Karnataka High Court Directs State Government To Issue Guidelines For Transfer To Higher Cadre Post In Administrative Services
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to issue guidelines for posting lower cadre persons to higher cadre posts.
The Court emphasized that the guidelines should specify the circumstances under which such postings can be made and require the government to provide proper reasons for each posting.
The posting of one Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS -senior scale) officer to the post of Additional Director-I, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs was challenged. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) had set aside the transfer order.
The Court allowed the Writ Petition against the Tribunal’s order and noted that he is eligible to be posted to the said post if his cadre is upgraded to KAS (Selection grade).
The Bench comprising Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K observed, “As these orders are very narrow and blanket as to why a person of a lower cadre is posted to an encadred post which can only be held by a person of higher cadre. In present case, person either IAS cadre or KAS(Super time scale) cadre can only be posted as Additional Director-I”.
Advocate Prithveesh MK appeared for the Petitioner, Additional General Advocate V Shivareddy appeared for the State and Senior Advocate SP Kulkarni appeared for the Third Respondent.
The Petitioner, a KAS (senior scale) officer, was transferred to the post of Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Welfare in 2022. He was then transferred to the post of Deputy Secretary, Department of Home in January 2023. However, he was reverted back to his earlier place of posting in March 2023.
In July 2023, the Petitioner was transferred to the post of Additional Director-I, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. However, this transfer was challenged by the Third Respondent, who argued that the Petitioner was not eligible for the post. The Tribunal upheld the challenge and set aside the transfer order. Aggrieved, the Petitioner appealed to the High Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal’s order.
The Court noted that the government upgraded the cadre of the Third Respondent to KAS (Selection grade) temporarily to fill the vacant post of Additional Director-I. However, this upgrade does not mean that the Third Respondent was promoted to the cadre of KAS (Selection grade).
“When this being the legal position, upgradation order passed supra in respect of respondent No.3 is passed in order to temporarily arrange the right personnel eligible to hold the post in question. But, the order dated 27.07.2022 cannot be interpreted in a manner that the respondent No.3 is promoted to the cadre of KAS (Selection grade) as promotion would not only include the increase in pay scale and rank but it also would include advancement in honour, dignity and grade”, the Bench noted.
Furthermore, the Bench observed that the government order stated that the post of Additional Director-I can only be held by a person in the cadre of IAS or KAS (Super time scale). The Third Respondent was a KAS (Senior Scale) officer when he was deputed to the post of Additional Director-I. Therefore, his initial posting to the post was illegal. The Court held that since the Third Respondent's initial posting was illegal, he had no locus standi to challenge the Petitioner's posting to the post of Additional Director-I.
The Court noted, “It is in this background, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.3 who has approached the tribunal has no locus standi to challenge the impugned transfer notification as his posting is par se flawed and defective”.
Additionally, the Court noted that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the government order dated and concluded that the Third Respondent's cadre has been upgraded to KAS (Selection grade). This was incorrect because the order only upgrades the cadre of the Third Respondent, not the post itself. The post of Additional Director-I can only be held by a person in the cadre of I.A.S or KAS (Super time scale). The Bench rejected the Third Respondent's claim regarding perversity in the impugned order.
The Court noted that the Petitioner and the Third Respondent were both KAS (Senior Scale) officers. The Third Respondent's cadre was upgraded to KAS (Selection grade) to meet the eligibility criteria for the post of Additional Director-I. The Petitioner is also eligible to hold the post if his cadre is upgraded to KAS (Selection grade).
Since the Third Respondent has completed his two-year tenure as Additional Director-I, he is no longer eligible to hold the post. The Bench observed that the Petitioner is eligible to be posted to the post of Additional Director-I on deputation if his cadre is upgraded to KAS (Selection grade). The Chief Minister's signature on the transfer orders does not make them valid if the orders do not provide reasons for posting a person of a lower cadre to an encadred post.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Prajna Ammembala v State Of Karnataka
