Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Alla Saheb, was working as Executive Engineer in the District Urban Development Cell, Vijayapura since 6.3.2014. On 18.8.2016, the State Government issued a transfer order transferring him and posting respondent No.5 in his place. Before the order could be implemented, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the transfer. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as premature and misconceived, observing that the transfer order had not yet been given effect to and the appellant continued to hold the post. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, noted that the appellant was still functioning as Executive Engineer and the transfer order had not been implemented. The court held that until the transfer order is actually given effect to, no cause of action arises for the appellant to challenge it. The appeal was dismissed as premature, with liberty to the appellant to approach the court if and when the transfer order is implemented. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the transfer order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Premature Challenge - Transfer Order Not Implemented - No Cause of Action - The appellant challenged a transfer order dated 18.08.2016 before it was implemented. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as premature and misconceived. The Division Bench upheld the dismissal, holding that until the transfer order is given effect to, no cause of action arises for judicial review. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging a transfer order is maintainable when the order has not yet been implemented and the petitioner continues to hold the post.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed as premature. The appellant is at liberty to approach the court if and when the transfer order is given effect to. No opinion on merits of the transfer order.
Law Points
- Transfer order
- Premature challenge
- Cause of action
- Service law
- Writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (11) 1
B.S. Patil, B.V. Nagarathna
P. Vilaskumar Marthand Rao (for appellant), R.V. Nadagouda (AAG for R-1 to R-3), Ameet Kumar Deshpande (for R-5)
The State of Karnataka, The Director/Commissioner Municipal Administration, The Deputy Commissioner Vijayapur, The Project Director District Urban Development Cell, Sharanappa C. Oni
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging a transfer order as premature.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and quash the transfer order dated 18.08.2016.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the transfer order before it was implemented, claiming it was illegal.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as premature and misconceived on 24.08.2016.
Issues
Whether a writ petition challenging a transfer order is maintainable when the order has not yet been implemented.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the transfer order was illegal and should be quashed.
Respondents contended that the writ petition was premature as the transfer order had not been implemented.
Ratio Decidendi
A challenge to a transfer order is not maintainable until the order is actually implemented, as no cause of action arises before implementation.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant as premature and misconceived.
The appellant is still continuing as Executive Engineer and the transfer order has not been given effect to.
Until the transfer order is given effect to, no cause of action arises for the appellant to challenge the same.
Procedural History
Appellant filed WP No.204024/2016 challenging transfer order dated 18.08.2016. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 24.08.2016 as premature. Appellant filed WA No.200488/2016 under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. Division Bench heard the appeal on 14.11.2016 and dismissed it as premature.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act: Section 4
