ORDER : S. Sujatha J. 1. The petitioner has called in question the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ‘Tribunal’), dated 19.07.2018 passed in Application No.5339/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein has been rejected. 2. The petitioner contends that while he was working as First Division Assistant in District Police Office, Bidar, the 2nd respondent by an order dated 29.05.2018 promoted him to the post of Section Superintendent and posted in the existing vacancy at District Police Office, Bidar. Similarly, the 4th respondent was also promoted and posted to the Police Range Office, Ballari, by virtue of the same order. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 4th respondent without relieving himself from Bidar, managed to obtain an order dated 02.07.2018 re-posting him to Bidar and the petitioner was posted to Ballari in his place, further the 4th respondent directly reported as the Section Superintendent before the Range Office, Ballari on 04.07.2018, and relieved on 05.07.2018 and reported as a Section Superintendent before the District Police Office, Bidar. Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 02.07.2018, the petitioner filed Application No.5339/2018 before the Tribunal, which came to be rejected. Hence, this present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri Mahesh Patil appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was promoted and posted to Bidar on 29.05.2018 and thereafter within a short span of 32 days of his posting, he has been disturbed and again posted to Ballari at the instance of the 4th respondent, which is a premature transfer. It is submitted that the impugned transfer order dated 02.07.2018 is in contravention of Clause-8 and 9 of the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka. Secondly, it is submitted that the order of transfer impugned herein is not in public interest. No reasons are assigned for effecting premature transfer, which is mandatory requirement in terms of the transfer guidelines. Thirdly, it is submitted that no approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was obtained for passing premature transfer order impugned herein. Fourthly, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be disturbed from the post from which he was transferred on 29.05.2018 before four years as per Clause-8 of the transfer guidelines. Nextly, it is submitted that respondent No.4 is working at Bidar consecutively for about 32 years with effect from 24.02.1986. Fourthly, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be disturbed from the post from which he was transferred on 29.05.2018 before four years as per Clause-8 of the transfer guidelines. Nextly, it is submitted that respondent No.4 is working at Bidar consecutively for about 32 years with effect from 24.02.1986. It is only at the instance of the 4th respondent the impugned transfer order dated 02.07.2018 has been passed disturbing the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel argued that the Tribunal failed to consider these aspects in the right perspective, which necessarily requires to be interfered with. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of K.G. Jagadeesha vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Writ Petition No.48988/2016 (D.D. 06.10.2016). 5. Learned counsel Sri B.C.Jaka, appearing for the 4th respondent inviting the attention of the Court to Clause-9 of the transfer guidelines prescribed as per Government Order dated 07.06.2013 would submit that 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 is a ground for premature transfer. The 4th respondent is due for retirement on 22.07.2020. Clause 9(a) (i) of the GO dated 07.06.2013 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Considering the same in the background of the representation submitted by the 4th respondent on 24.03.2018 prior to the order of transfer dated 29.05.2018, the present impugned transfer order dated 02.07.2018 has been passed which is in conformity with transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013. It is further submitted that the spouse of the 4th respondent is working at Bidar, in terms of Clause 9(a) (iv) of transfer guidelines, 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, if that being the position, the transfer order though premature is supported by the exception clause as provided therein. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, which deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the writ petition. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, which deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the writ petition. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of C. Vasudeva vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in Writ Petition No.24572 of 2015 (D.D. 22.07.2015). 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has placed the original records before the Court and fairly submitted that no approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was obtained before passing of the order of transfer dated 02.07.2018. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 8. The transfer order dated 29.05.2018 promoting the petitioner and posting in the existing vacancy at District Police Office, Bidar, was a general transfer, whereby about 65 transfers were made, in the very same transfer order, the 4th respondent was transferred from District Police Office, Bidar, to Range Office, Ballari against an existing vacancy due to promotion of Sri Dadapeer. Thereafter, within a span of 32 days, the impugned transfer order dated 02.07.2018 has been passed by respondent No.2 transferring the petitioner from the District Police Office, Bidar to Range Office, Ballari, whereas the 4th respondent has been transferred from Range Office, Ballari to District Police Office, Bidar. 9. To consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, it is beneficial to refer to the relevant Clauses of the transfer guidelines prescribed in Government Order No.DPAR 22 STR 2013, Bangalore, dated 07.06.2013. The relevant Clause-8 contemplates, Minimum period of 4 years stay at a place, whereby no Government servant shall ordinarily be transferred/deputed if he has not completed his tenure of posting in a place, in case of Group ‘C’. No doubt, the minimum period of stay for a particular post may be prescribed/revised from time to time by an order passed by the Administrative Departments of the Secretariat, with the prior approval of the Chief Minister, in respect of certain types of sensitive cadres in the departments coming under their administrative control, depending upon the nature of duties assigned to the post. The minimum period of stay at a place in the present case is 4 years, which is not in dispute. 