<p>The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Karnataka High Court's order which quashed transfer of S Nissar Ahammed as Regional Joint Director of land records of Belagavi.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari issued notice to the state government on a plea by Karnataka Administrative Service officer Ahammed against the HC's order which restricted his posting to Belagavi for five years apparently irked over recommendation of his posting made by then Minister Ramesh Jarkiholi.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Basava Prabhu Patil and advocate Chinmay Deshpande, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the High Court by its judgement on February 22, failed to adhere to the apex court's previous judgement wherein it had been clearly stated that the courts cannot impose its own decision in matters of transfer of government employees.</p>.<p>They claimed the petitioner's posting on promotion made on September 16, 2020 was in accordance with the transfer guidelines of June 7, 2013.</p>.<p>The counsel also contended that the High Court erred in treating the letter by then Water Resource Minister and then district incharge made in the interest of general public and administration, as colourable exercise of power.</p>.<p>The petition also claimed the High Court failed to see that the petitioner though promoted on August 24, 2020 as Joint Director was left without posting for 23 days.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Karnataka High Court's order which quashed transfer of S Nissar Ahammed as Regional Joint Director of land records of Belagavi.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari issued notice to the state government on a plea by Karnataka Administrative Service officer Ahammed against the HC's order which restricted his posting to Belagavi for five years apparently irked over recommendation of his posting made by then Minister Ramesh Jarkiholi.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Basava Prabhu Patil and advocate Chinmay Deshpande, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the High Court by its judgement on February 22, failed to adhere to the apex court's previous judgement wherein it had been clearly stated that the courts cannot impose its own decision in matters of transfer of government employees.</p>.<p>They claimed the petitioner's posting on promotion made on September 16, 2020 was in accordance with the transfer guidelines of June 7, 2013.</p>.<p>The counsel also contended that the High Court erred in treating the letter by then Water Resource Minister and then district incharge made in the interest of general public and administration, as colourable exercise of power.</p>.<p>The petition also claimed the High Court failed to see that the petitioner though promoted on August 24, 2020 as Joint Director was left without posting for 23 days.</p>
