Officer on deputation cannot claim right to post when another one is available: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a petition by P Dinesh, a Grade 1 tahsildar, challenging his repatriation to his home department of Religious and Charitable Endowments from the Revenue department after having served over two years as tahsildar of Anekal taluk and Bengaluru South taluk.

Dinesh had challenged his repatriation on several grounds, but the High Court said that he had approached the HC only when the posting was not favourable to him.

He had been transferred from Anekal to Bengaluru South Taluk in contravention of Rules, but he had not challenged it. But when he was sent back to his home department, he challenged it.

“It appears, petitioner did not like his repatriation to his home department, and therefore, he did challenge the same. Petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. When the transfers or deputation orders were in his favour or he got favourable places, he did not challenge it, though the said transfers/deputation were in-contravention of the provision of transfer orders dated 10.06.2013,” the division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Umesh M Adiga said in their judgement.

Dinesh had first approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) and when his application was rejected, he approached the HC.

Dinesh had served as tahsildar of Anekal for 1.5 years and tahsildar of Bengaluru South for eight months. He claimed that he could not have been repatriated as he had not served the minimum of two years.

The HC however said that since he was on deputation, the combined service in two places had to be considered.

Moreover pointing to Rule 6(B) regarding maximum period of deputation, the HC said, “The above said Rule clearly indicates that a person who was transferred or posted on deputation, cannot claim any right to hold that post to a particular period; if an officer is available in the concerned department, such offices shall be posted to such places/posts.”

An officer of the Revenue department, Srinivas H, was appointed as the new tahsildar in place of Dinesh. Dinesh claimed that he was a Grade 1 tahsildar while Srinivas was a Grade 2 tahsildar and a junior officer cannot replace him.

The HC however said that “the petitioner was serving in the Revenue Department on deputation. He has no right to continue in the said cadre, according to his whims and fancies. It is the desire of the Government; moreover, he cannot question the competence of Respondent No 2 to hold the post of tahsildar (Grade-I).”