FAKEERAPPA HUGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions are filed assailing the order dated 4.6.2013 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal') in Application Nos.5046/2012, 6471 -72/2012 and 4438 -4459/2012 respectively.

(2.) FACTS briefly stated, the writ petitioners working as Graduate Junior Male/Female Health Assistants, were eligible for promotion to the cadre of Block Health Education Officers in view of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staff) Act, 2011 (for short 'the Rules'). The promotion would be by way of counseling as per Rule 18 of the Rules. The posts of Health Education Officers were available in each district and taluk offices. By procuring the details, the second respondent notified 341 vacant posts of the Block Health Education Officers on 6.6.2012 and invited objections, if any. Thereafter, the vacancy position was finalized on 7.7.2012. 181 Graduate Junior Male/Female Health Assistants were called for counseling on 10.7.2012. The applicants opted for post and places of their choice. To their surprise, on the date of the counseling, they noticed that 57 vacant posts of Block Health Education Officers notified on 6.6.2012 and 7.7.2012 were deleted, a day prior to the counseling. No reason was assigned for their deletion. The applicants were compelled to opt the posts and places mandated by the respondent/Department. The applicants challenged the said decision in deleting 57 vacancies as arbitrary and illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice. When the matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal, after giving audience to both, their applications came to be rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) SRI .Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, in view of deletion of 57 vacancies, petitioners were denied the opportunity to choose the place of deleted 57 posts. Rule 18, which has been emphasized in the order of the Tribunal, does not provide for withdrawing the notified vacancies in the final vacancy list published. Without assigning any reason, the vacancies are cancelled; not providing opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objection against the withdrawal of the notified vacancies in terms of 2011 Rules, is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Rules. The deletion of the vacancy is done at the oral direction issued by the second respondent, which is arbitrary; that was done with a malafide intention of accommodating juniors to the petitioners by subsequent transfer. Now the respondents are at filling up of those vacancies deleted. Hence, he submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal may be set aside.