S.U. Hiremath vs The Managing Director, Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation

Aravind Kumar, J.—Petitioner who is working as an Office Manager at Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation has sought for quashing of the order dated 31.12.2014 Annexure-D passed by the 1st respondent whereunder petitioner has been transferred from Dharwad to Bagalkot to the newly created post of Office Manager (Accounts).

I have heard the arguments of Sri R.K. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the case papers.

Petitioner herein came to be appointed as a Senior Assistant (Accounts) on 03.04.1987 and was promoted as Office Manager on 28.02.2008 and as such, he has been working as Office Manager. As per the seniority list published by the 1st respondent on 31.12.2013 relating to the Office Managers, name of petitioner finds a place at Sl. No. 228 in the said list. Petitioner has now been transferred from the post of Office Manager working at Dharwad to Office Manager (Accounts) at Bagalkot of the 1st respondent-Corporation.

It is contended by Sri R.K. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no post known as Office Manager (Accounts) in the first respondent-Corporation and even otherwise, same being a newly created post, petitioner cannot be transferred in the middle of the academic year as it would cause great hardship and affects the education of his children as well as family atmosphere will be disturbed. It is also contended that order of transfer amounts to demotion from the cader of Office Manager to the cader of Office Manager (Accounts) which is not recognised in the staffing pattern of respondent-Corporation.

Per contra, Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order of transfer passed by the respondent-Corporation contending inter alia that in the public interest, order of transfer came to be passed taking into consideration the working pattern of the Corporation and in its 276th Board Meeting of the Corporation held on 17.12.2014, 35 posts of Manager (Accounts) have been created and as such, persons who are working as Managers have been posted to 35 places indicated in Annexure-D and there is no infirmity in the said order of transfer and as such, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Transfer is an incidence of service and where purely on administrative grounds and in public interest such transfer takes place, interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 would not be made except in the cases of where such order of transfer is tainted with malafides or contrary to the Rules governing such transfer. For this proposition, judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Siya Ram and Another, can be looked up. Likewise, in the absence of arbitrariness, malafides or violation of any operative guidelines or rules, Court''s interference in the order of transfer has been held to be not called for by the Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and Others, . Hence, petitioner being an employee of the respondent-Corporation has no right to contend that he is entitled to be posted at a particular place or entitled to be continued to the post or the place where he is posted. Transfer cannot be avoided on the ground of difficulties that may be faced on account of such transfer taking effect to since transfer is an incidence of service.

Keeping above referred principles in mind, when the facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that 1st respondent-Corporation in its 276th Board meeting held on 17.12.2014, it has resolved to create 35 new posts of Manager (Accounts) and all these posts have been created across the State and to fill up these newly created posts, transfers have been effected from amongst the employees working who are eligible to be transferred as it has opined by the Corporation, namely, the employer taking into consideration the extant Rules. This Court cannot sit in the arm-chair of an employer to decide the exigencies of services and it is always better and safe to leave it to the discretion of an employer to decide such issues. It is in this background, petitioner has been transferred from Dharwad District Office as Manager (Accounts) to Bagalkot District office. The said order of transfer effected by the respondents cannot be found faulted with. There is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is liable to be rejected and stands rejected.

Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalathnama within two weeks from today.

It is also made clear that, in the event of petitioner were to submit representation for being retained or makes any other request to respondent-Corporation for being retained at Dharwad, respondent-Corporation would be at liberty to consider the same on merits taking into consideration its administrative set and also the exigencies of its set up into consideration while considering such request.