SRI. SANGANA BASAPPA Vs. SRI A. RAGHAVENDRA, STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (REGISTRATION & STAMPS), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND C.J. PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) dated 17.9.2013 in Application No. 5679/2013 is called in question in this writ petition. The petitioner, who was working as First Division Assistant (FDA) was appointed as Sub Registrar under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short 'the Rules'). Petitioner being FDA was appointed to officiate in the post of Sub Registrar to be In -charge of current duties of Sub Registrar's post on 30.11.2007. The petitioner continued to execute his duties as Sub Registrar till this day. In other words, he has been continuously working as Sub Registrar on in -charge basis under Rule 32 of the Rules, in one place or the other, by virtue of transfer orders made subsequently. While he was holding the post of Sub Registrar, at Jigani on Incharge basis under Rule 32 of the Rules, he is posted to work as Senior Sub -Registrar in the office of Basavanagudi, Bangalore. By the very order, the respondent No. 1 herein, who was working as Senior Sub Registrar at Basavanagudi is transferred to Chikkanayakanahali. The 1st respondent herein approached KAT in Application No. 5679/2013 seeking to set aside the order of transfer dated 31.8.2013 by which the petitioner is transferred to his place at Basavanagudi and the 1st respondent being transferred to Chikkanayakanahali. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Transfer dated 31.8.2013 on the ground that the petitioner cannot hold the post of Senior Sub Registrar.

(2.) SRI S.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working as Sub Registrar, though under Rule 32 of the Rules, since 30.11.2007 till this day; the petitioner has carried out all the functions and duties attached to the post of Sub -Registrar for the last six years to the satisfaction of the Department; though he is placed on In -charge basis under Rule 32 of the Rules, he has been working as full fledged Sub -Registrar since November 2007 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the lapse, if any, on the part of the Government in posting the petitioner to the post of Senior Sub Registrar. In other words, petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner should be regarded as a full fledged Sub Registrar for all practical purposes and therefore, there is nothing wrong in posting him to occupy the post of Senior Sub Registrar under Rule 32 of the Rules once again. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in : (2013) 4 SCC 152 in support of his contention.

(3.) THE contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Petitioner is admittedly not promoted to the post of Sub Registrar as on this day. His cadre is of FDA. However, he is appointed as Sub Registrar on In -charge basis under Rule 32 of the Rules. In other words, he merely officiates in the post of Sub Registrar. At this stage, it is relevant to note the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules. [Relevant portion Note. 1] which reads as under: -