Karnataka High Court

Sri Mallikarjun Gouda G.N vs Managing Director on 20 February, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 20.01.2025
Pronounced on :20.02.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.104632 OF 2024 (S-TR)

BETWEEN:

SRI MALLIKARJUN GOUDA G.N ,
S/O G. NARAYANA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V)
OFFICE CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE DIVISION.
GESCOM BALLARI, R/O: D.NO. 522 D1,
BEHIND VASAVI SCHOOL, INFANTRY ROAD,
CANTONMENT, BALLARI - 583 104.
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
CORPORATION LTD,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad CAUVERY BHAWAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 002.

2. DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION AND
2

HUMAN RESOURCE),
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD,
CAUVERY BHAWAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 002.

3. SRI SRINIVAS PRASAD K.,
AGE: MAJOR, WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V)
H.T. RATING SUB-DIVISION,
GESCOM, RAICHUR,
DISTRICT - 5841 01.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI C.S.PATIL AND
SRI RAJASHEKHAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATES FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL
MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.KPTCL/DGMP/MES1/B58/50/2024,
DATED 30-07-2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2,
DOCUMENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER (SL.NO.6) IS CONCERN, TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 20.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

Official Memorandum dated 30-07-2024 issued by the 2nd

respondent, insofar as it pertains to transfer of the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rajashekar R.Gunjalli, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner joins the services of the Karnataka Power

Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as 'the

Corporation' for short) as an Assistant Engineer and was posted to

work at Moka Sub-Station, Ballari. At the relevant point in time, he

was working as Assistant Executive Engineer. On 03-07-2023, the

petitioner was transferred to the office of the Office Construction

and Maintenance Division, GESCOM, Ballari. On 12-06-2024, the

Corporation bifurcated GESCOM, Bellari by an Official Memorandum
4

creating a new O & M Sub-Division at Kampli. The post that the

petitioner was holding was transferred to Kampli, a newly formed

Sub-Division. Based upon the said bifurcation of O & M Division, the

petitioner was transferred by the impugned order and was directed

to report at Hagaribommanahalli. Contending that this is contrary to

the operating guidelines, the petitioner is before this Court in the

subject petition. A coordinate Bench of this Court, by its order

dated 05-08-2024, granted an interim order of stay of the

impugned Official Memorandum, which is in subsistence even

today.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

Sri V. Shivaraj Hiremath would contend that the petitioner was

transferred and posted to O & M Ballari Sub-Division. That is

bifurcated into two new Operation and Maintenance Sub-Divisions -

one goes to Hagaribommanahalli and the other goes to Kampli. The

petitioner was initially shifted to Kampli and was immediately

transferred to report for duties at Hagaribommanahalli. The

petitioner being a Group-B officer is entitled to stay at a transferred

place for a period of two years. This being a fresh order of transfer
5

which is on 03-07-2023 to Ballari, merely because it is division of a

sub-division, it would not give power to the Corporation to violate

the guidelines.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

Corporation Sri B.S. Kamate would vehemently refute the

submissions to contend that directing the petitioner to report for

duties cannot be termed to be a transfer. It was due to the

organizational restructuring the deployment has come about. The

petitioner was posted at Ballari, but the Ballari Sub-Division is

divided. Therefore, Ballari Sub-Division which was divided into two

- one at Kampli and the other at Hagaribommanahalli, the

petitioner was directed to resume charge at the said post by the

impugned order. Therefore, reporting at Hagaribommanahalli

becomes his first place of posting pursuant to bifurcation.

Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the Corporation.

6. The learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent

Sri Rajashekar R. Gunjalli would take this Court through the

statement of objections to contend that the petitioner is from

Ballari. It is his native place and has been in the said native place
6

for the last 20 years in one post or the other of GESCOM. He would

otherwise toe the lines of the learned counsel representing the

Corporation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join the issue

by taking this Court through the chart that he has drawn in the

averments to contend that the petitioner has no doubt worked for

majority of his career in Ballari, but has been to Raichur on two

occasions and he is in different offices in Ballari and has not worked

in the same place in 20 years.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

9. The transfer, is trite an incidence of service. The power of

transferring an employee by the employer on exigencies of

administration or otherwise is a power that is all times available,

but such power will have to be exercised in terms of the statute,

operative guidelines or circulars which govern and regulate transfer

of employees in the State Government or the Corporation as the
7

case would be. In the case at hand, it is the operative guidelines

that govern and regulate transfer of employees in the Corporation

and in ESCOMS. The operative guidelines are not independently

made by the Corporation but they are adopted mutatis mutandis as

and when the State Government would notify guidelines for its

employees. The guidelines dated 22-11-2001 was holding the field

which is now replaced by guidelines dated 07-06-2013. Two of the

guidelines in the guidelines dated 07-06-2013 assume significance.

