[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Avinash Gerald vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 17 March, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.39283/2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI AVINASH GERALD
S/O JAYARAJ
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS CHIEF AUDITOR
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
3RD FLOOR, B.B.M.P.
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
SUBHASHNAGAR (MAJESTIC)
BEHIND UPPARA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE- 560 001
R/AT NO.371, 2ND CROSS
9TH BLOCK, II STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI BDA LAYOUT
BANGALORE- 560 072
PH:9880272228
EMAIL ID:[email protected]
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT (ADVANCE & BUDGET)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT AND
ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT
T.T.M.C. BUILDING
'A' BLOCK, BMTC
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027.
3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE- 560001.
4. SRI GURUBASAVEGOWDA
S/O EREGOWDA
AGED BOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS JOINT CONTROLLER
OF ACCOUNTS
STATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT
PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF AUDITOR
LOCAL AUDIT CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR
BANGALORE- 560027.
5. SRI LINGANNA GUNDALLI
S/O GURUPADAPPA KUCHABAL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
JOINT CONTROLLER
STATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT
WAITING FOR POSTING
R/AT NO.134, 7TH MAIN
9TH CROSS, MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R3
SRI SUMUKH SHASTRY R., ADV. FOR R4
SRI V LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI DIVYATEJ H.N., ADV.F OR C/R5)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE KANATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
18.12.2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4568/2025 (ANNEXURE-A)
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 09.03.2026 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)
Petitioner i.e., respondent No.5 before the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short
'Tribunal') in Application No. 4568/2025 (Annexure-A) is
before this Court aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2025,
wherein the operative portion of the said order reads as
follows:
"ORDER
The Application is disposed of with a direction
to the 1st and 2nd respondents to reconsider the
cancellation of transfer of the 5th respondent vide
order dated 25.09.2025 as Finance officer,
4
Karnataka Panchayath Raj Commissionerate and
bringing back to him to the place of 4th respondent
i.e., Chief Auditor, GBA, Bengaluru when the
applicant was waiting for posting and when the 1st
and 2nd respondent could have provided posting him
to a vacant post within a period of fifteen days from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed in
A.No.2189/2025 which has been partly confirmed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.No.24374/2025 with certain directions.
This exercise shall be done within a period of fifteen
days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order."
2. Heard Sri. Satish K, learned counsel for
petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No. 1 and 2,
Sri. B L Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.3,
Sri. Sumukh Shastry R for respondent No.4 and
Sri. V Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri. Divyatej H N, learned advocate on record
for Caveator/respondent No.5.
5
3. The parties to the present petition would be
referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
4. The petitioner herein was respondent No. 5
before the Tribunal and respondent No.5 herein was
applicant before the Tribunal. The applicant and
respondent No.5 are in the cadre of Chief Auditor in the
State Accounts Department. It is stated that in terms of
Notification dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure-A1), the
applicant was posted as Chief Accounts Officer, BBMP in
place of respondent No.4, who was posted to Maharani
Cluster University. The said Notification was challenged by
respondent No. 4 in Application No.2189/2025 and the
Tribunal by order dated 17.07.2025 set aside the
Notification dated 09.05.2025 posting applicant to BBMP.
Against the said order of the Tribunal dated 17.07.2025,
the applicant approached this Court in
W.P.No.24374/2025. This Court by order dated
18.08.2025, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to
6
the applicant to make representation to respondents No.1
and 2, requesting to continue him as Joint Controller of
Accounts, Women and Children Development Department,
till he completes his tenure. It is stated that respondent
No.5 was transferred as Finance Officer, Karnataka
Panchayathraj Commissionerate, Bengaluru on
25.09.2025. Before he could report to duty, the
respondent No.5 was posted as Chief Auditor, Greater
Bengaluru Authority (for short 'GBA'), Bengaluru, in place
of respondent No.4 vide notification dated 16.10.2025
(Annexure-A7). The said Notification dated 16.10.2025
was challenged by the applicant in Application
No.4568/2025 contending that he is waiting for posting
and in terms of order dated 18.08.2025 in
W.P.No.24374/2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
and order dated 17.07.2025 in Application No.2189/2025,
the applicant has a legitimate expectation of considering
his case for posting to GBA. The Tribunal under impugned
order directed respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider
7
cancellation of transfer of respondent No.5 under
Notification dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-R1) and to bring
back him to the place of respondent No. 4. Questioning the
said order, the fifth respondent is before this Court in this
writ petition.
