- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 101555 OF 2025 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SHRI PRABHAKARA M. PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: THE CHIEF OFFICER GRADE-1 OF TMC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI-583212, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA, PRESENTLY TRANSFERRED TO MUDALIGI TMC, MUDALIGI-591312, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VISWESHWARAIAH TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. SRI. M.K. MUGALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OFFICE MANAGER, PATTANA PANCHAYAT, KUDLIGI-583135, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI, PRESENTLY TRANSFERRED TO TMC HAGARABOMMANAHALLI, TQ: HAGARABOMMANAHALLI-583212, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/2/2025 BRG NO.NAAAEE/44/TME/2025(E) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B. DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS INELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE POST OF CHIEF OFFICER, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TMC AND REITERATE THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF CHIEF OFFICER AT HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TMC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the 1st respondent insofar as petitioner is concerned and consequently to declare respondent No.3 to be ineligible to hold the post of Chief Officer, Hagaribommanahalli TMC and restore the petitioner to the post of Chief Officer at Hagaribommanahalli TMC. 2. Petitioner was appointed as First Grade Revenue Inspector (FGRI) at Harihar Municipality on compassionate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 appointment in view of death of his father. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of First Grade Revenue Officer (FGRO) as Group-C officer at Hosadurga Municipality. On 01.07.2019, again he has promoted as Chief Officer KMAS-Grade-II of Kotakar Town Panchayat, Taluka-Ullal and District Dakshina Kannada. The petitioner has been rendering the service of KMAS-Grade-II as Chief Officer, he was promoted and appointed as KMAS-Grade-I-Group-B at Mugalkhod Municipality of Belagavi District. Subsequently, the petitioner has been transferred through a Government Notification as Chief Officer, Grade-I-Group-B at Hagaribommanahalli TMC. Petitioner claims that he has reported to Hagaribommanahalli TMC as Chief Officer and he has rendering his services without any interruption. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1 has displaced the petitioner and transferred to Mudalagi TMC by placing respondent No.3 in his place of post, who is ineligible as he is Grade-III Group-C and also non-KMAS cadre. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said transfer of respondent No.3 in his place and petitioner to the place of respondent No.3 is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 before this Court questioning the same seeking for consequent reliefs. 3. It is vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after recruitment and promotion which is made in the rank of Chief Officer Grade-I, when there are no suitable candidates available, then the appointment can be made through the deputation of an officer from KAS (Junior Scale) and in the present case, the 3rd respondent belongs to Grade-III Group-C and hence 3rd respondent lacks the necessary qualifications and competence to hold the position of Chief Officer Grade-I Group-B. Accordingly, he contends that the impugned transfer order passed by the 1st respondent is illegal and is not sustainable. 4. 4. The petitioner relies upon an affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Director of Municipal Administration that ineligible candidate has no legal right to hold the post of Chief Officer and the same is declared to be ineligible and same is also affirmed by this Court in a Judgement, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 5. It is further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the impugned transfer order, the petitioner approached this Court and secured an interim order and since then he has continued to work in the present place at Hagaribommanahalli as Chief Officer (Grade-I). Under these circumstances, he submits that this petition may be allowed as respondent No.3 is ineligible and not fit to occupy the post Chief Officer (Grade-I) and he also contends that the 3rd respondent has not yet reported to Haribommanahalli and he is still functioning in the same place of posting as was earlier at Mudalagi. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel representing the 3rd responded vehemently contends that the writ petition is not maintainable on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner suppressed certain material facts and he ought to have approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act, 1985’), rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioner having reported to the new place of posting at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 Mudalagi has approached this Court and obtained an interim order and thereafter he has taken charge of his place at Hagaribommanahalli without revealing these aspects in the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further contends that all other aspects, which are canvassed by the petitioner with regard to the responded No.3 being not eligible of falling under the Grade-III and Group-C are all matters of merits, which are left to be adjudicated before the appropriate Administrative Tribunal and not before this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he contends that when there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, same would have to be exhausted in its true letter and spirit rather than approaching this Court for seeking the remedy as sought for herein. 8. Learned HCGP Sri P.N.Hatti relies upon arguments advanced by learned counsel Sri V.Shivaraj Hiremath and concurs with him on the ground that the petition is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 maintainable and would have to be relegated to the Administrative Tribunal as per Section 15 of the Act, 1985. 9. Learned counsels for respondents have relied upon a division bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shivaprasad Biradar Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and Others ported in ILR 2019 Kar. 2751 and Writ Appeal No.100528/2024, D.B.Iranna vs. Under Secretary and Others. 10. In the case of Shivaprasad Biradar’s, the division bench of this Court relied on the several judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.8 has held as under : “8. As could be seen from the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, direction was issued to the Committee considering employees' promotions therein in the particular facts and circumstances of the case found therein i.e., after having noticed that quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was not called for and it is clearly declared by the Apex Court in the factual matrix such direction is issued and said peculiar situation is not present in the instant case.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 11. On careful perusal of the Judgments relied on by learned counsels for respondents and the facts and circumstances of this case, both are similar to each other. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner and respondent No.3 working under the State as Government Servants, they will squarely fall within the definition of Section 15 of the Act, 1985 and any grievance with regard to the service conditions, in the first instance will have to be adjudicated before the State Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, I am in agreement with the learned counsels for respondents that this petition would not be maintainable. The petitioner herein would have to be relegated to the Administrative Tribunal to exhaust his remedy in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, I pass the following : ORDER (i) This petition is disposed. (ii) Liberty is reserved to petitioner to approach the State Administrative Tribunal to exhaust his remedy in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7410 WP No. 101555 of 2025 (iii) The petitioner having functioning in the present place on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court, same would not enure to the benefit any further as he has approached the wrong forum, nevertheless he will have to be given an opportunity of explore the alternative efficacious remedy of appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. (iv) The petitioner shall handover the charge to respondent No.3 within one week from today. (v) Responded No.3 is permitted to take charge in the place of posting at Hagaribommanahalli TMC as Chief Officer. Ordered accordingly. (vi) In case of petition files any such application before the Administrative Tribunal, the time spent herein shall be condoned. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17