- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 436 OF 2025 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SRI SRINIVAS GHATTY S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA GHATTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT ESTABLISHMENT SECTION MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION MANGALORE -575 002. PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (MAHANAGARA PALIKE-2) VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE -560 001. 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISHVISWARAIAH TOWERS DR. AMBEDKARVEEDHI BANGALORE- 560 001. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 3. THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION MANGALORE -574 142 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BHOJE GOUDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 & R2: SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN NO. NA.A.E 119 TUMAPA 2024(E) ON THE FILE OF R-1. AND QUASH THE TRANSFER NOTIFICATION / ORDER DATED: 31.12.2024 BEARING NO NA.A.E.119 TUMAPA 2024(E) ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. Though the matter is posted for consideration of I.A.No.1/2025 for vacating of the interim order, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is heard finally and disposed of. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 31.12.2024, whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Mangaluru City Corporation to Tumkuru City Corporation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Second Division Assistant (SDA) in Mangaluru City Corporation on compassionate ground on 20.07.2002. By impugned order dated 31.12.2024 vide Annexure-A, he has been transferred to Tumkuru City Corporation. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the seniority for SDA will be determined based on district-wise cadre and therefore, transferring the petitioner from one district to another would adversely affect his seniority. Secondly, he has submitted that the petitioner has furnished a Disability Certificate issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India on 23.01.2025. As per the transfer guidelines, persons with physical disabilities are to be transferred as far as possible to the nearest available location. Contrary to this, the impugned order has been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 passed. Hence, the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that under Section 91A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), the State Government has the power to transfer any officer or servant from one corporation to another corporation. He further submitted that the petitioner is working in the respondent-Corporation for over 23 years and nowhere in his service records it is reported that his claim regarding the disability. For the first time, the Disability Certificate has been produced before this Court, and that too, only after the filing of the present writ petition. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ petition papers. 7. The petitioner was appointed as a SDA in Mangaluru City Corporation on compassionate ground on 20.07.2002. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 By the impugned order vide Annexure-A, he has been transferred to Tumkuru City Corporation. Under Section 91A of the Act, the State Government has the power to transfer any officer or servant of a corporation to a corresponding post in any other corporation, local authority constituted or deemed to have been constituted under any law made by the State Legislature, or in the Government. Therefore, the State Government can transfer the petitioner from one corporation to another. Section 91A of the Act reads as follows: “91A. Transfer of employees.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law, the State Government may transfer any officer or servant of a corporation to a corresponding post in any other corporation or in any local authority constituted or deemed to have been constituted under any law made by the State Legislature or in the Government.” 8. The main contention of the petitioner is that by transferring him from one Corporation to another, his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 seniority will be affected. However, as per sub-section (2) of Section 91A of the Act, it clearly says that an officer or servant transferred under sub-section (1) shall receive the same remuneration and be subject to the same terms and conditions of service, as well as to the same rights and privileges relating to pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other matters as he held under the Corporation from which he was so transferred. Therefore, the rights of the petitioner will not be affected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the Disability Certificate issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India before this Court on 23.01.2025. The respondent No.3 has filed an application for vacation of the interim order granted by this Court. Paragraph No.6 of the said application reads as under: 6. The petitioner is raising the ground that he is a specially-abled person and as such his transfer - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 is contrary to the notification at Annexure C. However, the same is incorrect. The petitioner has worked in this respondent corporation for over 23 years. No document, whatsoever, to substantiate his claim of alleged disability has been submitted by him to this corporation at any length of time. There is no entry in his service register regarding his alleged disability. He has never submitted any disability certificate to the corporation during the tenure of his entire service. As such, the genuineness of the alleged disability certificate that is produced by him along with a memo is seriously in dispute. Be it as it may, as per section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a person with less than 40 percent disability cannot be considered as a disabled person with benchmark disability. However, the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, states that his alleged disability is 30 percent. As such the petitioner cannot be considered as a disabled person even, if viewed, from this angle. In any event, having regard to section 57(1) of the aforesaid act, the alleged disability certificate - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 produced by the petitioner has no relevance/validity in the eyes of the law.” 10. In view of the above, it is very clear that there was no entry in the service register regarding the claim of disability by the petitioner. The Disability Certificate has been produced for the first time before this Court, and that too only after the writ petition was filed. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error or illegality in the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER a) The writ petition is dismissed. b) However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation enclosing the Disability - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23639 WP No. 436 of 2025 Certificate before the competent authority. If such a representation is filed, the competent authority is directed to consider the same, in accordance with law. If it is possible, the petitioner shall be accommodated to any nearest corporation. In view of dismissal of the main petition, all pending IAs, if any, shall stand dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34