They are Clause-8 and Clause-9 of the guidelines. They read as

follows:

".... .... .... ....

8. Mininum period of stay at a place:-

No Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred/
deputed if he has not completed his tenure of posting in a
place, as indicated below:-

No. Cadre Number
of years
1. 2. 3.
1. All Group - A posts 3 years
2. All Group - B posts
3. All Group - C posts 4 years
4. All Group - D posts 7 years

The minimum period of stay for a particular post may be
prescribed / revised from time to time by an order by the
Administrative Departments of the Secretariat, with the prior
approval of the Chief Minster, in respect of certain types of
8

sensitive cadres in the departments coming under their
administrative control, depending upon the nature of duties
assigned to the post.

9. Premature/delayed Transfer

a. Generally there should be no premature transfers.
The tenure of posting of a Government servant may
be extended or reduced by the Competent Authority
in the following cases after recording the reasons
for the same in writing. The minimum period of stay
at a place as prescribed in para 8 can be reduced
and the concerned Government servant transferred
prematurely if the competent authority feels that he
or she is not suitable for discharging the duties at
the present place and the reasons are recorded to
this effect in writing:-

(i) The employee due for transfer after completion
of tenure at a place or posting or post has less
than two years of service for retirement:

(ii) The employee possesses special technical
qualifications or experience for the particular job for
which a suitable replacement is not immediately
available:

(iii) The employees working on a project or Flagship
programmes of Government of India which are in the
crucial stage of implementation and his withdrawal
will seriously jeopardize timely completion of such
projects:

(iv) Where both the spouses are Government servants
and if one of the spouses is transferred. then the
other spouse may also be transferred to the same
place or nearby place depending upon the availability
of vacancy even if one of them has not completed
the minimum period of stay:

(v) Where a female Government servant is a widow /
spinster/unmarried divorcee, she may be transferred
9

and in case she is appointed for the first time, may
be posted to a place of her choice subject to
availability of vacancy:

(vi) Where a Government servant is an office-bearer of
the Karnataka State Government Employees
Association only, such Government servant shall not
be transferred until the completion of the term for
which he has been elected. In case no elections are
held within three months of the completion of the
said term, he may be transferred. In case he is
reelected, he may be continued in the same place
until the completion of the second term only.

(vii) Where a Government servant is physically
handicapped / challenged or disabled subject to
certification by the Medical Board:

(viii) Where a Government servant or his / her spouse or
children are suffering from serious or terminal
ailments, depending upon the availability of the
facility of medical treatment at the requested place
subject to certification by the Medical Board:

b. However, before effecting any premature
transfers and for making any transfer after the
transfer period, and also for extending the tenure
of a Government servant for the reasons stated
above, prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief
Minister must be obtained without fail by the
concerned Administrative Department of the
Secretariat. The Principal Secretaries /
Secretaries to Government should not under any
circumstances issue transfer orders and later
seek ratification/ post facto approval of the Chief
Minister."

Clause-8 of the guidelines indicates the period of stay after transfer

of an Officer of different groups. Groups- A and B would have a

minimum tenure of two years from the date of assumption of
10

charge in a place of posting. It can vary in terms of Clause-9 which

has several conditions of such variance one of which is reasons to

be recorded in writing. The guidelines of 22-11-2001 are held to

have a statutory force by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court

reported in CHANDRU H.N. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2011

(3) Kant LJ 562. The full Bench holds that the guidelines

regulating transfer of employees in the State have a statutory

force. The issue again arose before a Full Bench with regard to

whether shifting of one person from one place to another within the

same headquarters would amount to transfer or otherwise under

the guidelines. Another Full Bench in the case of S.N.

GANGADHARAIAH K.A.S., v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA1 has

held as follows:-

".... .... ....

20. In the result and for the foregoing, we
answer the question referred for consideration of the
Full Bench as under:

a) The Rules relating to transfer contained in the
KCSRs and the definition of the term 'transfer'
contained in Rule 8(49) of KCSR have no
application for regulating transfer of
Government servants as provided in the
Government Order dated 07.06.2013.

