Judgment:
(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the Order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal Bangalore, in Application No.34/2017 Dated:05.01.2017 vide Annexure-E and Notification Dated:26.12.2016 issued by the 2nd Respondent Vide Annexure-A7 in the Application No.34/2017.)
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.
Mr. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. M. Kumar, AGA for respondent-State.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated 5.1.2017 rejecting application No.34/2017, by which the petitioner had challenged his transfer order.
2. He was working as Assistant Director, Akshara Dasoha Program at Raibagh, Chikkodi Educational District from 31.08.2012. Since he had completed tenure of three years on that post, he was transferred by the impugned transfer order at Annexure- A7, dated 26.12.2016 from the said post to the Government High School, Kankanawadi, Raibag Taluk, Chikkodi Educational District as Head Master.
3. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order before the Tribunal by the aforesaid application No.34/2017, which came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal with the following observations:
Since 31.8.2012 the applicant has been working as Assistant Director, Akshara Dasoha Programme at Raibagh, Chikkodi District. In other words, he has completed his tenure and was liable for transfer. As regards the alleged violation of the Rules, we have examined Rule 18 of the Rules as amended by Notification dated 23.4.2011. As per clause (d) of the Rule 18 of the Rules, the officers/teachers working in the posts mentioned therein who have completed three years of service in the same office may be transferred and the vacancies in the posts may be filled in public interest with the approval of the Government. The applicant has competed three years tenure in the same office. As per Clause (d)(6) of Rule 18 of the Rules, Officers/Teachers working in all types of posts in the Centrally sponsored Scheme(BRC/BRP/CRP/APC/Assistant Director/MMS and other posts who have completed three years in the same office are liable for transfer with the approval of the Government. In the impugned order of transfer dated 26.12.2016, there is a reference to Government Letter dated 26.12.2016 and the order of transfer in the first paragraph itself clearly states that as per the approval accorded by the Government in letter dated 26.12.2016 the impugned order of transfer has been issued. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 18 of the Rules. As regards the contention of the Applicant that since he is going to retire in June, 2018 he ought not to have been transferred, it is open for the Applicant to report for duty as per the impugned order of transfer and make a representation to the authorities to accommodate him in a place which is convenient to him, provided the same is vacant. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the Applicant.
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that (i) The petitioner was transferred in the mid-session vide order dated 26.12.2016, ii) He was left with less than two years of service as he was due to retire in June 2018, iii) There was no counseling procedure adopted in this present case, though it was so required as per Section 4 of Karnataka Sate Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers) Act, 2007. He therefore submitted that the statutory provisions as well as relevant guidelines notified by the State Government in this regard have been violated by the respondent-State and therefore, the impugned transfer order deserved to be quashed and the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondent- State has opposed the said submissions and urged before us that the transfer is an incident of service and the impugned order is an administrative order. He submitted that since the petitioner had completed more than three years of service on the post of Assistant Director, Akshara Dasoha Program, at Raibagh, Chikkodi Educational District, therefore, it was considered appropriate to transfer him by the impugned order. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has left the petitioner free to make a representation to the Authorities concerned to accommodate him in a place which is convenient to him, if such a post is lying vacant. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal below.
6. We have heard the learned counsels at the Bar and perused the records.
7. We are satisfied that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal on 5.1.2017 does not require any interference by this Court in the present writ petition.
8. As far as the transfer order is concerned, admittedly the petitioner had completed tenure of three years on the post of Assistant Director, Akshara Dasoha Program, at Raibagh, Chikkodi Educational District, therefore, he was due to the transfer for other place where he was repatriated, which is the parent cadre of the petitioner. As far as the grounds regarding the short remaining period of retirement and mid-session are concerned, it is for the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities concerned for his grievances, on such representation and the authorities concerned may consider the same in accordance with law.
9. However, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the said transfer order in any manner much less with such directions given to the petitioner in the impugned order dated 5.1.2017 of the tribunal.
Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
IA No.1/2017 seeking dispensation does not survive for consideration, in view of the aforesaid order and is also dismissed.