V.T. WILSON, S/O. LATE V.M. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001, THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V.V. TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as Chief Officer at Town Panchayath, T. Narasipura from 03.03.2009. Contrary to the Government Order dated 22.11.2001, the respondents issued a notification on 02.06.2011 as per Annexure -A, transferring the 6th respondent to the place of Petitioner as T. Narasipura and no place was shown to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order of transfer at Annexure -A, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.23090/2011. This Court by order dated 28.06.2011 granted an interim order, staying Annexure -A subject to the condition that in the event the petitioner has not been relived from service. By the time the interim order was communicated to the respondents, the petitioner was relieved from the service.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have now transferred the petitioner as Manager, Town Municipal at Karwar. In the circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in W.P.No. 31373/2011 questioning the order of transfer to Karwar.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is Group -C employee and he was transferred to Town Punchayat at T. Narssipura on 03.03.2009. Before the expiry of five years period, the petitioner is now transferred under the impugned order at Annexure -A and the same to contrary to the Government. Order dated 22.11.2001. During the pendency of these writ petitions, this Court has directed the respondents to file an Affidavit clarifying, whether the petitioner was transferred by the Cadre Management Authority. In compliance of the directions of this Court, the Secretary, Urban Development Department has a filed an Affidavit dated 12.10.2011. In this affidavit, it is stated that on the orders passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development Department and Municipal Administration vide order dated 01.06.2011, the petitioner was transferred. Again, this affidavit manifestly makes it clear that the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the Government Order dated 22.11.2001. In the circumstances, the impugued order of transfer and also the subsequent transfer of petitioner to Karwar are liable to be quashed. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDERS