E G DAYANANDA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition is presently working as Super intending engineer on independent charge. In this petition he has called in question the correctness of the Official Memorandum dated 7th June, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to this petition, wherein the 2nd respondent-Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') resolved to spare the services of the petitioner on deputation basis at the disposal of the Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' ).

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a permanent employee of the 2nd respondent-Board, his services could not have been lent on deputation basis to the Corporation without his consent and the impugned order is vitiated on account of mala fides on the part of the Managing Director of the Board. It is his case that the Managing director of the 2nd respondent-Board has developed ill-will against the petitioner ever since the year 1998.

(3.) SRI X. M. Joseph, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned order submitted that since the petitioner is a permanent employee of the Board, it is not permissible for the Board to send the petitioner on deputation to the Corporation and place his services at the disposal of the Corporation without his consent. The learned counsel pointed out that the impugned order to the extent it places the services of the petitioner at the disposal of the Corporation, seriously affects the service conditions of the petitioner and the same is liable to be struck down as being contrary to the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is his submission that since the petitioner is a permanent employee of the board, the petitioner cannot be compelled to work against his wish in the Corporation with whom the petitioner has no relationship of master and servant. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pashupati Nath Sukul v Nem Chandra Jain and Others; state of Gujarat and Another v Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Others; k. C. Joshi v Union of India and Others, 1979 (9) Supreme 141 and umapati Choudhary v State of Bihar and Another. However, he further submitted that though the petitioner has made allegations of mala fide against the Managing Director of the Board, the petitioner does not press the said allegations of mala fide and withdraws the same.