YOHANA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 19-6-1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, in No. 50/86-87, produced as Annexure-C. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred from Hinkal to Alagodu. The 5th respondent has been transferred from Duddagere to Hinkal. The petitioner was functioning as Village Accountant at Alagodu. He cams to be transferred on 13-9-1985 to Hinkal. Pursuant to the order of transfer, he handed over the charge of the office and repotted to duty at Hinkal; and thereafter the impugned order has been passed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has misused his official position, as Special Officer to the Chief Minister, and has sent a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, as per Annexure-G dated 6-6-1986 informing him that the Chief Minister has directed that the 5th respondent be transferred to Hinkal. There are other orders referred to and averments made, in the Writ Petition. It appears to me, for the purpose of this order, it is not necessary to refer to them. In view of the allegations made by the petitioner, learned Government Pleader was asked to ascertain the true facts. Learned Government Pleader was also asked to take notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to that, the 3rd respondent has filed the statement of objections denying the allegations made by the petitioner. In addition to this, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, on receiving the instructions from the Chief Minister, submits that the communication dated 6-6-1986 was issued by the 3rd respondent on the oral instructions issued by the Chief Minister. It is submitted that normally the Chief Minister entertains the representations by the public regarding their grievances. During such course, the representation made by the wife of the 5th respondent was also received and the Chief Minister being convinced of the difficulties pleaded by the wife of respondent-5, orally instructed the 3rd respondent to direct the Deputy Commissioner to transfer respondent-5 to Hinkal. It appears to me that there is no reason to reject the submission made by learned Advocate General.

(3.) Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that oral instructions have DO value in the eye of law; therefore, such instructions cannot be construed to be an order; hence the communication dated 6-6-1986 issued by the 3rd respondent cannot have any value and the order of transfer passed by the 2nd Respondent pursuant to that cannot be considered to be valid order. It is not possible to accept this contention. There is a distinction between the orders which are purely administrative in nature and the orders which affect the rights of the parties and which relate to several other matters. For the purpose of this case, it is not necessary to refer to them in detail. The oral instructions issued by the Chief Minister, in the instant case, fall within the category of purely administrative in nature as the same relate to a matter of transfer. A Government-servant has no right to serve at a particular place ; therefore, he has no right to claim that he should be retained at a particular place. A Government servant appointed to a cadre of transferable post such as the petitioner and Respondent-5, is amenable to transfer from place to place and cannot claim a right to stay in one place throughout his service. Therefore an order of transfer cannot be held to affect the rights of a Government servant. As such, any instructions issued in this regard by the higher authority to the concerned authority regarding transfer, cannot be construed as affecting the right of a Government servant. In such a situation, if the oral instructions issued by a higher authority, are reduced to writing by a subordinate, and communicated to the concerned authority, that becomes an order passed by the authority on whose oral instructions it is issued, The validity or credibility of it can be lost only if it is proved that there were no such oral instructions given by the concerned authority. In the instant case, I have already held that the Chief Minister has issued oral instructions to the third Respondent and on the basis of that he has addressed a letter dated 6-6-1986 (Annexure-G). Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order of transfer is vitiated in view of the allegations of mala fides made against the 3rd Respondent must fall to the ground.