Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75704 (KAR)

SRI. Y. GIRIRAJU v. SRI. K. MURUGESH

WA/549/2024 · 2025-08-29

Anu Sivaraman, Rajesh Rai K

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33943-DB WA No. 549 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. Y. GIRIRAJU, S/O LATE Y.N. YALESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, TREASURY DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313 (NOW AWAITING FOR POSTING) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHESHCHANDRA B.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O KUMARASWAMY R., WORKING AS MANAGER MYSORE DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, TREASUREY DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE MYSURU - 570 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33943-DB WA No. 549 of 2024 VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (i) CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION No.809/2024, DATED 22.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. (ii) AND CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 IN WRIT PETITION No.809/2024 AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33943-DB WA No. 549 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard Shri. Maheshchandra B N., learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Srinivas V, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.2 to 4. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was the private respondent in the writ petition and that the observation contained in the paragraph No.4 of the order to the effect that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 was entitled to serve for a period of four years in the post, was factually incorrect. It is contended that as per Annexure-A the writ petitioner had been posted as Deputation Manager, District Urban Development Cell, Mysore on 10.05.2022 on own pay- scale. It is contended that the post substantially held by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 was a Group B post and that the tenure was only for three years. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33943-DB WA No. 549 of 2024 submitted that three year period has also expired and that the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires to be set aside. 3. We have considered the contentions advanced in the writ appeal, we have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned Single Judge has considered the contentions and has found that the transfer of the writ petitioner before completing his tenure in the post held by him, that to without granting him any posting order, was clearly illegal. It appears from the materials on record that it was to accommodate the appellant herein that the transfer of the writ petitioner had been effected. 4. In the light of the contentions raised and materials on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in this intra- court appeal. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner had been transferred to the present post only on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33943-DB WA No. 549 of 2024 10.05.2022 and as on the date of the impugned order of transfer, he had not completed his tenure in the said post. 5. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there are no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9