C CHANNEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKARESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is by Sri. Channegowda challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative tribunal passed in Application No. 6212/2005 dated 10. 5. 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Village Accountant. He was eligible for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector. He was promoted along with others. In the promotion order, the name of sri. Sreeramareddy, the 3rd respondent is shown at Sl. No. 22. The petitioner on promotion was posted to the office of the Rent Controller, Bangalore. The post to which the petitioner was posted is not vacant and hence he was not relieved from his duties. In the meanwhile, in the general transfer for the year 2005-06, transfers were effected, in that, the said posting of the petitioner to the office of the Rent Controller was cancelled and he was posted to Sarakki Circle in place of the 3rd respondent. In the official memorandum, a reference is made to the government Orders dated 22. 11. 2001, 2. 5. 2005, 14. 6. 2005 and 30. 6. 2005. The Government order dated 30. 6. 2005 was issued in respect of transfer of 2005-06. Premature transfers were effected within 30. 6. 2005. They require the approval of the concerned Minister. The present order was passed in consonance with the Government order dated 30. 6. 2005 to transfer the 3rd respondent, Sri. Sreeramareddy. The 3rd respondent challenged the order dated 30. 6. 2005 by way of an application in application No. 4915/2005. Status quo order was granted. The Tribunal, thereafter by an order dated 13. 7. 2005 disposed of the application with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the review application filed by the 3rd respondent and also the objections to be filed by the petitioner in the matter. The 2nd respondent considered the review application filed by the 3rd respondent. He confirmed the earlier order dated 30. 6. 2005 and issued a consequential official memorandum dated 30. 7. 2005. That was challenged in application No. 6212/2005. Notice was issued. Parties entered appearance. Statement was filed. After hearing, the Tribunal has chosen to allow the application in application No. 6212/2005. The Tribunal has chosen to set aside the order dated 30. 6. 2005 and the consequential order dated 30. 7. 2005 in the impugned order. This order is challenged by the petitioner in this petition by raising several grounds.

(3.) SRI. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appears for the petitioner and he argues that the material on record would support the action of the Government and it is in accordance with law. He would refer to us the various materials on record to say that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in interfering with the order of transfer in the case on hand. According to the learned Counsel, the order is in public interest and the said public interest transfer orders are not to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would place reliance on air 1981 SC 1577 and also the order of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 4121, 2004 (6)ALT 49 (SC), 2004 (3)AWC 2706 (SC), [2004 (102) FLR 1038 ], jt 2004 (6) SC 255, 2004 (6) SCALE 473, (2004) 7 SCC 405, 2005 (1) SLJ 54 (SC), (2004) 3 uplbec 2370.