V B LAXMESHWAR Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF AUDITOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are all senior auditors working in the Co-operative department. All of them were working in different societies in the district of Dharwar. Aggrieved by an order dated 4-6-80 passed by the Deputy Chief Auditor of Co-operative Societies, Belgaum district, Belgaum, they have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to have the same set aside.

(2.) The impugned order is made by the first respondent transferring the petitioners among others to various places in the division (Belgaum). Three contentions are advanced by the learned Counsel Sri Goulay appearing for the petitioners. Firstly, he has contended that the order is not in public interest. But, the impugned order states that the orders have been made in public interest The consolidated order relates to 64 Senior Auditors in the division and involves more than 4 districts. Apart from the assertions made by the petitioners that it is not made in public interest, no material is placed before the court to substantiate the assertions. Therefore, the order must be read as it is. I, therefore, hold that the order is made in public interest and jS not motivated by any extraneous considerations on the part of the first respondent the Deputy Chief Auditor of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Belgaum division, Belgaum.

(3.) The second contention advanced by Sri Goulay is that the impugned order which is at Annexure "C" is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the District Co-operative Officers who also belong to the Co-operative Department have not been similarly transferred. Only the cadre of Senior Auditors has been subjected to this treatment for large scale transfers in the Division in spite of the fact that several official memorandums and circulars of the Government had imposed some restrictions on the transfer of Class Ill-employees outside the Districts. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that the transfer of one cadre of officials by a consolidated order in any way attracts Art. 14 of the Constitution, because the same order does not contain any transfers made in another cadre of the same Department. It is the concerned authority who is the best judge to decide whom he should transfer or which particular cadre officials should be transferred at any given point of time. It is common knowledge that general transfers are made in all Departments, once in a year between March and June. That period generally facilitates transfers on large scale in view of the academic year in the Education department which starts from June and ends in March. Merely because the impugned order at Annexure "C" does not state that District Co-operative Officers have also not been transferred, this Court cannot infer that there has been no transfers of those officials in the Division at all. In any event, the duties and functions of the Senior Auditors are distinct and different from that of District Co-operative officers who belong to a different cadre and perform different duties, though they may also belong to Class-III in the classification of the officers under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and it cannot be said that the petitioners and District Co-operative Officers are similarly situated persons. I, therefore, hold that the respondents have power to make reasonable classification of officers into different cadres which is permissibJe under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. This is in the interest of public administration and there is nothing wrong in such classification. The petitioners fall into different cadres and form one class of officials in their department. Their transfers cannot be said to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the second contention is liable to be rejected.