1
ILR 2015 Kar 1955
11

b) Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of K. Ramachandra v. State of
Karnatakarendered in W.P. No. 56164/2013
disposed of on 05.12.2013 does not lay down
correct law, nor does it consider the decision of
the Full Bench in the case of H.N.
Chandru v. State of Karnataka (supra) which was
not brought to the notice of the Division Bench.

c) Consequently, we hold that posting of a
Government servant from one office to another
within the same headquarters, to take up duties
of a new post would tantamount to transfer
within the meaning of Clause 3(d) of the
Government Order dated 07.06.2013.

The Registry is directed to place the papers of this
Writ Petition before the appropriate Division Bench for
passing further or final orders."

(Emphasis supplied)

In terms of the judgment of the Full Bench in GANGADHARAIAH's

case, even movement from one place to another within the same

headquarters would amount to transfer. This had held the field.

10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of

SHEKHRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 holds as follows:

"..... ..... ....

6. Having considered the contentions advanced on all
sides, we notice that it is an admitted case that respondent

2
W.P.No.4969 of 2024 decided on 20th June 2024
12

No.3 had been working in the same office continuously from
the past more than 15 years. No Government servant can
contend that he is immune from transfer, which is only an
incident of service. The transfer guidelines are intended to
prevent political interference or harassment in matters of
transfer and not to assure that any Government servant
continues in the same seat or office continuously. The
protection against premature transfer would be available in
cases where a transfer is effected in a malafide fashion or as
a measure of harassment or to the great inconvenience or
prejudice of the officer involved, without even waiting for the
normal tenure to be completed in the same office. However,
in the instant case, where the facts disclose that respondent
No.3 had been working in the same office for an inordinately
long time and since the transfer is admittedly only from one
circle to another i.e., without causing any inconvenience
whatsoever to respondent No.3, we are of the opinion that
the reasons stated by the Tribunal for having interfered with
the order of transfer that it was a premature transfer would
not be available in the instant case. The judgments relied on
by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rendered in
similar circumstances where cases of transfer to seats in the
same building or to nearby offices have been considered and
this Court has held that in cases where no inconvenience
whatsoever results, an order of transfer simpliciter need not
be set aside only on the technical ground on non compliance
with the guidelines.

7. We are inclined to accept the contention that
in a case of this nature, clause 9 of the transfer
guidelines dated 07.06.2013 would have no
application and that the Government servant has no
vested right to contend that he is entitled to work only
in a specified post in an office. We make it clear that
this judgment is being rendered in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case alone. The decisions
with regard to posting from one seat to another in the
same office also being treated as premature transfer
are applicable in cases where the incumbent is
transferred out as a measure of harassment or to
being in a person of choice to the seat in question. It is
not in every case of such premature transfer that the
decision would be applicable.
13

8. In the instant case, in the absence of any pleading
or material as to malafide intentions, harassment or even
inconveniences, we are not inclined to exercise the
jurisdiction."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Division Bench did not interfere with the order of the Karnataka

State Administrative Tribunal which had rejected the claim of an

employee holding that the Government servant has no vested right

to contend that he is entitled to work only in a specified post in an

office. There the employee had worked for 15 years in the same

office. The very same Bench in another judgment in S.SURESH v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA3 holds as follows:

".... .... ....

7. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent would contend that the petitioner also was a
person, who has been working in Bengaluru itself. It is
further contended that mere approval of the Chief Minister is
not sufficient for making a premature transfer, but reasons
for such transfer have to be specifically recorded which was
absolute in the present case. It is submitted that since the
order of transfer was one passed without any reason
whatsoever, the finding of the Tribunal was well justified.

8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that what was under challenge before the Tribunal
was an order of transfer of the fourth respondent from Circle
No.15 to Circle No.29 within the same office in the place of
the writ petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that the fourth

3
W.P.No.17591 of 2024 decided on 26th July 2024
14

respondent had been continuing in Bengaluru itself since
2011. There were no allegations of malafide or harassment
involved in the transfer.

9. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion
that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the
order of transfer on the ground that it was a premature
transfer and that the administrative reasons for such transfer
were not specifically mentioned.

10. In the special facts and circumstances of the
instant case, where officers were moved from one post to
another within the same office with the prior permission of
the Chief Minister, we are of the opinion that non-stating of
specific administrative reason cannot be held to vitiate the
order of transfer. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is
not a fit case, where the Tribunal should have quashed the
order on the ground of violations of the guidelines relating to
transfer."

