Sri. Vikram R. Nayak vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Vikram R. Nayak, a Finance Controller at Karnataka Rural Road Development Agency (KRRDA), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in Appl.No.3378/2023. The petitioner and another applicant had sought to quash a notification dated 26.07.2023 issued by the first respondent, the State of Karnataka, which resulted in the petitioner's transfer. The petitioner argued that his transfer was premature, in contravention of court decisions and government orders, and lacked proper reasons. The respondents contended that the transfer was in the public interest, administrative exigencies, had the Chief Minister's approval, and that the petitioner had completed his tenure. Respondent No. 3 had already taken charge as Finance Controller, KRRDA, on 19.01.2024.

Held

The Court held that transfers effected in public interest and for administrative reasons, with the approval of the Chief Minister, do not warrant interference in the absence of other compelling reasons. The petitioner's contention that his absence would affect project work was countered by the fact that he had completed his tenure, and the training mentioned was routine. The project completion deadline had also passed. The Court noted that the State Government has the prerogative to decide on transfers and postings. Upon reviewing the impugned order and the grounds raised, the Court found no infirmities, illegalities, or absurdities requiring intervention under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Furthermore, correspondence from the KRRDA and NRIDA indicated that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer order dated 26.07.2023, which displaced the petitioner from his position as Finance Controller, KRRDA, is valid, considering it bears the approval of the Chief Minister. 2. Whether the transfer order is in contravention of the decisions rendered by this Court in Rajashekar Vs. State of Karnataka (W.P.No.45916/2018), Allasaheb vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 2017 Kar 86), and Kanteppa vs. State of Karnataka (2020(4) KLJ 205). 3. Whether the transfer order was issued without recording reasons as per Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 07.06.2023 and constitutes a premature transfer before completion of the two-year tenure. Petitioner's arguments: The Tribunal erred in holding the transfer valid. The transfer is premature, in contravention of established precedents and government guidelines, and lacks recorded reasons. The petitioner's absence will affect project completion. Revenue/State's arguments: The petitioner completed his tenure and cannot continue. The transfer is in public interest and administrative exigencies, approved by the Chief Minister. The transfer has been implemented, and the National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency (NRIDA) has no objection to the joining of respondent No. 3, stating that transfer is the prerogative of the State Government.