Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Murthy, was serving as Chief Officer of Hanur Town Municipal Council, Chamarajanagara District. By an order dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-A), the State Government transferred him and posted respondent No.6, Parashivaiah, in his place. The petitioner was directed to report to the competent authority for obtaining a posting order. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the transfer order. The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the order promptly; the petition was filed only on 20.07.2022, more than six months after the order. Moreover, the petitioner had not reported to the competent authority as directed. The court observed that the petitioner had not made out any ground for interference and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Challenge to Transfer Order - Delay and Laches - Petitioner challenged transfer order after six months and did not report to competent authority for posting - Held that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference and the petition is dismissed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned transfer order dated 23.12.2021 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being illegal and arbitrary.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Transfer order
- service law
- delay in challenging
- failure to report to competent authority
- no vested right to remain at a particular post
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (08) 28
Writ Petition No. 14860 of 2022 (S-TR)
Pavana Chandra Shetty H. for petitioner; M.C. Nagashree for respondents 1-4; H.V. Manjunath for respondent 5 and 6
The State of Karnataka, The Commissioner, Urban Development Department, Director of Municipal Administration, The Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagara District, Chief Officer, Hanur Town Municipal Council, Parashivaiah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging transfer order of a municipal chief officer.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the transfer order dated 23.12.2021.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was transferred and respondent No.6 was posted in his place; petitioner claims the order is illegal.
Issues
Whether the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the transfer order is illegal. Respondents opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner did not challenge the transfer order in time and failed to report to the competent authority for posting; no ground for interference.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has called in question validity of the order of transfer at Annexure - A dated 23.12.2021.
It is only on 20.07.2022, more than about six [6] months after the order at Annexure - A, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner has not reported to the competent authority for obtaining an order for posting.
The petitioner has not made out any ground for interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition on 20.07.2022 challenging a transfer order dated 23.12.2021. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 18.08.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