The Division Bench again holds that merely because the Chief

Minister has only signed and has not rendered specific

administrative reason, it would not vitiate the order. The prayer of

the employee is again declined.

11. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders, the issue of transfer

again crops up before another Division Bench of this Court in K.S.

SUDHAKARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4. The issue before the

Division Bench was whether deployment from one office to another

4
W.A.No.1146 of 2024 decided on 3rd September, 2024.
15

in the same headquarters would amount to transfer or otherwise.

The Division Bench holds that even deployment from one office to

another within the same headquarters in the urban area is also

governed by the transfer guidelines. There the transfer was from

head office in the post of Environmental Officer to the Regional

Office at Sarjapura. This was defended by submitting that it was

deployment and not transfer. Therefore, the Division Bench

answering all the contentions has held as follows;

"Analysis
11. The transfer of government servant is regulated
through the guidelines framed by the State Government.
Earlier, the transfer was guided by a Government Order
dated 22.11.2001. The guidelines were framed for the
transfer of government servants as per the
recommendations of the Karnataka Administrative Reforms
Commission.

12. In order to provide minimum tenure of posting and to
bring in more transparency and accountability, 2001 Transfer
Guidelines were revised. In supersession of 2001 Transfer
Guidelines, the revised guidelines were issued in a
Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The preamble to
Government Order dated 07.06.2013 reads as under,

" It is now found expedient to regulate the transfer
of Government servants ensure their continuance in a
post for a reasonable period so that they get real
exposure the activities of the department and deliver
the results/ outcomes as envisaged. Further, as per
the recommendation of the Karnataka Administrative
Reforms Commission. It is aimed to bring in more
transparency, accountability in administration. More
over, for uniform distribution of Personnel throughout
16

the State for effective functioning of the Government,
it is felt necessary to issue fresh general orders
regulating the transfer of Government servants."

13. The State Government revised guidelines under
Government Order dated 25.06.2024 in supersession of
Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The Transfer
Guidelines 2024 regulates the transfer of government
servants from 2024 to 2025. The guidelines deal with
'Transfer' and 'Deployment'.

14. The relevant Clauses are is extracted for immediate
perusal,

"2. Explanation:- In this order, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(1) .......

(2) " Transfer" means posting of a Government
servant from a post to take up duties of another
post from one headquarters to another
headquarters or in a case where the office of a
department /field department/
commissionarate/directorate, other office in an
existing headquarters is changed and the office
shifted to another headquarters.

(3) "Deployment" means posting of a Government
servant from one office to another office within
the same headquarters in an urban area.

Explanation: The cases of deployment shall not be
considered as those of transfer. This also includes
deployment of Government servants belonging to the
Karnataka Government Secretariat Service from one
department of the Secretariat to another department.

3. Process of transfers: Transfers/ deployment shall be
made by the competent authority subject to the conditions
stipulated in this order, mainly, in the interest of public
service in a transparent manner.

6. Minimum period of stay at a place:-
17

(1) No Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred /
deployed if he has not completed period of service at a place
as stipulated below:-

Sl. No. Cadre Period of
service (In
years)
(1) (2) (3)
1. All Group - A Posts 2 years
2. All Group - B Posts 2 years
3. All Group - C Posts 4 years
4. All Group - D Posts 7 years

The administrative departments of the Secretariat may, in
respect of a post in the departments under them, issue
orders revising / prescribing, from time to time, with the
prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the minimum
period for which a Government servant may render service in
such a post.

(2) The Government servants, who have been appointed
against various vacant posts in the local cadres and
residuary cadres in the offices located in Hyderabad-
Karnataka region shall not be transferred outside the
Hyderabad-Karnataka region for a period of ten years from
the date of their appointment.

7. Premature / Delayed Transfers:

(1) The Minimum period of service which a Government
servants may render at a place may be extended or reduced
in the following circumstances:-

(a) A Government servant, who has completed the
maximum period of stay at a place and due for
transfer, has less than two years of service for
retirement.

(b) A Government servant possesses special technical
qualification or experience and no suitable
18

Government servant is immediately available for
being appointed to such a specific post to replace
him.

