M. VENUGOPAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since similar and akin issues are involved in these matters, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner who is on deputation from KSFC to the 1st respondent-State Government was posted to Water Resource Department, B.R.Project, Bangalore by an order dated 11.7.2018. As per the Notification dated 06.12.2019 respondent No.4 has been posted to the place of petitioner, transferring the petitioner without posting which is the subject matter of W.P.No.52350/19. This Court vide order dated 18.12.2019 was pleased to pass an interim order staying the operation of the impugned Notification dated 6.12.2019 issued by the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the said proceedings, vide order dated 6.1.2020 impugned in W.P.No.634/2020, the services of the petitioner are being repatriated to the parental Department-Karnataka State Financial Corporation. Hence, these writ petitions.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel Sri.A.S.Ponnanna representing the petitioner submitted that there was tripartite agreement between the Government of Karnataka, KSFC and the worker's Union, pursuant to which the petitioner was deputed to Water Resource Department in terms of the Government Order dated 25.6.2015. The minimum tenure was for a period of five years. No unilateral decision of repatriation can be taken by the Government of Karnataka without the consent of the lending department-KSFC and the employee. The order of repatriation passed during the operation of the interim order passed in W.P.No.52350/19 is ab initio void. It was argued that the transfer order dated 6.12.2019 passed to accommodate the respondent No.3-Sri. F.H.Lamani without giving the posting to the petitioner is untenable. It was submitted that the petitioner being the regular employee, priority should be given to him rather than the respondent No.3 appointed under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules. The transfer order issued at the request of the private respondent suffers from legal malice. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments: