Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39747 (KAR)

DR RAVI M v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/28421/2025 · 2025-09-23

K V Aravind, S G Pandit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 28421 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: DR. RAVI M S/O. MAHADEVAPPA. M. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER (ADMIN), VETERINARY HOSPITAL, SHIKARIPURA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577427 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H. M., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT. 2. DR. RAVIKKUMAR. M.B, S/O. BASAVANAGOWDA. M, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER (Admn.) SHIKARIKPURA, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 SHIVAMOGGA, R/AT. NO.24, SHRI. DEVI NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST RIGHT CROSS BEHIND CHOWDAMMA TEMPLE L.B.S. NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 SRI K MANJUNATH RAO BHONSLE, ADV. FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN APPLICATION NO. 2591/2025, DATED 08.09.2025 (ANNEXURE- A) PASSED IN THE CASE OF DR. RAVIKUMAR AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLOWING THE APPLICATION ARE CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION BY CONTINUING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER (ADMIN), SHIKARIPURA VETERINARY HOSPITAL OR IN ALTERNATIVE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, who was respondent No.2 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2025 in Application No.2591/2025, whereunder application of respondent No.2 questioning the Notification dated 13.06.2025 posting the petitioner in place of respondent No.2 as Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.), Shikaripura, Shivamogga District was quashed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that: Respondent No.2 was posted to work as Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.), Shikaripura, Shivamogga District under notification dated 17.12.2021, and he took charge on 03.03.2022. Under impugned order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure-A5), the petitioner herein was posted in place of respondent No.2 as Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.), Shikaripura, Shivamogga District. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 Questioning the said notification, respondent No.2 was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal, accepting the contention of respondent No.2 herein that only a Veterinary Officer who has completed 20 years of service could be posted as Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.), quashed the notification of posting of petitioner herein, in place of respondent No.2. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner, who was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy for petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Manjunath Rao Bhonsle for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal by misreading the notification dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-A4), quashed the impugned notification dated 13.06.2025 insofar as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 petitioner and respondent No.2 are concerned. Learned counsel would submit that Annexure-A4 makes it clear that, to fill up the post of Assistant Director, the qualification prescribed is by posting the Chief Veterinary Officer who has put in 20 years of service as Veterinary Officer. It is submitted that, in the instant case, the impugned notification is not issued for filling up of the post of Assistant Director, but it is only to fill up the post of Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.). Further, learned counsel Sri.Sarathy would submit that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are holding Group-A cadre post, for which post, minimum tenure is 2 years, which respondent No.2 has already completed at Shikaripura. Thus, he would submit that respondent No.2 was liable for transfer and accordingly, the petitioner was posted in his place, with a direction to respondent No.2 to report to Government to seek further posting. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned AGA, on instructions, would submit that the impugned notification dated 13.06.2025 was in respect of the post of Chief Veterinary Officer and to fill up the post of Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.), as contended by learned counsel for Respondent No.2, 20 years of service as Veterinary Officer is not required. It is further submitted by the learned AGA that 20 years of service as Veterinary Officer is required to hold the post of Assistant Director. 6. Learned counsel Sri.Manjunath Rao Bhonsle for respondent No.2 repeatedly contended that, to fill up the post of Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.) in terms of Annexure-A4 notification dated 20.02.2019, only a Veterinary Officer who has put in 20 years of service could be posted to work as Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.). Learned counsel would submit that there is no post of Assistant Director in existence as on this date, and in terms of Government Order dated 29.12.2012, the post of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 Assistant Director is merged with the post of Chief Veterinary Officer. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that when the post of Assistant Director is not in existence and when it is merged with the post of Chief Veterinary Officer, qualification of service of 20 years as Veterinary Officer prescribed to fill up the post of Assistant Director would be applicable to the post of Chief Veterinary Officer. Thus, learned counsel Sri.Manjunath Bhonsle would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in quashing the impugned notification dated 13.06.2025 posting the petitioner in place of respondent No.2. 8. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are in the cadre of Chief Veterinary Officer in the department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.2 was posted to work as Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.), Veterinary Hospital, Shikaripura, under notification dated 17.12.2021. The petitioner and respondent No.2 who are holding Group-A post, are provided with minimum 2 years tenure at the place of posting. Respondent No.2, as on this date, has completed his tenure at Shikaripura and hence, he is liable for transfer. Under impugned notification dated 13.06.2025, the petitioner herein was posted as Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.), Veterinary Hospital, Shikaripura in place of respondent No.2. The contention of respondent No.2 that only a Veterinary Officer who has put in 20 years of service could be posted as Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.) is unsustainable. The notification dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-A4) prescribes method of recruitment to the post of Assistant Director. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 The post of Assistant Director shall be filled up by posting senior most Chief Veterinary Officer who has put in 20 years of service as Veterinary Officer. But, in the instant case, posting is not for the post of Assistant Director. The impugned Notification dated 13.06.2025 is to fill up the post of Chief Veterinary Officer. To fill up the post of Chief Veterinary Officer (Admn.), no such service qualification is prescribed. The reliance placed by respondent No.2 on Government Order dated 29.12.2012 is misplaced. When respondent No.2 has not placed any material on record to indicate that only a person who has completed 20 years of service as Veterinary Officer to be posted as Chief Veterinary Officer, we cannot accept the contention of respondent No.2. Te condition of service of 20 years as Veterinary Officer would be applicable while filling up or posting as Assistant Director in terms of Notification dated 20.02.2019 (Annexuire-A4). In that regard, the Tribunal is also misled by the contention of respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38319-DB WP No. 28421 of 2025 9. It is true that respondent No.2 is not given a posting under Notification dated 13.06.2025. Hence, the first respondent is directed to provide posting to respondent No.2 forthwith. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.2591/2025 is set aside and the said Application stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24