(c) Where an employee is working in a Central
Government Project or a flagship project, the
implementation of which is at an important stage
and withdrawal of his services is likely to seriously
stall timely completion of that project.
(d) Where both the spouses are Government servants
and if one of the spouses is transferred, then the
other spouse may also be transferred to the same
place or nearby place, subject to availability of
vacancy, even if one of them has not completed
the minimum period of stay.

(e) If a Government servant is an office-bearer of the
Karnataka State Government Employees
Association, he shall not be transferred until the
completion of his term as that office-bearer.

(f) If a Government servant or his / her spouse or
children are suffering from serious or terminal
ailments and the facility of medical treatment is
available at a place and he produces a certificate in
that regard issued by the Medical Board."

15. The Transfer Guidelines 2024 deal with
'Transfer' and 'Deployment'. The narrow dispute is
whether the Transfer Guidelines 2024 apply in case of
"deployment". It is made clear that the analysis of the
Transfer Guidelines 2024 in this order is only in
relation to deployment.

16. According to learned Advocate for the appellant,
the explanation to "Deployment" in English version is
not true translation of Kannada version. According to
the learned Advocate, true translation in the officially
translated guidelines and as per the learned advocate
is as follows,
19

As per Government Order As per learned
advocate for the
appellant
Explanation: The cases of Explanation: The
deployment shall not be cases of deployment
considered as those of shall not be
transfer. This also considered as those
includes deployment of of transfer. These
Government servants Transfer Guidelines
belonging to the will not be applicable
Karnataka Government in cases of
Secretariat Service from deployment.
one department of the
Secretariat to another
department.

17. The comprehensive reading of Transfer
Guidelines 2024, it regulates the transfer of
government servants even as "deployment". It is
difficult to accept that Transfer Guidelines 2024 ought
not applicable to deployment. It is trite law that the
Explanation cannot be used as a interpretation tool to
understand the scope and ambit of the substantive
law. If the Explanation is to be given preference to
interpret the Transfer Guidelines 2024, it would act as
an exception to the substantive law, which is not the
scope of Explanation. The Explanation in no way
explains the substantive law, however runs contrary to
the substantive law.

18. Clause 6 of the guidelines provides for a minimum
tenure of posting to a government servant at a place. The
minimum period of tenure varies to different group of
officers. This Court is concerned with Group-B Officers. The
minimum period of tenure at a place for Group-B Officers is
two years.

19. Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 enables
premature/delayed transfers. In other words, Clause 7 would
be an exception to Clause 6. Clause 7 empowers the
government to extend or reduce the period of posting at a
20

place to the government servant, however, in the
circumstances provided therein.

20. Respondent No.3 was transferred to the Regional
Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, as Environmental Officer
under Office Memorandum dated 06.03.2023. As per
Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, respondent
No.3 has the protection of a minimum posting period
at a place for two years. There is no dispute that the
appellant and respondent No.3 are Group-B Officers.
It is not in dispute that no reasons have been recorded
for premature transfer of respondent No.3.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have neither placed any
material nor contend that the premature transfer of
respondent No.3 is in the circumstances contemplated
under Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. It is
the categorical statement of the learned advocate
appearing for respondent No.2 that no reasons are
being recorded.

21. The learned advocate for the appellant would
submit that posting a government servant from one
office to another within the same headquarters in an
urban area is not a transfer and is deployment. He
submits that as per the explanation in Kannada
version, the Transfer Guidelines 2024 are made
inapplicable to deployment. The transfer guidelines
are not applicable in the present case. The submission
of learned advocate for the appellant is appealable at
the first blush. However, it is difficult to accept the
contentions on examination of the Transfer Guidelines
2024 to the fullest extent.

22. The Transfer Guidelines 2024 provides a
minimum period of tenure at a place to a government
servant in case of transfer or deployment. The Office
Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 refers to transfer of
officers. The impugned office memorandum posting
respondent No.3 from Regional Office to Head Office
states "ordered to be transferred", "Details of
Posting". The contention regarding the case of
"Deployment" is untraceable.
21

23. As per Clause 3 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, the
transfer process, including the deployment, is mandated
subject to conditions stipulated in the Transfer Guidelines
2024 and on consideration of the interest of public servants
and in a transparent manner. Clause 3 mandates the
applicability of transfer conditions in the case of deployment.

24. Even if the contention of the appellant that it is the
case of deployment is tested having regard to the guidelines,
as per Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, respondent
No.3 is entitled to a minimum tenure posting at a place for
two years. Respondent No.3 was transferred as
Environmental Officer to the Regional Office, Sarjapura,
Bengaluru, by Office Memorandum dated 06.03.2023.
Further transfer under Office Memorandum dated
15.07.2024 would abbreviate the minimum posting period of
two years and is nothing but premature transfer in violation
of Transfer Guidelines 2024.

