DESAYAPPA SHARANAPPA HAWALDAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application filed under Sec. 19(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, as not maintainable.

(2.) The petitioner belongs to the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences. He is an Assistant Director in the said department. By Notification dated 01.08.2011 issued by the 1st respondent, his services were placed at the disposal of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department for appointment as Executive Officer of the Bagalkot Town Panchayat, on deputation. By Notification dated 12.08.2011, he was given a posting as Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Bagalkot. The 1st respondent issued a Notification dated 15.06.2012 repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. The petitioner challenged the said order repatriating him to the parent department before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the said application as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends, though the petitioner has no right as such for deputation, once he is deputed he has a right to continue in service at the post where he is deputed for a minimum period of three years and a maximum period of 5 years; persons who are similarly deputed have been permitted to work for a period of 5 years and, thereafter, they have been repatriated; insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he is repatriated even before the expiry of one year, therefore, it amounts to hostile discrimination. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings where directions were issued to retain those persons who had not completed those period prescribed and to repatriate only those persons who had completed the said period. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. V.Ramakrishnan, 2005 8 SCC 394. It is his further contention that the Tribunal has not appreciated the case of the petitioner in a proper perspective; it proceeds on the assumption that he is demanding absorption in the Department to which he is deputed and, therefore, it has held that the application is not maintainable. Therefore, he submits that a case for interference is made out.