Sri H B Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 540 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri H B Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2026

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

                     PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
                        AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND


       WRIT PETITION NO.36289/2025 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

SRI. H.B. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE H.S. BORE GOWDA
AGED 46 YEARS
REVENUE INSPECTOR
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MOODABIDRI TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 227.
                                     ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADV.)


AND:

  1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU- 560 001
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

  2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     DISTRICT MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE
     PRAJA SOUDHA, DK DISTRICT
                          2



     ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX
     1ST FLOOR, PADIL
     MANGALURU-575007.

  3.SRI RAVI PRASAD S MALLYA
     S/O LATE M SATHISH MALLYA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     FOOD INSPECTOR, FOOR DEPARTMENT
     MOODBIDRI TALUK
     DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 227.
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 MS. ADLENE STEPHANIE MENDES, ADV. FOR C/R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 IN APPLICATION NO.2698/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A; B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED TRANSFER ORDER DATED 04/06/2025 BEARING NO.EST(1)/CR-75/2025/E-849670 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE- A2 AND C) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF'S.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 19.01.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND

CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order

dated 13.11.2025 in Application No.2698/2025 passed

by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench at Bengaluru (for short, 'the

Tribunal'), rejecting his prayer to quash the O.M.,

dated 14.06.2025 transferring him from Moodabidri to

Mulki and posting third respondent in his place.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Rakshith Kumar

for petitioner, learned Additional Government

Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.1

and 2 and learned counsel Ms.Adlene Stephante

Mendes for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ

petition papers.

3. The petitioner, Revenue Inspector

belonging to Revenue Department was posted to work

as Revenue Inspector, Moodabidri Hobli, Moodabidri

Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District under O.M., dated

29.06.2022 of the first respondent. Under

Annexure-A2, O.M., dated 14.06.2025, the petitioner

was transferred from Moodabidri to Mulki as Food

Inspector. Questioning the said O.M. dated

14.06.2025, petitioner was before the Tribunal in the

above stated application contending that the transfer

of the petitioner is premature and opposed to the

transfer guidelines prevailing at that point of time.

Respondent No.3 contested the application stating

that the third respondent is a regular holder of the

post of Revenue Inspector/First Division Assistant

whereas the petitioner is holding the posting under

Rule 32 of KCSRs, as such he has no right to continue

at Moodabidri. The Tribunal under impugned order

accepting the contention of the third respondent held

that the third respondent being regular holder of the

post is entitled to hold the post in view of the

judgment of this Court in the case of RAGHURAM

SHETTY VS. STATE AND ANOTHER1. Questioning the

said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this

writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the petitioner was posted to Moodabidri

while he was holding the post under Rule 32 of KCSRs

and subsequently he was regularly promoted on

06.07.2024 which was subsequently withdrawn on

26.07.2024. Thus, learned counsel would submit that

the Tribunal without considering the contention that

petitioner's transfer from Moodabidri to Mulki is

premature, rejected the application. Further, he

submits that since the petitioner is a holder of

Group-C post, minimum tenure at a place would be

four years and even before completion of four years,

contrary to the transfer guidelines dated 12.05.2025,

impugned O.M., transferring the petitioner is issued.

Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.1

and 2 would submit that in the interest of public and

administrative exigency, transfer of the petitioner is

effected. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ

petition.

6. Learned counsel Ms.Adlene Stephante

Mendes appearing for respondent No.3 would submit

that the third respondent is a regular holder of the

post whereas the petitioner is posted to hold the post

of FDA/Revenue Inspector under Rule 32 of KCSRs.

Hence, has no right to continue at Moodabidri. Thus, it

is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel

appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire

writ petition papers, we are of the considered view

that it is not a case for interference, for the following

reasons:

Transfer is not a condition of service and it is an

incidence of service. No Government servant has a

right to continue in a particular post or a right to seek

posting to a particular place or post.

8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is

holding the post of FDA/Revenue Inspector under Rule

32 of KCSRs whereas the third respondent is a regular

holder of the said post. Both the petitioner as well as

respondent No.3 are holders of Group-C post who are

provided with minimum tenure of four years at a

particular place or post, subject to other conditions.

The petitioner was posted to Moodabidri under O.M.,

dated 29.06.2022. By virtue of interim order, the

petitioner is continued as Revenue Inspector at

Moodabidri till this date. As on this day, the petitioner

is nearing completion of his tenure which is till June-

2026. As the petitioner is nearing completion of his

tenure at Moodabidri, the contention that it is a

premature transfer is not available to the petitioner.

The tenure at a place cannot be measured with

mathematical precision. It is for the employer or

authorities, in the administrative exigencies, who could

prematurely transfer by assigning reasons. Therefore,

the transfer of petitioner and third respondent could be

given effect to from 01.02.2026. For all purposes, the

transfer of petitioner and third respondent shall be

considered as transfer from 01.02.2026.

9. The observation of the Tribunal that third

respondent being regular holder of the post is entitled

to hold the post in view of the judgment of this Court in

RAGHURAM SHETTY (supra) is made without noticing

the decision of this Court in B.MADESH VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXERCISE)

BANGALORE AND OTHERS2, wherein this Court by

distinguishing the RAGHURAM SHETTY (supra) at

paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 has held as follows:

"17. It is true that the posting of the petitioner as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore West vide transfer order 1.9.2104 is under Rule 32 of KCSR but the said posting is done after assessing not only the eligibility of petitioner but also the suitability, by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Government. Though transfer order dated 1.9.2014 cannot be considered as an order of promotion, it can be

2014 SCC OnLine Kar 12827

certainly said that Government has taken into consideration all relevant criteria before posting eligible officers found in the seniority list with independent charge of the post of Deputy Commissioners of Excise. If respondent No. 3 had not completed one year of service as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore West, it would have been certainly contrary to guidelines. His posting is on the basis of his completion of more than one year service as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore West and therefore, his transfer is in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government vide order dated 20.5.2014.

18. The facts in Raghurama Shetty's case are distinguishable vis-à-vis facts of the present case. The Tribunal has misapplied the decision rendered in Raghurama Shetty's case to the facts of the present case. It has proceeded on a wrong assumption that the petitioner's posting is purely under Rule 32 of KCSR that too against the post which is not vacant. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the KAT. As per the facts in Raghurama Shetty's case, apart from

posting under Rule 32 of KCSR against the post which was not vacant, authority which had passed the order of transfer was not competent to pass the order of transfer. Both these aspects had not been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner was on deputation and the petitioner had completed 3 years and he had no substantive right. Since the Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong assumption in the present case, the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

19. As already said, the facts of the present case are distinct from the facts of the Raghuram Shetty's case. As such the case on hand is not displacing the officer who has not completed one year of service. The posting of respondent No. 3 to Shimoga is in the nature of displacing him by way of a regular transfer, which is based on proper transfer guidelines, more particularly, in view of his stay being more than a year as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore West. Since he has put in more than two years of service,

the moment the order of transfer is issued, his place has become automatically vacant and hence posting the petitioner as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore West with independent charge under Rule 32 of KCSR by virtue of transfer order does not vitiate in any manner. The error so committed by the tribunal is apparent on the face of the record inviting the interference of this Court."

10. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ

petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/-

(K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE

NC CT: bms