Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 11455/2020 decided on 1 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350672/1/WP11455-20-01-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: The petitioner was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), on 6:12:2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7:10:2020 passed by the respondent-State Government, whereby respondent No.4 was appointed as Director of KPTCL and the petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of Power Company of Karnataka Limited. Subsequently, the State Government issued one more notification dated 16.10.2020 appointing the petitioner as Managing Director, Mysore Electrical Industries Limited which he accepted.
8. &10 In the opinion of this Court, the subsequent development in the respondent State Government appointing the petitioner as Director of PCKL by order dated 07.10.2020 and thereafter one more notification dated 16.10.2020 issued by the State Government appointing the petitioner as Managing Director, MEI Ltd., consequent to which the petitioner taking charge as Managing Director of MEI Ltd., on 16.10.2020, without demure, assumes significance. Normally, when transfer orders are challenged before a court of law or tribunal and during the pendency of such proceedings if another order of transfer is passed and the transferee assumes charge by virtue of the subsequent order of transfer, without protest and without raising a challenge to the subsequent orders, the pending proceedings are disposed of as having become infructuous. The obvious reason behind the disposal of the proceedings as having become infructuous is that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding to consider the validity of the previous order of transfer, unless the subsequent order of transfer is also questioned by amending the memorandum of petition, raising grounds of challenge and seeking a specific prayer to set aside the subsequent order of transfer is made, a decision on the previous order of transfer would be rendered useless. It is not a matter of right that by quashing the previous order of transfer that all subsequent orders would axiomatically fall to the ground.…..Therefore, even if this Court were to quash the impugned order, it would not be sufficient to put the petition back in place as Director, KPTCL. The two orders are independent orders issued by the State Government invoking the doctrine of pleasure.
Observations: 12. Before parting with this writ petition, this Court deems it necessary to remind the State Government and the top Executives that appointments and transfers are required to be made in “public interest”. Public interest means the interest of the State and the citizens. If the same is followed in letter and spirit, the powers that be would not have to face inconvenient questions and such actions would considerably reduce unwanted litigations. It is sad that though this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court have time and again reminded the powers that be of their constitutional obligation to act in accordance with law, both in letter and spirit, orders of appointment and transfers are made with utter disregard to the reminders and have become source of genuinely avoidable litigations. It would be apt to quote the prophetic words of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, “However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constitution may be, if those implementing it are good, it will prove to be good.”
Writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 