ALLA SAHEB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Alla Saheb S/o Hussain Saheb Doddamani, aged 57 years, presently working as Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Cell, Urban Development Administration, Vijaypur, has filed this writ petition in this Court on 23.08.2016 with the following prayers:

(2.) Mr. P. Vilaskumar Marthand Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that respondent No.5-Mr. Sharanappa C. Oni, Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Cell, Belagavi, under the impugned Notification of the Transfer and Postings Annexure-A dated 18.08.2016 has been posted vice the present petitioner at Vijaypur transferring him from Belagavi. Even though the name of the present petitioner does not find a place in the said Notification of Transfer and Postings of various authorities of the Cadre of Municipal Executive Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer/Environment Engineers/Junior Engineers and other category of employees, since the respondent No.5 has been posted in the said order vide Sl.No.3 for the post of Executive Engineer at the place where the present petitioner is working at Vijaypur, therefore, he has got a cause of action to challenge the said transfer order of respondent No.5 since the petitioner is bound to be posted out of the present posting place of Vijaypur and such posting of the petitioner out of the place of Vijaypur would be in violation of the guidelines laid down for Transfer and Postings of Group-A officers as contained in the Government Order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001, dated 22.11.2001 followed by the subsequent Government Order No.Case.22.SNV 20143, Bengaluru, dated 07.06.2013 which inter alia laid down:

(3.) He submitted that such guidelines have the character of being statutory guidelines and the aforesaid Government Order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001 dated 22.11.2001 has been held to have the statutory force in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mr.Chandru H.N. Vs. Stati of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2011 Kar 1585: (2011 (4) KCCR SN 399). He relied upon paragraph-8 of the said judgment.