- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.101632 OF 2025 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SRI KEMPANNA BHANGI, AGED MAJOR, OCC. HOSTEL WARDEN, D. DEVARJ URS POST MERIC BOYS HOSTEL, KANABARGI-1, BELAGAVI TALUK 590015 DIST. BELAGAVI WORKING ON ADDITIONAL CHARGE BASIS AS TALUK BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE OFFICER, BELAGAVI, AND ALSO HOSTEL WARDEN, POST METRIC BOYS HOSTEL, GANESHPUR, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NO.16/D, 3RD FLOOR, D. DEVARJ URS BHAVAN, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU 52. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER/DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BELAGAVI DISRICT, BELAGAVI 590001. 4. SMT. SHANTAVVA RUDRAGOUDAR MARIGOUDAR, W/O BASALINGAPPA HUNASYAL AGE. 48 YEARS, TALUK BACKWARD CLASSES OFFICER (GROUP-B POST) UNDER ORDER OF POSTING TO THE POST OF TALUKA BACKWARD CLASSEES WELFARE OFFICER, BELAGAVI TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001 R/O AT POST BELAVADI 591104, TQ. BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADV. FOR R1-R3; SRI. MADANAGOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/02/2025 PASSED BY HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10094/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AND CONSEQUENTLY APPLICATION MAY BE DISMISSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Application No.10094/2025 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal), wherein respondent No.4/applicant’s application challenging the endorsement dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-A3) and her modified transfer order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure-A9) was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to handover the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk to respondent No.4 herein immediately. 2. The parties would be referred as they stood before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.4 herein was the applicant and the petitioner herein was respondent No.4. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as a Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, and respondent No.4 is holding the post of Hostel Warden in respondent No.2–Backward Classes Welfare Department. While the applicant was working as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Bailhongal Taluk, she was kept under suspension by order dated 28.10.2024. The applicant challenged the said order of suspension before the Tribunal in Application No.13308/2024. The said application challenging the order of suspension came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 12.12.2024. Respondent No.4, who is working as Hostel Warden, under Notification dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure-A6), was posted to work as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, under Rule 68 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short ‘KCSRs’). Respondent No.4 is said to have taken charge on the same day i.e., on 06.01.2025. Under order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure- A1) issued by respondent No.2, the suspension of the applicant was revoked and was posted as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk. When the applicant reported to duty in terms of Anenxure-A2 dated 09.01.2025, the applicant was issued an endorsement dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-A3) stating - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 that the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, is not vacant since respondent No.4 had reported to duty in terms of Notification dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure-A6). Thereafter, under order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure-A9), the applicant was provided alternate posting as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. Questioning the endorsement dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-A3) as well as the order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure-A9) posting the petitioner to Honnavar, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.100094/2025. The Tribunal under the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 allowed the applicant’s application, set aside the endorsement dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-A3) as well as the modified transfer order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure-A9) with a direction to respondent No.4 to handover the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, to the applicant. While allowing the application, the Tribunal has observed that the respondent No.4 is not the holder of the equivalent post and is also not immediate junior working in the same office and would not fulfill the conditions of Rule 68 of the KCSRs. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.4 is before this Court in this Writ Petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 4. Heard Sri. Sunil S.Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, and Sri. Madangouda Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers as well as the Xerox copies of the original records produced by the learned Government Advocate. 5. Sri. Sunil S.Desai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/respondent No.4 would submit that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing respondent No.4 to handover charge of the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, in the absence of challenge to posting of respondent No.4 to the said post under Notification dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure-A6), and when there was no challenge to the said order, the Tribunal could not have directed respondent No.4 to hand over charge to the applicant. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner, who is working as a Hostel Warden, is posted to work as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, which was vacant, under Rule 68 of the KCSRs. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/petitioner would submit that the applicant was kept under suspension under order dated 28.10.2024 on the allegation of misappropriation of funds and, on revocation of order of suspension, the applicant would not be entitled for posting or to the same post or within the same district, and moreover, the applicant would not be entitled for an executive post. In the said circumstances, he submits that the Tribunal committed a grave error in directing respondent No.4 to handover charge of the said post. 7. Referring to Rule 68 of KCSRs, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.4 submitted that while regular holder of the post is not available, a lower-cadre Officer could be posted to work in the said post and the Rule would not specifically state that when the regular holder of the post is posted, the lower- cadre Officer has to give way. Rule 68 would only specify entitlement of the allowances to the holder of additional charge. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/petitioner would submit that respondent No.2, under the order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure-A9), rightly noticing that respondent No.4 is working as a Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 issued a separate posting order to the applicant to work as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Honnavar Taluk. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the said fact. Thus, the learned counsel for respondent No.4/petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition. 9. Per contra, Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents-State would submit that respondent No.4/petitioner, who is working as a Hostel Warden, was posted to work as a Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, under Rule 68 of KCSRs. He further submits that the applicant/respondent No.4 was suspended under Order dated 28.10.2024, and on revocation of suspension by order dated 08.01.2025, she was posted to work as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk. He submits that the applicant/respondent No.4 is a regular holder of the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, whereas respondent No.4/petitioner is working as a Hostel Warden, which is a lower-cadre post. In the above circumstances, he prays for passing appropriate orders. