AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner has called in question the notification issued by the second respondent dated 18.07.2012 produced at Annexure ''j'' in so far as it relates to transfer of the petitioner from Doddaballapur to Bangalore Rural District.
Petitioner''s case is that he was working as Warden at Doddaballapura and only to accommodate the third respondent, he has been placed in charge of the place of the petitioner and the petitioner has been transferred to Bangalore Rural District as in-charge Assistant State Organising Commissioner (S).
The main contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer of the petitioner is opposed to Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1986 (KCSRs). If a person is already working in a particular post, no person can be posted as in-charge in that post. Rule 32 of the KCSRs., provides only for in-charge arrangement, in case, if a post is vacant. He also relied on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 14393/2012 dated 7th June 2012 and submitted that this Court has categorically held that if the post is not vacant, in-charge, no arrangement could be made. Otherwise, it amount to displacing the person, who is already in the said post.
There is no merit in the said contention for the simple reason that the order of transfer at Annexure ''j'' does not imply that the petitioner is still working in the post at Doddaballapur. The order at Annexure ''j'' shows that the petitioner has been transferred from the said post to Bangalore Rural District as in-charge ASOC (S) and by virtue of his transfer, the said post became vacant, in respect of which, respondent No. 3 has been posted as in-charge. It is also contended that the third respondent, who is a superior officer has been transferred to a lower post. Even assuming that the third respondent has been posted to a lower post, that cannot be a grievance of the petitioner. By virtue of transfer of the petitioner, the post occupied by the petitioner has become vacant and for the said post, in-charge arrangement has been made and I do not find there is any violation of Rule 32 of the KCSRs. There is neither any mala fide nor error in the impugned order of transfer.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.