End Practice Of Giving 'Plum' Postings For Money : Karnataka High Court Seeks Suo Moto Case Against State

A single bench of Justice R Devdas, in its order of March 15, said:

"Every now and then the citizens of this State are given to understand that 'plum' postings are assigned for monetary considerations. Such news and information are published in national newspapers, magazines, Television channels and social media. Allegations are levelled by the opposition leaders and social activists. Cutting across all political parties that have formed Government, allegations are levelled against Heads of the Departments, Ministers and the Chief Ministers."

It added "There cannot be two views that if an Officer shells out money to get a plum posting, he would employ every means possible to recover the money he has invested and makes every effort to make money for future needs and therefore, this forms the vicious circle of corruption. Time has come when this Court has to step in to find out the truth of the facts and direct the State to put in place regulations to check the tentacles of corruption from taking stranglehold of the society."

The bench then went on to say "Therefore, this Court would urge that Hon'ble the Chief Justice may take note of the observations of this Court and take up suo motu proceedings against the State Government to put an end to the pernicious practice of providing postings for monetary considerations and reasons other than public interest."

Accordingly, it directed the registry to forward the order to the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, for further action. A copy of this order shall also be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court.

The Court made these observations while taking note of the "high-handedness" of the Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner of Bengaluru South Taluk who acted contrary to law in a matter related to grant of land.

"Such officers are emboldened by the fact that they are protected by the Government", the Court observed.

The Court observed that such conduct might have happened as the postings to such importance may not have been made on merits but on extraneous reasons.