10. The minimum period of stay at a place in the present case is 4 years, which is not in dispute. 10. Clause-9 provides for premature/delayed transfer: Clause 9 (a) (i), (iv) – 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) xxxx (iii) xxxx (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) xxxx (vi) xxxx (vii) xxxx (viii) xxxx (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.” Premature transfer is an exception, generally there should be no premature transfers. In making the premature transfers reducing the minimum period of stay at a place as prescribed in Clause-8, the Competent Authority has to record the reasons for the same in writing, which is sine-quo-non for premature transfer. 11. We have perused the original file placed before us. No such reasons in writing are recorded by the Competent Authority while issuing the transfer order dated 02.07.2018. 11. We have perused the original file placed before us. No such reasons in writing are recorded by the Competent Authority while issuing the transfer order dated 02.07.2018. It is needless to observe that any order more particularly mandatory requirement made by the transfer guidelines for recording the reasons if not found, the same would be void ab initio, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The basic requirement of assigning the reasons for premature transfer is lacking in the present case. 12. The petitioner was promoted and posted as District Police Office, Bidar on 29.05.2018, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that he is due for retirement and it is less than two years of service would attract Clause 9(a)(i) of the transfer guidelines cannot be countenanced for the reason that even assuming the 4th respondent has less than two years service before retirement, if any premature transfer has to be effected, it should be in conformity with the transfer guidelines described which mandates the reasons to be recorded in writing by the Competent Authority. Though we find a representation submitted by the 4th respondent dated 24.03.2018 in the original file placed before us there is no reference to such representation made by the 4th respondent in the transfer order impugned. It is significant to note that the said representation dated 24.03.2018 was prior to the original transfer order dated 29.05.2018. No such representation is made subsequent to passing of the order dated 29.05.2018. Similarly even to take the assistance of Clause-(iv) of 9(a) of the guidelines on the ground that the spouse of the 4th respondent is working at Bidar, the same requires compliance as provided therein. In any case, even if the 4th respondent is falling under the Clauses9(a)(i) and (iv), the mandatory requirement of recording the reasons has to be fulfilled. 13. As regards the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister for premature transfer is concerned, the issue is no more res integra in view of the Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of K.G.Jagadeesha supra, whereby, it has been extensively considered in the light of the transfer policy and held that prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is required in case of premature transfer. The language of sub clause (b) of Clause-9 of the transfer policy provides that before effecting any premature transfer and for making any transfer after the transfer period, and also for extending the tenure of a Government servant for the reasons stated, prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister must be obtained without fail by the concerned Administrative Department of the Secretariat. Considering the same, it is held that the same takes into consideration three contingencies; (i) any premature transfer; (ii) any transfer after the transfer period and (iii) for extension of tenure of Government servant. Sub-clause (b) applies to all premature transfers. 14. Even the clarification issued by the Government as per the GO dated 14.06.2013 has also been considered. Since the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was not obtained, the premature transfer is held to be unsustainable. 15. We have no reasons to deviate from the said findings of the cognate Bench which is in conformity with the transfer policy. Agreeing with the same, we hold that prior permission of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is mandatory for premature transfer which is lacking in the present case. For want of prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister itself the premature transfer order impugned herein, requires to be set aside. 16. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate these vital aspects in a right perspective while arriving at a decision. On the other hand, it is observed by the Tribunal that the transfer order dated 02.07.2018 is in the public interest and is not a premature transfer which is contrary to the material facts as discussed above. The transfer order dated 02.07.2018 itself reflects that the transfer was made due to administrative reasons but failed to substantiate the same. 17. It is a well settled legal principle that transfer is not only an incident of service but implicit as an essential condition of service. No Government employee can opt for a place of his choice, it is due to administrative exigencies the Competent Authority is empowered to issue transfer order but at the same time the transfer order should be well within the realm of guidelines if provided by the Government/Competent Authority. No Government employee can opt for a place of his choice, it is due to administrative exigencies the Competent Authority is empowered to issue transfer order but at the same time the transfer order should be well within the realm of guidelines if provided by the Government/Competent Authority. If such compliance is not found and it is to suit the convenience of a party such order is passed wherein malafides are attributed to such transfer order, the same has to be viewed seriously and cannot be ignored. 18. Hence, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the transfer order is not in violation of any transfer policy or public interest. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the said transfer order dated 02.07.2018 and allow the application filed by the petitioner. 19. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. The compliance of this order shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.