M/S. SUBBARAO & CO ) v. DISTRICT, MANDYA

( BY SRI. M. NARAYABNA BHAT, ADV. FOR M/S. SUBBARAO & CO ) ...PETITIONER AND :

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE

THE UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT BANGALORE

2 THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MAGADI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, TMC,MAGADI, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT MANJUNATH MAJOR, CHIEF OFFICER, NAGAMANGALA PATTANA PANCHAYATH, DISTRICT, MANDYA ...RESPONDENTS ( BY SRIYUTHS. OMKARESHA & C N NAGANNA, ADVS.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.331/TME/2011 DATED 29.02.2012 VODE ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Though this matter is listed for orders on application for vacating stay but the matter itself is considered for final disposal on merits.

2. Petitioner has sought for quashing the order of transfer dated 29.02.2012 produced at Annexure-A issued by the first respondent. 3

Petitioner who was working as a Chief Officer of Nagamangala Town Panchayath. The fourth respondent has been posted as a chief officer of Nelamangala Town Panchayath in place of the petitioner who was working as a Chief Officer in the said town panchayath. It is this order which has been called in question by the petitioner on two grounds. One that the petitioner has been transferred within three months of the date from which he has assumed charge as Chief Officer at Nelamangala Town Panchayath. Second, he is left with two and half years of service, as such transfer is result of mala fide exercise of power insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Chief Officer. He is a Revenue Inspector. However he was posted as a Chief Officer of Nelamangala 4 Town Panchayath, it is only an arrangement made by the Government, as such the qualified fourth respondent has been posted to the said post. The transfer order has been passed for the administrative reason. There is no reason to interfere with the same.

The grievance of the petitioner is that no place is shown against him, in so far as showing the place at which the petitioner has work, it is open for the Government to take steps to show the place to where the petitioner has been transferred. But as per the transfer order, Annexure-A, it shows that it is done in the public interest and for administrative reason. There is no bias or the mala fide allegations made. May be it has been done within three months from the petitioner assumes charge of chief officer of the Nelamangala Town Panchayath but that cannot be a ground to hold that the transfer order is bad in law. Further, the petitioner is Revenue Officer, the post he was holding as 5 a Chief Officer requires KMAS qualification, this petitioner does not possess the same. Considering these circumstances of the case, I find there is no ground to interfere with the order of transfer. Hence the petition fails and stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Bsv