L SHREEDEVI MINORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard the petitioners' learned advocate. A rather unusual procedure has been followed in this case insofar as the petitioners before the court are the two minor daughters of a transferred government servant. The father has been shown as guardian on behalf of the minor daughters. The contention raised is that by virtue of the general transfer that was effected in the month of may 1995, that the government servant concerned was transferred to a place by the name of tarikere as revenue inspector. He proceeded there with his family and shortly, a few weeks thereafter, he was once again served with an Order, dated 24-7-1995 seeking to effect a second transfer. The minor daughters contend that they are the persons aggrieved insofar as a result of this action, they would, in the middle of the academic year, be precluded from being able to get into any educational institution at the place to which their father is transferred and that, apart from other hardship, that they will seek to lose one academic year. It is therefore submitted that as persons who are seriously aggrieved by the action that they have the locus standi to challenge the Order in question which is why the petition has been presented on their behalf.

(2.) the learned Advocate who represents the petitioners hassub mitted that it is permissible under Article 226 of the constitution for a minor to present a petition through a guardian or through a next best friend. He is right with regard to the proposition of law that it is permissible in appropriate cases for a minor to present such a petition, the classic instance being that of a large number of writs that are filed on behalf of the students who may be underaged persons but still have a legal right to agitate their grievances before the high court. The maintainability of the petition however has been found fault with by the office of this court insofar as the office has raised the preliminary objection that the subject-matter of the petition concerns the transfer of a civil servant and this being a purely service matter, that the appropriate authority for adjudicating the dispute is the administrative tribunal and by virtue of Section 15 of the administrative tribunals Act, that the jurisdiction in respect of this class of cases vests expressly and exclusively with the administrative tribunal. Issues similar to the ones raised in this petition have come up on numerous occasions before the court and both the Supreme Court and this court have consistently held that all such disputes are required to be adjudicated by the tribunal and that in this background, the High Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction. The learned government Advocate has relied on the division bench decision of this court in the case of Ganganarasaiah v. State of Karnataka and others, wherein, the aforesaid view has been confirmed. Even though that was a case relating to persons employed on daily wage basis where the contention was that the authorities are not treating them as full fledged employees and therefore the tribunal has no jurisdiction, the division bench in this case followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Deep Chand Pandey and another, wherein it was held that even in respect of a person appointed on daily wage basis, the provisions of the administrative tribunals ACT are attracted. In the light of these decisions, the objection that has been raised by the office will necessarily have to be upheld.

(3.) as regards the submissions canvassed by the petitione rslearned advocate, it needs to be clarified that where there is a direct prohibition on the exercise of jurisdiction by this court, that the bar cannot be overcome or circumvented merely by framing the petition differently. Had the aggrieved party been exclusively persons other than the government servant, the argument advanced by the learned Advocate would have been perfectly valid. In the present instance, a perusal of the prayer clause will indicate that the relief asked for is in relation to the Order by which the government servant is aggrieved. The two petitioners who are his daughters are merely representing or projecting the same grievance and in other words, they are advocating the case of their father. The true complexion of the litigation therefore would be that it is a service dispute pure and simpliciter, and under these circumstances it would not be permissible to accept the view that it does not come within the framework of a service litigation.