the post/place.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of Respondents. Firstly, the period of two years which is the retention period prescribed under Statutory

Transfer Guidelines has now expired. So the substratum on which the petitioner had structured his case has now withered away; secondly, there is scope for the argument that the 'Tippani' dated 06.07.2024 of Hon'ble Chief Minister being treated as approval, there being no particular format prescribed under law.

¶5The vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tippani proceeds on the premise of mutuality when his client has never requested for such mutual transfer. Secondly, the Tippani cannot be treated as the approval at all inasmuch as, the approval has to be sought for by the competent authority and only thereafter, the normative process of approval takes place. We do not subscribe to that view. If the proposal of approval needs from the competent authority, that would be an ideal position. However, in the light of extant Transfer Guidelines, one cannot gainfully argue that Tippani of the kind cannot be construed as approval at all. That would be an extreme argument, to contention.

However, we don't intend to decide this question of law conclusively inasmuch as retention period of the petitioners admittedly expired. In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35