25. Clause 7 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 enables
premature/delayed transfers. Clause 7 is an exception to
Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. However, Clause 7
enables the government to extend or reduce the posting
period to a government servant at a place subject to the
circumstances stated therein. On a conjoint reading of
Clauses 6 and 7, it is clear that the government servant is
protected with a minimum period of tenure at a place, and
the same can be reduced only under the circumstances
provided under Clause 7.

26. Another aspect needs to be noticed and relevant is,
the similar situation was provided in the Government Order
dated 07.06.2013. Clause 3(d) of the Government Order
dated 07.06.2013 defines 'Transfer' and follows a Note to the
definition of Transfer. The same reads as,

"(d) 'Transfer' means the posting of a Government
servant from one headquarters to another
headquarters or from one office to another within the
same headquarters to take up duties of a new post or
in consequence of a change of headquarters;
22

Note:- Movement of a Government servant within the
same office/ unit from one post to another one or
desk/ compilation to another one under the same head
office shall not be treated as transfer."

27. The Note to definition of Transfer states that
movement of government servant within the same
office/unit from one post to another one, or desk/
compilation to another one under the same head office
shall not to be treated as transfer. The scope of 'Note'
falls for consideration before this Court. Full Bench of
this Court, in the case of S.N. Gangadharaiah (supra),
held that posting of a government servant from one
office to another within the same headquarters to take
up the duties of a new post would tantamount to
transfer.

28. The contention of the learned advocate
appearing for the appellant that unless the transfer is
in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot
interfere with the transfer and violation of transfer
guidelines, which are administrative instructions/
guidelines, will not enable invoking writ jurisdiction, is
not acceptable. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of S.L. Abbas (supra), the Court can
interfere in a transfer order when made in violation of
statutory provisions. The Full Bench of this Court in
the case of H.N. Chandru (supra), while dealing with
2001 Transfer Guidelines and the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of S.N. Gangadharaiah (supra)
dealing with 2013 Transfer Guidelines held that the
transfer guidelines a statutory force as it is issued to
supplement the Karnataka Civil Services Rules
(KCSRs) as regards the matter that is not provided
under KCSRs.

29. In view of the decisions of the Full Bench, the Court
can interfere with the transfer order of a government servant
if found in violation of the guidelines governing such transfer.
However, the interference in the transfer can only be on a
case-to-case basis based on the facts.
23

30. The judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra)
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is based on peculiar
facts. No principles of law have been laid down with
reference to the transfer guidelines, especially in the light of
the law laid down by the two Full Bench judgments of this
Court.

31. The judgment in the case of Smt. H.S. Veena (supra)
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court was in the
peculiar facts involved therein. Similarly, the judgment in the
case of S.Suresh (supra). Both judgments do not apply to
the facts of the case.

32. The object of framing the transfer guidelines is
extracted in the previous paragraphs from Transfer
Guidelines 2013 in Government Order dated 07.06.2013. In
the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and others vs. Union of
India and others reported in (2013) 15 SCC 732, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated the necessity of
minimum tenure of posting to a government servant. The
same is as under,

"35. We notice, at present the civil servants are
not having stability of tenure, particularly in the State
Governments where transfers and postings are made
frequently, at the whims and fancies of the executive
head for political and other considerations and not in
public interest. The necessity of minimum tenure has
been endorsed and implemented by the Union
Government. In fact, we notice, almost 13 States have
accepted the necessity of a minimum tenure for civil
servants. Fixed minimum tenure would not only enable
the civil servants to achieve their professional targets,
but also help them to function as effective instruments
of public policy. Repeated shuffling/transfer of the
officers is deleterious to good governance. Minimum
assured service tenure ensures efficient service
delivery and also increased efficiency. They can also
prioritise various social and economic measures
intended to implement for the poor and marginalised
sections of the society."
24

33. The necessity of minimum tenure to a government
servant if tested in the light of preamble to 2013 Transfer
Guidelines and principle held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of T.S.R. Subramanian (supra) in the facts of the
present case, the transfer of respondent No.3 is premature
and in violation of Transfer Guidelines 2024. The transfer of
respondent No.3 by way of deployment would abbreviate the
minimum tenure of respondent No.3 as protected under
Clause 6 of the Transfer Guidelines 2024. Even if the case of
the appellant is considered as deployment, the movement of
respondent No.3 from the Regional Office, Sarjapura,
Bengaluru, to Head Office, Bengaluru, would run counter to
the principle held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of T.S.R. Subramanian and the object of Transfer
Guidelines.

