ORDER 1. The petitioner Alla Saheb S/o Hussain Saheb Doddamani, aged 57 years, presently working as Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Cell, Urban Development Administration, Vijaypur, has filed this writ petition in this Court on 23.08.2016 with the following prayers: “(1) Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order of Transfer vide dated 18.08.2016 passed by respondent No.1 in so far as posting the respondent No.5 in the place of petitioner, in interest of justice which is at Annexure A; (2) Order for any other reliefs as deems feet.” 2. Mr. P. Vilaskumar Marthand Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that respondent No.5 Mr. Sharanappa C. Oni, Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Cell, Belagavi, under the impugned Notification of the Transfer and Postings Annexure A dated 18.08.2016 has been posted vice the present petitioner at Vijaypur transferring him from Belagavi. Even though the name of the present petitioner does not find a place in the said Notification of Transfer and Postings of various authorities of the Cadre of Municipal Executive Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer/Environment Engineers/Junior Engineers and other category of employees, since the respondent No.5 has been posted in the said order vide Sl.No.3 for the post of Executive Engineer at the place where the present petitioner is working at Vijaypur, therefore, he has got a cause of action to challenge the said transfer order of respondent No.5 since the petitioner is bound to be posted out of the present posting place of Vijaypur and such posting of the petitioner out of the place of Vijaypur would be in violation of the guidelines laid down for Transfer and Postings of Group A officers as contained in the Government Order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001, dated 22.11.2001 followed by the subsequent Government Order No.Case.22.SNV 20143, Bengaluru, dated 07.06.2013 which inter alia laid down: (i) That minimum period of stay in one place for Group A officers which includes the post of Executive Engineer at 3 years; (ii) That premature transfer would require prior permission of the Chief Minister and (iii) That such transfers cannot be effected after the month of June of that particular year. 3. 3. He submitted that such guidelines have the character of being statutory guidelines and the aforesaid Government Order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001 dated 22.11.2001 has been held to have the statutory force in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandru H.N., Vs State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 1585. He relied upon paragraph8 of the said judgment. 4. The advance copy of the writ petition was supplied to Mrs. Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate yesterday who accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and needed some time to file certain documents along with statement of objections. However, orally the learned Additional Government Advocate has stated before the Court that to her knowledge there is a Circular extending the time for making Transfer and Postings orders even beyond June and that time has been extended. 5. Be that as it may. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned Notification containing Transfer and Postings order Annexure A dated 18.08.2016 and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons. Firstly, this Court does not find any cause of action yet to have arisen to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the Notification Annexure A dated 18.08.2016 effecting Transfer and Postings of several such officers of Group A does not contain the name of the present petitioner. Merely because, respondent No.5 Mr. Sharanappa C. Oni is stated to have been transferred to the place where the present petitioner is serving i.e., Vijaypur, it does not ipso facto amount to the transfer of the present petitioner himself. Before the petitioner is relieved from the said post it goes without saying that some transfer order qua him has also to be passed by the respondent authority. As far as the persons against whom no such order had been passed, the condition No.1 is stipulated in the Annexure A Notification of the Transfer and Postings order to make it clear that “The officers/officials against whom place of posting is not shown they have to report to their higher authority”. In view of this clear stipulation in the common Transfer and Postings Annexure A Notification dated 18.08.2016, the petitioner was expected to approach the higher authorities and ascertain the status of his transfer. In view of this clear stipulation in the common Transfer and Postings Annexure A Notification dated 18.08.2016, the petitioner was expected to approach the higher authorities and ascertain the status of his transfer. Apparently, only the respondent No.5 is transferred to the place where the petitioner is presently serving and by this transfer order, no cause of action arises to the petitioner to lay his challenge to it taking the support of the guidelines as was sought to be urged before this Court in the present case. The writ petition is therefore premature. 6. Even if assuming for the argument sake that the petitioner had a cause of action to approach this Court challenging his Transfer and Postings, much less, the Transfer and Postings of private respondent No.5, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order as essentially the transfer is an incident of service and no government servant can be said to have any vested right to serve at a particular place. The petitioner even though might have been transferred just prior to the completion of three years of tenure at Vijaypur and the impugned transfer order is not made in the month of June but in the month of August, that does not entitle him per se to lay challenge the said Transfer and Postings order before this Court. Ultimately, it remains for the Administration to effect such Transfers and Postings in the overall interest of administration. It is not for the Court to run the administration, sitting as an appellate authority or supervisory body over such administration of Transfer and Postings by the competent authority. The parameters and the grounds on which the transfers of a government servant can be challenged in a Court of law are very limited, namely, specified and established grounds of malafide and the specific and deliberate breach of statutory guidelines. No such ground is established in the present case. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that guidelines in question have the statutory force as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandru H.N., Vs. State of Karnataka and others is also misplaced. No such ground is established in the present case. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that guidelines in question have the statutory force as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandru H.N., Vs. State of Karnataka and others is also misplaced. Firstly, presently applicable guidelines in Government Order No.Case.22 SNV 20143, Bengaluru dated 07.06.2013 were not subject matter of the examination by the Full Bench of this Court but it was the previous Guidelines in Government Order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001 dated 22.11.2001 which were subject to examination by the Full Bench of this Court. Even if the later guidelines of 07.06.2013 which are of much wider scope than the guidelines in the Government Order dated 22.11.2001 are taken to be was an extension of the previous guidelines per se that would not have the statutory force on the basis of the Full Bench judgment relied upon by him. This Court also finds that there are exceptions and flexibilities provided in the Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 sought to be enforced before this Court as binding on the respondents like in the minimum tenure period of three years for Group A post officers. The second part of the said Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 which is quoted below itself shows that the department can get changed the minimum period on the basis of nature of work/sensitivity of a post of Government servants by the administrative department with the prior permission of the Chief Minister from time to time through orders. Extracts from the Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 “7. Except the circumstances mentioned here under, the competent authority should not do after month of June. 8. Minimum period of stay in Once place: Ordinarily the persons who do not complete the minimum period as mentioned below shall not be transferred/deputed. Sl.No. Group Period (in Years) 1 2 3 1. All Group­A Posts 03 years 2. All Group­B Posts 03 years 3. All Group­C Posts 04 years 4. All Group­D Posts 07 years the departments can get changed the minimum period on the basis of nature of work/sensitivity of a post of Govt. Servants by the administrative department with the prior permission of Chief Minister from time to time through orders. 