Aishwarya Rathore-
The Karnataka High Court ordered the state government to take immediate steps to establish the Civil Services Board (CSB), citing that the Supreme Court’s directions on the formation of the CSB to make recommendations for the transfer of IAS officers were made to “vanish into thin air” by the state through an executive order to keep it in abeyance for an indefinite period, which is contrary to law.
The Court upheld the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and ordered the state government to reconsider its decision to transfer IAS officer B Sharath from the position of Deputy Commissioner in Mysuru and issue a new order without being affected by its previous decision. After being transferred from his assignment, IAS official Rohini Sindhuri was assigned to the position of DC.
The division bench stated, “We hope and trust that the state government will take immediate steps to constitute the CSB at the earliest so as to give effect of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. However, we make it clear that the constitution of CSB should be made expeditiously, at any rate, within an outer limit of two months”.
Sharath stated that his transfer violated the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which stipulate a two-year minimum term for a DC, and that any transfer made before that time must be recommended by the CSB after following the procedure.
The CAT ruled that holding CSB in abeyance was illegal and unconstitutional, and ordered the competent authority head of the state’s executive authority to reassess the transfer order, take CSB’s recommendations, and follow procedure.
The administration appealed this decision to the High Court. Sharath, on the other hand, appealed the tribunal’s decision to uphold his transfer order. While dismissing both petitions, the Court did not accept the state government’s arguments on the CAT’s position on the CSB’s constitution.
The Court stated, “The applicant’s behaviour indicates that if he had been retained at the same position, he would not have been able to perform his obligations due to health issues, as he claimed.”
As a result, the applicant’s claim that the transfer order should have been quashed cannot be accepted, and the reason assigned by the tribunal in that regard deserves to be upheld,
The Court also added that he went on seeking leaves on one ground or the other till April 1, 2021, and during this period, he was prosecuting his claim before the tribunal, instead of reporting to the new posting.
Also Read: Karnataka HC temporarily restrains any proceeds in making of ‘Wild Karnataka’ Documentary