34. In view of above discussion there is no gainsaying,
and it has to be concluded that the transfer guidelines which
are statutory in nature, apply both whether the shifting of
the employee is termed as transfer or deployment. In the
instant case, there has been violation of minimum period
prescription. The view held and the conclusion arrived at by
the learned Single Judge deserves to be affirmed.

35. Learned Single Judge has held that as per Clause 3,
the deployment shall be made by the competent authority
subject to the conditions in the order (Transfer Policy 2024)
on satisfying two tests i.e., (a) that it must be mainly in the
interest of public service and (b) that it must be in a
transparent manner.

36. Learned Single Judge has held that respondent Nos.1
and 2 were unable to justify the decision to replace the
petitioner in the Regional Office in the interest of public
service or transparency. Learned Single Judge has rightly
held that the transfer of respondent No.3 is in violation of
the Transfer Guidelines 2024 and quashed the transfer order
dated 15.07.2024 insofar as respondent No.3 thereby
continuing respondent No.3, as Environmental Officer at
Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru.

37. In light of the above discussion, consideration of the
Transfer Guidelines 2024, and applying judgments relied on
25

by the respective learned advocates for the parties, the
following,

Conclusion:

(i) The posting of a government servant from
one office to another office within the same
headquarters in an urban area is governed by
Transfer Guidelines 2024 in Government
Order No.DPAR 33 STR 2024, Bengaluru,
dated 25.06.2024.

(ii) The government servant is protected with
minimum tenure of posting under Clause 6 of
Government Order dated 25.06.2024 in case
of deployment.

(iii) The Explanation to definition "Deployment"
would not override the substantive procedure
mandated under Transfer Guidelines 2024.

(iv) The reduction of minimum tenure posting of
government servant shall be in the
circumstances under Clause 7 of the
Government Order dated 25.06.2024.

(v) The posting of respondent No.3 from Regional
Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru to Head Office,
Bengaluru is against minimum tenure of
posting. Hence, premature.

(vi) This Court cannot find any error in the order
of leaned Single Judge which warrants
interference."

(Emphasis supplied)

The entire spectrum of law is analysed by the Division Bench.
26

12. The issue now would be, two of the Division Benches

would hold that an employee who work in the same office for a

longer time cannot project himself to be immune from transfer. In

another case the Division Bench earlier holds that non-stating of

reasons by the Chief Minister would not vitiate the transfer. The

subsequent order passed by the Division Bench in its conclusion

holds that movement from one office to another in the same

headquarters would also amount to transfer. The judgments

rendered in the cases of SHEKHRAPPA and SURESH would not

become applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of

SHEKHRAPPA, the employee therein was working in the same

office for 15 years and in the case of SURESH it was whether the

Chief Minister should render reasons while signing the orders of

transfer. Therefore, the facts obtaining in the case at hand are

different from what the Division Bench in both the aforesaid orders

notice. What is applicable is the judgment rendered by the Division

Bench in the case of K.S. SUDHAKARA, which considers this very

issue as to whether transfer from one office to another in the same

headquarters would amount to transfer or otherwise.
27

13. The trail would go this way. The first Full Bench in the

case of H.N. CHANDRU holds that guidelines have a statutory

force. Therefore, the guidelines will always have a flavour of

statute. The second Full Bench in the case of

S.N. GANGADHARAIAH holds that movement from one place to

another is also a transfer. The dictum of subsequent Full Bench

holds the field. The Division Bench in the case of

K.S. SUDHAKARA follows the Full Bench in the case of

S.N. GANGADHARAIAH supra. An ancillary issue was projected

before the Division Bench in the case of K.S. SUDHAKARA. This

was on the score that Government has changed the norm slightly

and has used the word deployment in the order issued on 25-06-

2024. This is adopted by the Corporation on 01-07-2024. The

order adopting Government's amendment by the Corporation reads

as follows:

"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåvï ¥Àæ¸Àgt
À ¤UÀªÄÀ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ

¤UÀªÀÄzÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¤ ¸ÀASÉå (¹.L.J£ï): AiÀÄÄ40109PÉJ1999J¸ïf¹025521
PÀA¥À¤ C¢üPÀÈvÀ PÀbÉÃj: ¤UÀªÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ, PÁªÉÃj ¨sÀªÀ£À, PÉ.f gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 560 009.

