LI Network
Published on: December 05, 2023 at 13:10 IST
The Karnataka High Court has issued a directive to the State Government, urging them to formulate guidelines governing the transfer of lower cadre personnel to higher cadre positions within the administrative services.
Stressing the need for clarity, the court specified that these guidelines should delineate the circumstances under which such transfers are permissible and mandate the government to furnish explicit reasons for each such posting.
This directive comes in the wake of a legal challenge to the transfer of a Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS -senior scale) officer to the position of Additional Director-I in the Department of Food, Civil Supplies, and Consumer Affairs. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) had previously overturned the transfer order.
In response to a writ petition filed against the Tribunal’s decision, the bench, consisting of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K, noted that the officer in question could be rightfully posted to the aforementioned position if his cadre is upgraded to KAS (Selection grade).
The court emphasized the necessity of clear and specific guidelines, stating, “As these orders are very narrow and blanket as to why a person of a lower cadre is posted to an encadred post which can only be held by a person of higher cadre.
In present case, a person in either IAS cadre or KAS(Super time scale) cadre can only be posted as Additional Director-I.”
The petitioner, a KAS (senior scale) officer, had undergone multiple transfers, and the transfer to the post of Additional Director-I faced opposition from the Third Respondent.
The Tribunal had supported the Third Respondent’s challenge, asserting that the petitioner was not eligible for the post. Discontented with this decision, the petitioner appealed to the High Court through a writ petition.
The court, in its observations, noted that while the government temporarily upgraded the cadre of the Third Respondent to KAS (Selection grade) to fill the vacant post of Additional Director-I, this did not equate to a promotion to the KAS (Selection grade) cadre.
Additionally, the court highlighted that the post of Additional Director-I is designated for individuals in the cadre of IAS or KAS (Super time scale). As the Third Respondent held the position as a KAS (Senior Scale) officer initially, the court deemed this posting illegal. Consequently, the court ruled that the Third Respondent lacked the standing to challenge the petitioner’s posting to the same position.
The court clarified that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the government order, erroneously concluding that the Third Respondent’s cadre had been upgraded to KAS (Selection grade).
The court emphasized that the upgrade pertained only to the cadre of the Third Respondent, not the post itself. Rejecting the Third Respondent’s claim of perversity in the impugned order, the court emphasized that the post of Additional Director-I could only be held by someone in the cadre of I.A.S or KAS (Super time scale).
In summary, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order and emphasizing the need for clear guidelines and valid reasons for posting individuals of lower cadres to higher cadre positions.
