MANJUNATH SAKALESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider his representation dtd. 22/8/2024 (Annexure - A) and permit him to participate in the teacher transfer counseling scheduled on 29/8/2024 by treating him as a special case.

(2.) The petitioner contends that he is working as a Professor in History and is also an in-charge Principal of Government First Grade College, Hosamane, Bhadravathi and has completed one year six months of service in the said college. He contends that his wife is transferred to Government High School, Govinakovi, Nyamati Taluk and is presently working as a Headmistress.

(3.) He contends that the transfer and posting of teaching staff in the Department of Collegiate Education is governed by the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of transfer of Teaching Staff of Department of Collegiate Education) Rules, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 2020'). He contends that under Rule 2(n) of the Rules, 2020, a "spouse case" means -a spouse of the teaching staff who is an employee of State or Central Government or Nationalized Banks or Government owned Public Sector undertaking or Enterprise or Corporation or Board or Aided Employee of Government Aided Private Educational Institutions or State University". Under Rule 5 of the Rules, 2020, a priority list is prepared and spouse cases are given priority over compulsory transfers in the interest of public service. He contends that as per the Notification dtd. 7/6/2013 issued by the State Government, clause 7(1)(d) provides for transfer of Government Employee under "spouse case", if both the husband and wife are Government employees and one among them is transferred to other place then the other spouse can seek transfer even if he/she has not completed the minimum length of service at the current place, subject however to availability. He contends that the minimum length of service that the petitioner has to put in the present college is four years but he has only three years of service left and therefore, desires to get a transfer to the place, where his wife is working. He contends that the respondent No.2 has scheduled counseling for transfers on 29/8/2024. The petitioner therefore, filed an application seeking for his transfer to the place where his wife is working on 19/8/2024. He therefore, seeks the indulgence of the Court to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the said representation notwithstanding the fact that he has not completed the minimum length of service at the current working place.