N¢zÉ: 1. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE22¸ÉÃ£ËªÀ 2013 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.06.2013
2. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE33¸ÉÃ£ËªÀ 2024 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.06.2024

¦ÃpPÉ: DqÀ½vÀzÀ°è£À £ÀÆvÀ£À ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀUÁðªÀuÁ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß
ªÁå¥ÀPÀªÁV ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÁªÀ¯ÉÆÃPÀ£É ªÀiÁr, ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.06.2013gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è
28

ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÁ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹, ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ DzÉÃ±À
¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.06.2024 gÀ°è ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÁ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 2024-25 £ÉÃ
¸Á°¤AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß
¤UÀªÀÄzÀ°è C¼ÀªÀr¸À®Ä F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ DzÉÃ±À.

¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ
À gÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.07.2024

2024-25£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è C¢üPÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå ¹D¸ÀÄE 33 ¸ÉÃ£ËªÀ 2024 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.06.2024 gÀ°è
ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀªÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÁ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄªÀÅ C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆArzÉ.

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆ¢UÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼ÄÀ
PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F DzÉÃ±ÀzÉÆA¢UÉ
®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.
¸À»/-
¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁ.¸ÀA),
PÀ.«.¥Àæ.¤.¤."

Therefore, whether it is transfer or deployment, the guidelines of

07-06-2013 which are adopted by the Corporation would

undoubtedly become applicable and applicability will have to be

decided qua the facts obtaining in the case at hand.

14. The petitioner is working in different regions of Ballari

Taluk of GESCOM's office for the last 20 years barring a few years

in Raichur. He was posted on 10-07-2023 to Ballari O & M. He

assumes charge on the same day. On 08-02-2024 GESCOM creates

the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, O & M Division at Kampli.

Pursuant to the notification comes another order on 12-06-2024
29

implementing the said creation. On 30-07-2024 comes the

impugned Official memorandum. The Official memorandum insofar

as it concerns the parties to the lis reads as follows:

".... .... ....

2024-25 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃR - 1 gÀ
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À C£ÀéAiÀÄ PÉ¼ÀUÉ w½¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï(«)
gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉ¸Àj£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁzÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

PÀæ. C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ µÀgÁ
¸ÀA. ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÜ¼À/PÀbÉÃj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ PÀbÉÃj
.... ..... .....
4. PÉ.ºÀjPÀÈµÀÚ 110 PÉ« «zÀÄåvï G¥À J¯ï.n.gÉÃnAUï £ÀUÀgÀ ²æÃ gÁeÉÃAzÀæ
16604 PÉÃAzÀæ nJ¯ï & J¸ï G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, ¥Àæ¸Ázï gÀªÀgÀ
J¸ï «¨sÁUÀ, PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤ UÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA, eÁUÀPÉÌ
AiÀiÁzÀVj §¼Áîj
5. ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ï ºÉZï.n.gÉÃnAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄ Û ²æÃ ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£ï
¥Áæ¸Ázï PÉ. UÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA, ¥Á®£Á G¥À UËqÀ f J£ï
14549 gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ, UÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA, gÀªÀgÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ
PÀA¦è
6. ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£ï PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£Á J¯ï.n.gÉÃnAUï ²æÃ.KPÁAvÀ
UËqÀ f. J£ï, G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, UÀÄ«¸ÀPÀA, G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, gÀªÀgÀ eÁUÀQÌ"
¦£ï:14261 PÀA¦è ¨É¸ÁÌA,
ºÀUÀj¨ÉÆªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î

The 3rd respondent is posted to the place of the petitioner at Kampli

and the petitioner is posted to Hagaribomannahalli. The defence of

the Corporation is that it is the result of a bifurcation or creation of

two O & M Sub-Divisions. The petitioner was working at Ballari. It is

divided into two - one at Kampli and the other at

Hagaribomannahalli. The petitioner was initially posted to Ballari
30

and the post was also transferred to Kampli. The petitioner

assumes charge at Ballari on 10-07-2023. In terms of the operative

guidelines, he is entitled to continue in the said post for a period of

two years. It would have been a circumstance altogether different if

the post was not shifted to Kampli. The post is shifted along with

the petitioner, after which the petitioner could not have been