Mallikarjun Goud G. N. S/O. G. Narayana vs Managing Director
2026 Latest Caselaw 611 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mallikarjun Goud G. N. S/O. G. Narayana vs Managing Director on 29 January, 2026

                                                      -1-
                                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:1142
                                                            WP No. 109422 of 2025


                        HC-KAR



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                                 DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026
                                                  BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 109422 OF 2025 (S-TR)

                       BETWEEN:
                       MALLIKARJUN GOUD G. N. S/O. G. NARAYANA
                       AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                       OCC: ASSISANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V),
                       OFFICE OF KAMPLI DIVISION,
                       GESCOM KAMPLI, R/O. D. NO.522, D-1,
                       BEHIND VASAVI SCHOOL, INFANTRY ROAD,
                       CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583104.
                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN GOUD G.N., (PARTY-IN-PERSON)

                       AND:
                       1.   MANAGING DIRECTOR
                            KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
                            CORPORATION LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAWAN,
                            K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560020.

                       2.   THE DIRECTOR
                            (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE),
MANJANNA                    KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
E                           CORPORATION LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAWAN,
                            K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560020.
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
                       3.   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V),
Date: 2026.02.02
10:02:47 +0530              O AND M RURAL DIVISION,
                            GVSKL BALLARI-583132.

                       4.   SHRINIVAS PRASAD K.,
                            AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WORKING AS
                            ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V),
                            H.T. RATING SUB-DIVISION,
                            GESCOM, RAICHUR DISRICT-584101.
                                                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                       (BY SRI. B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
                       SRI. RAJASHEKHAR R.GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
                              -2-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC-D:1142
                                      WP No. 109422 of 2025


HC-KAR



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF
TRANSFERRED THE PETITIONER FROM KAMPLI TO ALLIPUR ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO. SANKE.KPTCL/DGMP/MES1
(B58)11/2025 DATED 13.11.2025 SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-
B AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:  THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

                        ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who appears partly-in-person, has

called in question the transfer orders dated 13.11.2025 and

25.11.2025 issued by the Karnataka Power Transmission

Corporation Ltd. (KPTCL) and the consequential relieving

order dated 04.12.2025 produced at Annexures-B, C and E

respectively, whereby, the petitioner has been transferred

from Kampli to Allipur and thereafter to Munirabad and

relieved from the post at Kampli.

Brief Facts:

2. The petitioner is serving as an Assistant

Executive Engineer (V) under KPTCL/GESCOM and has been

in service since the year 2003. Earlier, the petitioner had

questioned the transfer order dated 30.07.2024 before this

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1142

HC-KAR

court in W.P. No.104632/2024. By order dated 20.02.2025

(Annexure-A), this Court quashed the said transfer insofar

as the petitioner was concerned and issued a specific

direction that the petitioner shall be continued at Kampli

only upto 29.07.2025. It is not in dispute that the

protection granted by this Court in the earlier writ petition

was time-bound and not an indefinite interdiction against

transfer. After expiry of the said protected period, the

respondent-Corporation issued:

i. A transfer order dated 13.11.2025 transferring the

petitioner from Kampli to Allipur Annexure-B.

ii. A subsequent posting order dated 25.11.2025

transferring him from Allipur to Munirabad

(Annexure-C) and a relieving order dated

04.12.2025, relieving him from Kampli (Annexure-

E). The respondents have also placed on record the

duty report dated 12.12.2025, evidencing

compliance with the transfer orders.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1142

HC-KAR

3. The petitioner appearing in person contended

that:

i. The impugned transfer orders violate the transfer

guidelines, particularly the minimum tenure norms.

ii. The remark regarding vacant post 'Allipur' is

incorrect.

iii. He has already suffered multiple transfers and that

the impugned action causes hardship to his family.

iv. The respondents have acted in this regard to the

earlier order passed in W.P. No.104632/2024.

v. That the similarly placed officers have been

retained at Ballari / Kampli for long duration

amounting to discrimination.

vi. Reliance is placed on the service particulars and

comparative data produced under Annexure-G.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

would contend that the impugned transfer orders are issued

strictly in accordance with the transfer guidelines and

administrative exigency of the Corporation. It is submitted

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1142

HC-KAR

that the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.

No.104632/2024 granted only a time-bound protection to

the petitioner to continue at Kampli upto a specified date

and did not create any vested or indefensible right to

remain at the said station thereafter. It is further contended

that upon expiry of the said period, the respondents were

well within their jurisdiction to affect transfer in the interest

of administration. It is contended that the impugned orders

are neither punitive nor arbitrary, having been issued by

the competent authority, and the relieving order is only a

consequential order following from valid transfer, and that

no case is made out for interference under Articles 226 or

227 of the Constitution of India.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and

the entire material on record, including the earlier order

passed by this Court in W.P.No.104632/2024 (Annexure-A),

the impugned transfer and posting orders dated 13.11.2025

and 25.11.2025 produced at Annexures-B and C, the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1142

HC-KAR

consequential relieving order dated 04.12.2025 produced at

Annexure-E, the service particulars and comparative data

relied upon by the petitioner at Annexure-G, and the duty

report dated 12.12.2025 placed on record by the

respondents.

6. A careful reading of the order dated 22.02.2025

passed in W.P.No.104632/2024, makes it abundantly clear

that this Court did not grant a blanket or a permanent

protection against transfer. The specific direction in the

aforesaid writ petition was that the petitioner shall continue

at Kampli only upto 29.07.2025. The said direction was

explicit and conditional. Once the said direction lapsed, the

employer was fully entitled to exercise its power of transfer

subject to law. Therefore, the contention that the impugned

transfer violates the earlier order is factually and legally

unsustainable.

7. The transfer is an incident of service and unless

vitiated by malafides, statutory violation or patent

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1142

HC-KAR

arbitrators, this Court cannot sit an appeal over the

administrative decision. The petitioner has not placed any

material to establish that the transfer was punitive, passed

by an incompetent authority or in violation of any statutory

prohibition. The duty report dated 12.12.2025 produced by

the respondent further evidences the compliance of the

transfer order and its continuity. In view of the above

discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the

impugned transfer orders are issued after the expiry of the

time-bound protection granted earlier. They are supported

by administrative exigency and do not suffer from

arbitrariness or illegality warranting any interference under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this

Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

ii. It is however made clear that this Court has not

expressed any opinion on future administrative

decisions and the petitioner is at liberty to make

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1142

HC-KAR

representation to the competent authority, if so

advised, which shall be considered in accordance

with law.

Sd/-

JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31