9. (B). All Group­B Posts 03 years 3. All Group­C Posts 04 years 4. All Group­D Posts 07 years the departments can get changed the minimum period on the basis of nature of work/sensitivity of a post of Govt. Servants by the administrative department with the prior permission of Chief Minister from time to time through orders. 9. (B). In case of premature transfers and transfers after completion of transferring period, the Secretaries of administrative departments in ministry should take permission of Chief Minister. The Chief Secretary/Secretary should not affect transfers in anticipation of taking permission afterwards.” 8. Though this Court does not have the benefit of the Circular extending the time period after June as stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order only on that basis. For any administrative reasons, if such Transfer and Postings could not be effected in the month of June, 2016, and such Transfer and Postings would be finalized only in the month of August, 2016, the entire Transfer and Postings Order Annexure A dated 18.08.2016 cannot be shot down by this Court. If straight jacket application of the Guidelines was to be done by the Courts of law, that would create a havoc and the entire administration of such Transfers and Postings can be subjected to challenge in the courts of law, which is not the intention and the ratio of the various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders”. 9. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandru H.N., Vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra), a mention of the same is also required to be made. The following question of law was referred to the Full Bench of this Court: “Whether the guidelines of Government vide order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001, Bangalore dated 22.11.2001 relating to the transfer of Government Servants which has come into force with effect from 22.11.2001 has statutory force or not?” 10. The question raised before the Full Bench above was as to whether the said Government Order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001 dated 22.11.2001 could be held to have a statutory force or not with reference to Articles 309 and 162 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. In this background, the Court held in paragraphs8 and 9 as under: “8. It is clear from the above said provisions of Karnataka State Civil Service Act and Karnataka Civil Service Rules that the Act provides for regulation of recruitment and the condition of service by promulgating rule. The rule defines transfer, however there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules providing for any guideline for transfer and therefore we have to decide as to whether the executive order passed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, when rules are not made for giving effect to the guidelines to be provided for transfer, which has been done by the State Government and Government order dated 22.11.2001 has statutory force. 9. 9. It is clear from the provisions of Article 162 of the Constitution of India that the executive power of State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. The executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the union or Authorities thereof. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that, there is already provision made in the Act and the Rules providing for promulgating of Rules to regulate the conditions of service including transfer has to be considered to find out as to whether the said order could be passed under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Fact that though there is provision in the Act for promulgating rules and the procedure is also provided for promulgating rules, that no rules have been framed providing for transfer of Government Service and guidelines thereunder is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that, the order dated 22.11.2001 is passed in exercise of Executive Power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the absence of any rules framed pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the executive order has been passed by the State in exercise of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that, having regard to the provisions of Article 309 and 162 of the Constitution of India that, executive orders can be passed in the absence of any rules providing for regulations of conditions of service in respect of which no rules have been made. In the case of PALURU RAMKRISHNAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows: “An executive instruction could make a provision only with regard to a service matter which was not covered by the Rules and that such executive instruction could not override any provision of the Rules framed under Article 309.” 11. In the case of PALURU RAMKRISHNAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows: “An executive instruction could make a provision only with regard to a service matter which was not covered by the Rules and that such executive instruction could not override any provision of the Rules framed under Article 309.” 11. Even in the concluding part, the Full Bench of this Court has observed that in view of the fact that admittedly there was no rule providing guidelines therein for Transfers, the said Government Order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001 Bangalore dated 22.11.2001 can be said to have the statutory force with reference to Articles 309 and 162 of the Constitution of India. 12. Having answered the said question in the aforesaid manner, the Full Bench has not stated, as was sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that these guidelines having statutory force have to be applied in a straight jacket manner. Since the question of having statutory force or not with reference to the provisions of the Constitution of India was referred to the Full Bench of this Court, the answer as aforesaid came to be given. 13. Therefore, it is misconceived to contend that these guidelines having statutory force have to be applied in a straight jacket manner and no deviation from them is possible under any situation. 14. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that in view of the settled legal position to lay attack to the impugned Transfer and Postings, which are not satisfied in the present case, the impugned transfer order transferring only the respondent No.5 at the place of posting, where the present petitioner is working i.e., Vijaypur, it cannot be challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 15. As a matter of fact, as already observed, no cause of action has yet arisen to the present petitioner at all and in the absence of any transfer order passed against him, he cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court prematurely. The writ petition is therefore premature and even assuming a cause of action to have arisen to the petitioner, qua the respondent No.5, he cannot be permitted to challenge the same on the basis of the aforesaid guidelines. 16. The writ petition is therefore premature and even assuming a cause of action to have arisen to the petitioner, qua the respondent No.5, he cannot be permitted to challenge the same on the basis of the aforesaid guidelines. 16. It was expected of the petitioner in view of condition No.1 of the Annexure A Notification dated 18.08.2016 to have approached his higher authorities in these circumstances. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.