5. Learned counsel Sri. K. Satish for the petitioner
would contend that the applicant has no locus to challenge
the order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure-A7) posting the
respondent No.5 to GBA as Chief Audit Officer in place of
respondent No.4. Moreover, he submits that the applicant
during the pendency of the application before the Tribunal,
was given posting as Chief Accounts Officer to Agricultural
University, GKVK, Bengaluru, where the applicant has not
reported to duty till date. Further, learned counsel would
submit that Notification dated 16.10.2025 would not relate
to the applicant and he is no way aggrieved by the said
Notification. Learned counsel would submit that the
observation of the Tribunal that the observation of this
8
Court in W.P.No.24374/2025, that the respondent-State
authorities ought to have considered the case of
applicant's for posting to GBA as Chief Audit Officer, is
contrary to the order passed in the said writ petition. He
submits that this Court in W.P.No.24374/2025, reserved
liberty to the applicant to make representation requesting
to continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women
and Child Development Department, till he completes his
tenure and there is no liberty or observation to give him
posting to GBA. Further, learned counsel would submit
that no Government servant has a right to seek for a
particular posting and further he submits that Court or/and
Tribunal also cannot direct posting to a particular post.
Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition and to
set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri. V
Lakshminarayana appearing for applicant would support
the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that in terms
9
of the observation of this Court in W.P.No.24374/2025 as
well as the observation of the Tribunal in Application No.
2189/2025, the Tribunal is right in directing to consider
the applicant who was waiting for posting to provide him
posting by canceling the order of posting respondents No.4
and 5. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the case
of the respondent No.5 ought not to have been considered
for posting as Chief Audit Officer to GBA in terms of the
observation of this Court in W.P.No.35417/2025 dated
26.11.2025. Learned Senior Counsel further invites
attention of this Court particularly to paragraph No. 5 of
the said order and submits that as directed by this Court,
the Tribunal examined the case of the applicant. Further,
learned Senior Counsel would submit that the respondent
No.5 was working in BBMP earlier also and he has not
completed his cooling period after his repatriation. Further,
it is submitted that the posting/deputation of respondent
No.5 is against the norms prescribed for deputation of a
Government servant. Further, learned Senior Counsel
10
would submit that in the light of the observation of this
Court in two writ petitions, the applicant has a legitimate
expectation of considering his case for posting to GBA
when he was waiting for posting. Thus, he would pray for
dismissal of the writ petition with a direction to the
respondents to comply with the order passed by the
Tribunal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of entire writ petition papers, we
are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal could not
have sat as an administrator and could not have directed
respondents No. 1 and 2 to reconsider the cancellation of
order of transfer of respondent No. 5 vide order dated
25.09.2025, as such, the impugned order of the Tribunal
warrants interference by this Court.
8. It is a settled position of law that transfer is not
a condition of service and it is only an incident of service.
No Government servant or employee has a right to claim
11
posting to a particular post or place. To decide the
suitability of a person to a post, is entirely the privilege of
the administrative authorities and Court or Tribunal cannot
decide who is suited to a particular post. Only when the
transfer or posting is contrary to the fixed norms or when
it is without jurisdiction or when it suffers from
arbitrariness, this Court or Tribunal could interfere with
such transfer or posting orders.
9. In the case on hand, the applicant, respondent
No. 4 and respondent No. 5 who belong to State Accounts
Department are fighting for posting as Chief Auditor, GBA
Bengaluru. The number of orders placed on record would
indicate the fight between the applicant, respondent No. 4
and respondent No.5 for posting in various applications
filed before the Tribunal and various writ petitions filed
before this Court. In Application No. 2189/2025, disposed
of by the Tribunal on 17.07.2025, it was a fight between
respondent No.4 as well as the applicant, wherein
12
Notification dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure-A1) was under
challenge, where under the applicant was posted as Chief
Audit Officer, BBMP, Bengaluru. In case of respondent No.