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 10. Learned counsel for applicant/respondent No.4 supports the order passed by the Tribunal by submitting that a lower-cadre Officer shall make way for regular incumbent of the post. He submits that the applicant/respondent No.4 is a regular holder of the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, whereas respondent No.4 is a Hostel Warden which is a lower-cadre post. Referring to Rule 68 of the KCSRs, he submits that only a holder of equivalent or higher post could be posted in additional charge of a post. Further, it is submitted that if holder of equivalent or higher post is not available, immediate junior to the said government servant who is working in the same office could be posted and since respondent No.4 is not working in the same office, he would not be entitled for posting under Rule 68 of KCSRs. Learned counsel would, further, submit that the applicant was suspended while she was working as a Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, at Bailhongal, and on revocation, she is posted to work as a Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk. Therefore, he submits that no fault could be found with posting of the applicant. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers and also the records produced by the learned Government Advocate, the only point that falls for consideration is, Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference? 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the rival contentions, the answer to the above would be in the negative for the following reasons: It is an admitted fact that the applicant/respondent No.4 is a substantive holder of the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, and whereas respondent No.4 is substantive holder of the post of Hostel Warden in respondent No.2-Backward Classes Welfare Department. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant was kept under suspension by order dated 28.10.2024 and the said order of suspension was revoked by order dated 08.01.2025 posting the applicant/respondent No.4 to work as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk. In the meanwhile, under Notification dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure-A6), respondent No.4, who is working as a Hostel Warden at D.Devaraj urs Post Metric Boys Hostel, Kanabaragi-1, Belagavi, is - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 posted to work as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, under Rule 68 of KCSRs. 13. Rule 68 and Note I of the KCSRs reads as follows: 68. When a Government servant is appointed to be in- charge of the current duties or independent charge of an office, in addition to his own duties and the charge entails a substantial increase of responsibility and some additional work, he shall be entitled to 7.5% of the minimum of the scale of pay applicable to the post in which he is placed in- charge or independent charge, as additional pay (charge allowance) to be fixed by the authority competent to appoint him as such. Sanction of Government should be obtained where the in charge arrangement is proposed to be [continued beyond the period stipulated in Note 8 under this rule. Provided that in the case of judicial officers, including the District Judges in the Judicial Department, the High Court of Karnataka may make in charge arrangements, whenever vacancies arise for any reason and may sanction charge allowance in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 and this rule. The High Court shall also be the Competent Authority for continuation of in charge arrangements beyond the period stipulated in Note 8 under this rule. Note 1.-A Government servant holding an equivalent or higher post or if no such Government servant is immediately available, a Government servant of the same - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 office who is immediately junior to the Government servant handing over charge and who has completed the period of his probation or officiation, as the case may be, may be appointed under this rule to be in charge of the current duties of an office or post in addition to his own duties. Note 2. xxx. Note 3. xxx ” A reading of the above Rule makes it abundantly clear that when a government servant is appointed to be in-charge of current duties or independent charge of an office, in addition to his own duties and where there is enhanced responsibility and some additional work, the said government servant would be entitled to 7.5% of minimum of pay of scale applicable to the post in which he is placed in-charge as additional pay (charge allowance). Note 1 makes it further clear that a government servant holding equivalent or higher post only could be appointed to be as in- charge or additional charge of a post and if no such government servant is available, a government servant of the same office who is immediately junior to the government servant handing over charge may be appointed under Rule 68 to be in charge of the current duties of an office or post in addition to his own duties. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 14. In the instant case, respondent No.4/peitioner is not, admittedly, a holder of equivalent post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, but is a holder of a lower-cadre post. Moreover, he is also not working in the same office. Therefore, in terms of Rule 68, respondent No.4/petitioner could not have been posted as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk. Moreover, when a regular holder of the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer is posted, a junior, who is posted or appointed to discharge the current duties, shall have to make way for the regular holder of the post. A person who is holding a lower-cadre post would not possess any right much less legal right to hold on to a higher post when a regular holder of the said post is posted or appointed. Therefore, in the instant case, respondent No.4/petitioner has no locus to question the posting of the applicant as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer. 15. The contention of the petitioner that the applicant, on revocation, could not have been posted as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, cannot be appreciated in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the applicant was kept under suspension while working as Taluk Backward Classes - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 Welfare Officer, Bailhongal, and however, on revocation, the applicant is posted as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk to a different place. It is also seen from the Xerox copy of the records, that Note No.66 indicates that charge sheet has already been issued to the applicant, as such there would not be any impediment for posting of the applicant as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk. The Tribunal has rightly observed that respondent No.4/petitioner is not holding the post equivalent to the rank of the applicant and he is also not the immediate junior or working in the same office. Therefore, respondent No.4/petitioner would not be entitled to continue as Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk. 16. The contention of respondent No.4/petitioner herein that when there is no challenge to the notification dated 06.01.2025 posting respondent No.4/petitioner, the Tribunal could not have directed respondent No.4 to handover charge of the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Belagavi Taluk, is liable to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner has no right to hold the post of Taluk Backward Classes Welfare Officer, since he is not a substantive holder of the said post and he is a substantive holder of a lower-cadre post i.e., Hostel - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4625-DB WP No. 101632 of 2025 Warden. A lower-cadre Officer cannot stick on to a higher post when a regular incumbent is posted to the said post. 17. Therefore, for the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed, and the impugned order of the Tribunal requires no interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31