/ F IN TI-fE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 3rd day of April, 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R V RAVEENDRAN Between: 1. H R Venkataramayya 5/0 Rangappa Age 53 years r/o 11/94, Model House Street Basava ngudi Bangalore—4 2. T S Shivananda sb Late Shivarudrappa age 43 years r/o No 16, New Byatarayanapura Near Mysore Road Bangalo’re—26 3. H S Venugopal sb Late N V Sharnanna Age 48 years r/o No 2259, LIG III Stage, Yelahanka New Town Bangalore64 4. Kempegowda sb Late Panchalingegowda Age 46 years r/o No 3702, 7th Cross ‘B’ Block Gayathr I nagar Bangalore 21 p S A N Pralcash 5/0 Mahadevegowda r/o Anekal, Behind KEB Office, Bangalore dist 6 A Rajanna Sb Atmaramayya age 44 years r/o 246, ‘Pragati Nilaya’, Amarjyothi Road, Vi naya kanagar Bangalore-36 ... PETITIONERS (By Sri B S Hadimani, Adv] And: 1. The Managing Director KSRTC, Central Offices K H Road, Bangalore-27 2 The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Central Offices K H Road, 8angalore27 RESPONDENTS Writ Petition is filed praying to quash Annexure ‘B’ dated 133—1998 passed respondent No 2 in so far as the petitioners are concerned. This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:- The petitioners claim that they were appointed as conductors in KSRTC, For several years, they are working in the reservation counter for booking tickets. According to petitioners, it is decades since they have been on line duty as conductor. In fact, the petitioners claim that they have also been given training in computer operation for the purpose of booking tickets. 2.. When matters stood thus, suddenly, the second respondent has issued the impugned order 13’3—l998 (Annexure ‘B’] transferring them to work in several depots as on line conductors. The petitioners are aggrieved, According to them, they have been working in booking counters for more than twenty years and are virtually at the fag end of their services and they should not be posted to work as conductors on line. Hence, they have filed these petitions and sought quashing of Annexure 3. The fact that the petitioners are appointed as conductors and are/cadred a.Lconductors is not in dispute, The challenge is to the order of transfer assigning them their normal duties as conductor,ç. It may be true that they have been working not as conductors, but as reservation counter clerks for several years would be more appropriate to continue them accordingly, —4 - particularly if they had got computer training. But this is a matter which will have to be considered by the employer and is not a matter where the courts will interfere. It is open to the petitioners to give a representation bringing to the notice of the second respondent the relevant facts as set out in the petition with a request to continue them in their present post If and when such representation is given I am sure the same will be considered sympathetically in the factual backgrounds No ground is made out to interfere with Annexure ‘B’. The petitions are accordingly rejected.