BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Friday said the communication with a mere ‘request’ or ‘recommendation’ issued by the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) with his signature to the head of the department concerned to consider a person for transfer cannot be construed as prior approval granted for transfer.
“... But (it) can only be said that the proposal is laid by the Chief Minister (is) subject to verification of service records of the employee concerned,” the court said.
A division bench of Justices K Somashekar and Rajesh Rai made the observations while allowing a petition filed by KM Prashanth Kumar, Assistant Director, Town Planning, Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
Kumar moved the high court, questioning the order dated September 22, 2023, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, rejecting his application against the legality of his transfer to the Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike in the same post.
Hearing the arguments of senior counsel MS Bhagawat and advocate Satish K on behalf of the petitioner, the court set aside the Tribunal’s order and also quashed the impugned transfer order dated July 13, 2023.
The court directed the petitioner to report to MUDA, subject to the state taking a fresh decision to post an eligible person to the post of MUDA Assistant Director, keeping given the Transfer Guidelines, 2013, as he already served considerable time in the post.
Guruprasad AB, who was working as Assistant Director of Town Planning at Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike, was posted in place of Kumar at MUDA. He was transferred based on the recommendation made by the chief minister and post-approval was taken after the transfer. However, it was claimed that the transfer notification has been passed after prior approval of the chief minister and additionally, post confirmation is also obtained.
Disputing it, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the request has been made by the chief minister to consider for transfer and it cannot be considered as prior approval for transfer, in terms of Transfer Guidelines, 2013. The court said the state itself considered the communication addressed by the chief minister as a recommendation and not as an approval.