4, he was posted as Chief Officer, Maharani Cluster
University, which was quashed by the Tribunal in
Application No. 2189/2025. Challenging the order of the
Tribunal, W.P. No. 24374/2025 was filed by the applicant
and on consideration of the entire material on record, this
Court at Paragraphs No. 8 and 9 has observed as follows:
"8. The petitioner herein contended that his
tenure at the Women and Children Development is
also not completed and as such, the Tribunal
committed grave error in directing the official
respondents to provide suitable posting to the
Petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was
posted to work as Joint Controller of Accounts,
Women and Child Development Department under
order dated 15.03.2024 and as such he has not
completed his tenure at the said post. However, it is
noticed from the impugned order that by notification
dated 02.04.2025, the petitioner was posted as Chief
Financial Officer, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure
13
Development Limited, Bengaluru and they modified
the said order under impugned order and posted him
to BBMP in the place of Respondent No.4 herein.
9. Therefore, in the light of the above facts, it
is open for the Petitioner to make representation to
the first and second respondents requesting to
continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women
and Child Development Department till he completes
his tenure. If such representation is made, we are
sure the authorities would consider the same in
accordance with law and pass appropriate order."
10. Since the applicant pleaded that he has not
completed his tenure at Women and Child Development
Department, he was given liberty to make representation
requesting to continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts,
Women and Child Development Department, till he
completes his tenure, with further observation that if such
representation is made, the authorities would consider the
same in accordance with law and pass an appropriate
order. When the present Notification dated 16.10.2025,
posting respondent No.5 as Chief Audit Officer in place of
14
respondent No.4 was challenged by the applicant before
the Tribunal in Application No. 4568/2025 and when the
interim order was rejected, the petitioner was before this
Court in W.P.No.35417/2025 and this Court by order dated
26.11.2025 disposed of the said petition and while
disposing of the said petition at Paragraph No.5 it has
observed as follows.
"5. The question of interference with the
Tribunal's order is examined in the light of these
circumstances. This Court observes that for complete
adjudication, the Tribunal must, on the next date of
hearing viz., 03.12.2025 or at the earliest thereafter,
examine why the petitioner must not be entitled to
the protection that was extended to the fifth
respondent in the light of its own finding in its order
dated 07.05.2025 in Application Nos. 5151/2024 and
4847/2024 that the petitioner is entitled to continue
on deputation until he completes the minimum
tenure of deputation with the Department of Women
and Child Development or his transfer is necessitated
under law. The Tribunal must also examine the
circumstances in which the approval is granted for
bringing back the fifth respondent to the post
15
immediately on completion of the minimum period
by the fourth respondent."
11. The observations made by this Court in WP No.
24374/2025 to consider representation of the applicant to
continue him as Joint Controller of Accounts, Women and
Children Development Department and the observations
made in W.P.No.35417/2025 is also with regard to
entitlement of applicant to continue on deputation until he
completes minimum tenure of deputation with the
Department of Women and Child Development. The same
cannot be the basis to quash impugned Notification dated
16.10.2025 posting fifth respondent in place of fourth
respondent. The petitioner is, in no way concerned with the
said Notification dated 16.10.2025. The impugned
notification relates to respondent Nos.4 and 5. The applicant
cannot claim posting at GBA, Bangalore as a matter of right.
12. Moreover, during the pendency of the application
before the Tribunal, the applicant is provided posting under
Notification dated 01.12.2025 as Financial Controller,
16
Agricultural University, GKVK, Bengaluru. The petitioner has
not reported to duty as Financial Controller at the
Agricultural University. A Government servant has a duty
and obligation to report to duty to the post or place where
he is provided posting. Such Government servant cannot
wait for posting of his choice. Non-reporting to duty when
posting is given, from the date of giving posting till such
Government servant joins duty in pursuance to the posting
order, the said period shall be considered as absence and
such period cannot be treated as compulsory waiting period.
In the matter of transfer and posting, the principles of
legitimate expectation would have no application. No
Government servant has a legitimate expectation to get
himself posted to a particular post or place.
13. If the fifth respondent has completed his tenure
of deputation and if he has not completed cooling period,
the State shall examine the said question/issue and take a
suitable decision. Hence, the following:-
17
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 18.12.2025 passed by
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru, in Application No. 4568/2025 is
hereby quashed and application stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.V.ARAVIND)
JUDGE
BSV
CT: bms
