Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.203726/2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SAVITA SINGE D/O MALLIMALLAPPA SINGE, AGED: 39 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI WORKER, R/O KANTEPPA PLOT, SINDAGI DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR–586 128. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANTOSHKUMAR B. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, REP. BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU–560 001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPUR, DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR–586 101.
3.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT (CDPO),
Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
VIJAYAPUR, DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR–586 001.
4.
THE PROJECT OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY, (CDPO), DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT, SINDAGI, DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR–586 128.
5.
MANJULA D/O DATTAPPA BETAGER, AGED: 38 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI WORKER, R/O: MADEENA NAGAR, SINDAGI, DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR–586 128.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A., FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI MAHESH PATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT(S)/ORDER(S)/DIRECTION(S) AND THEREBY, QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER NO.SHIAOSI:ICD:ANKKAKA:STAPA:2024-25/452 DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 (ANNEXURE-G).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by respondent No.4. In terms of
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
the said order, 4th respondent referring to the Government
Order dated 03.12.2022 has directed the petitioner to work in Takiyagalli Angwanwadi Center in Sindagi Town and thereby the order dated 18.07.2024 transferring the petitioner to Jyotinagar from Takiyagalli is recalled. 4th respondent has recalled the earlier order dated 18.07.2024 i.e., the order of transferring the petitioner from Takiyagalli to Jyotinagar, on the premises that the Government guidelines dated 03.12.2022, stipulates the minimum time gap of 03 [three] years in between two transfers and order dated 18.07.2024 violates said guidelines.
2. The certain facts relating to instant petition is summarized as under: The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 18.08.2010 in Yaragal B.K. Anganwadi Center and on 30.06.2023 she was transferred to Takiyagalli from Yargal B.K. The petitioner has accepted this order of transfer and has not questioned it. Thereafter, on 18.07.2024 the petitioner was
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
transferred from Takiyagalli to Jyotinagar, pursuant to her request seeking transfer to Professor Colony. Then, pursuant to the order dated 18.07.2024 on 01.08.2024 one more consequential order is passed transferring respondent No.5 from Jyotinagar to Takiyagalli. Later in terms of the impugned order, the
order dated 18.07.2024 is recalled and the petitioner is asked to continue in Takiyagalli, wherein, she was working earlier before 18.07.2024.
3. The petitioner has assailed this order on the premise that within a span of two years she has been transferred twice and it is impermissible under the applicable guidelines.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the guidelines dated 18.08.2018 to substantiate his contention that since the petitioner was transferred on 18.07.2024, one more transfer vide impugned order dated 10.12.2024 is impermissible. It is also urged that 5th respondent has no locus-standi to file application to vacate
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
the interim order passed by this Court, on the premises that 5th respondent has not questioned the
order dated 18.07.2024 and the consequential order dated 01.08.2024.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for 5th respondent would contend that the Transfer Guidelines referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are no longer in force and was replaced by Transfer Guidelines dated 03.12.2022. He would also submit that the Transfer Guidelines are modified with effect from 03.12.2022 and under the modified Guidelines there has to gap of three years between two transfers and since the petitioner was transferred on 30.06.2023 from Yaragal B.K. to Takiyagalli, the second transfer of the petitioner from Takiyagalli to Jyotinagar was impermissible and as such, the authorities noticing the mistake has rectified the mistake and recalled the order dated 18.07.2024.
6. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the parties and perused the records.
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
7. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be transferred within a span of two years from the date of earlier transfer in terms of the Guidelines dated 18.08.2018 is concerned, it is be noticed that the said contention is not tenable for a simple reason that the Transfer Guidelines dated 18.08.2018 are modified by the Transfer Guidelines dated 03.12.2022. The relevant portion of the order modifying the earlier Transfer Guidelines dated 18.08.2018 would be as under:
“¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, gÁdåzÀ°è£À CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÉÃAzÀæUÀ½UÉ CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄgÀ DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D£ï¯ÉÊ£ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä F vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉñÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23.09.2017 DzÉñÀzÀ°è£À ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F DzÉñÀPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀĪÀ C£ÀħAzsÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹ DzÉò¹zÉ.”
8. Thus, from the aforementioned it is apparent that the Guidelines dated 23.09.2017 are modified until further orders.
9. The relevant portion of the Annexure affixed to
order dated 03.12.2022 reads as under:
- 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
“¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18.08.2018gÀAvÉ CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÁÜ£À¥À®èl PÉÆÃjzÁUÀ UËgÀªÀ ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è 2 ¸ÁÜ£À¥À®èlPÉÌ CªÀPÁ±À«zÀÄÝ, MAzÀÄ ¨Áj ¸ÁÜ£À¥À®èl ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 2£Éà ¸ÁÜ£À¥À®èlPÉÌ 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CAvÀgÀ«gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.”
10. On a reading of the aforementioned order dated 03.12.2022 it is be noticed that all other earlier guidelines, namely, guidelines dated 23.09.2017 are modified and replaced by the guidelines annexed to
order dated
03.12.2022. Thus, by necessary implication it would mean that the Guidelines dated 18.08.2018 are no longer applicable and matter is covered under the Guidelines dated
03.12.2022.
11. From the Guidelines dated 03.12.2022 it is evident that once transfer takes place, further transfer cannot take place before expiry of three years. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner was transferred on 30.06.2023 from Yaragal B.K. to Takiyagalli and thereafter within a span of two years one more transfer has taken place from Takiyagalli to Jyothi Nagar. Though, the petitioner claims that she made a request seeking transfer to Professor
- 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
Colony, the request is not tenable and the fact that she has been transferred to the place other than Professor Colony does not come to the help of the petitioner. Authority has noticed that the second transfer is made in contravention of the transfer guidelines and has rectified the mistake and this Court does not find any wrong in the said order.
12. Insofar the contention that 5th respondent cannot move an application to vacate the interim order is concerned, it is to be noticed that 5th respondent is a necessary party in terms of the order at Annexure-A and consequential order at Annexure-B, respondent No.5 is transferred from Jyotinagar to Takiyagalli. Merely because respondent No.5 has not questioned the order at Annexure – B i.e., consequential order pursuant to the order dated 18.07.2024, it cannot be said that respondent No.5 has no locus standi to move an application to vacate the interim
order. In case interim order is vacated the order impugned i.e., dated 18.07.2024 will come in operation, thereby, the petitioner will have to continue at Takiyagalli and
- 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1560 WP No. 203726 of 2024
consequently respondent No.5 will continue at Jyotinagar. Thus, respondent can seek to vacate the interim order.
13. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is justified in the light of the Guidelines dated 03.12.2022 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
SBS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 69