Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 11.08.2021. The petitioner, Mahiboob Sab, was serving as Director in the Directorate of Minorities, Minority Welfare Department, Bengaluru. He was transferred out of the post by an order dated 23.07.2021, and the second respondent, Dr. H.R. Shivakumar, was posted in his place. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal, which dismissed his application primarily on the ground that he did not possess the requisite eligibility under the Karnataka Minorities Welfare Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2010 (2011 Rules), which stipulated that the Director must be from the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Services (Selection Grade/Higher Pay Scale) or Indian Administrative Service (Senior Scale Officer). The petitioner, being in the cadre of Deputy Secretary, was held ineligible. Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that his post of Deputy Secretary was equivalent in grade to IAS and KAS Senior Scale Officers, relying on a notification dated 10.07.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, which allowed posting of KAS Group A (Senior Scale) officers as Deputy Secretaries in the Karnataka Government Secretariat. He argued that this equivalence made him eligible for the Director's post. He also argued that the transfer without a simultaneous posting order amounted to legal malafide as per a coordinate bench decision in W.P. No.43919/2016. The respondents contended that the 2011 Rules explicitly restricted the post to KAS (Selection Grade) or IAS officers, and the 2019 notification pertained to a different department and could not amend the 2011 Rules. The Division Bench rejected the petitioner's contention on eligibility, holding that eligibility conditions under Cadre and Recruitment Rules must be strictly complied with. The notification of 2019 could not be construed as automatically amending the 2011 Rules; deemed amendments are unknown to service law. On the issue of legal malafide, the court noted that the impugned order did not transfer the petitioner out but merely posted the second respondent to the same occupied post, which prima facie amounted to legal malafide as per the coordinate bench ruling. The court expressed dismay that the Tribunal had not properly appreciated this precedent. However, since the petition was being dismissed on the ground of ineligibility, the court did not grant relief on this ground. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order on the limited ground of ineligibility. The decision favored the State and the second respondent.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Cadre and Recruitment Rules - Strict Compliance - Karnataka Minorities Welfare Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2010 - The petitioner contended that his post of Deputy Secretary was equivalent to IAS/KAS Senior Scale Officers based on a 2019 notification; however, the Court held that eligibility under the 2011 Rules must be strictly complied with and a notification of another department cannot automatically amend these Rules - Held that deemed amendments are not permissible in service law (Paras 4-5). B) Service Law - Transfer - Legal Malafide - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - The Court observed that the impugned order posted the second respondent to the post of Director while the post was still occupied, and as per a coordinate bench ruling in W.P. No.43919/2016, such transfer without simultaneous posting amounts to legal malafide - The Court expressed dismay that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate this precedent; however, the writ petition was dismissed on eligibility grounds (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Director, Minorities Welfare Department was valid given his eligibility under the Karnataka Minorities Welfare Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2010, and whether the transfer constituted legal malafide.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirmed the Tribunal's order on the ground that the petitioner was ineligible for the post. It also expressed dismay at the Tribunal's handling of legal malafide precedents but did not disturb the outcome.
Law Points
- Strict adherence to Cadre and Recruitment Rules for eligibility
- Deemed amendments not permissible in service law
- Transfer without simultaneous posting amounts to legal malafide
