ORDER : 1. The petitioner has sought for writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘KSAT’), Kalaburagi Bench in Application No.20047/2019 as per Annexure-E and allowing the said application. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is a Deputy Controller in the Department of the Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Services in the pay scale of 36300-53850. On 29.06.2018 the first respondent issued a transfer notification posting the petitioner as Principal Chief Accounts Officer in the office of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Limited (for short ‘KBJNL’), Basavana Bagewadi, Vijayapura district. One K.N. Gangadhar who was holding that post earlier was transferred from that place. The petitioner assumed charge of that post on 02.07.2018. On 01.10.2019, the first respondent issued another transfer order posting third respondent to the place of petitioner. The petitioner approached the KSAT by filing an Application No.20047/2019 challenging the said transfer notification. By the impugned order, the KSAT dismissed the application and hence this writ petition. 3. We have heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and the respondents’ counsel. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner belongs to the cadre of Deputy Controller in the pay scale of 36300-53850. According to the recruitment rules of KBJNL, the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer is meant for an officer of the cadre of Deputy Controller in the pay scale of 36300-53850. The third respondent belongs to the cadre of Joint Controller, in the pay scale of 40050-56550. The Government notification dated 29.10.1996 made a provision for appointing the Principal Chief Accounts Officer from the cadre of Joint Controller, but when KBJNL framed the rules in the year 2012, the said post was earmarked for an officer of the cadre of Deputy Controller. The rules prevail over the Government notification. The petitioner had not completed his full term in the office of KBJNL, Basavana Bagewadi. Transferring the third respondent to his post was illegal and malafide. It was not in the public interest in the real sense. The KSAT has relied upon Government notification 29.10.1996 which is not in force. The KSAT has misplaced reliance on a judgment in the case of Somnath, Chief Accounts Officer vs. State of Karnataka which is not applicable to the facts of the case. It was not in the public interest in the real sense. The KSAT has relied upon Government notification 29.10.1996 which is not in force. The KSAT has misplaced reliance on a judgment in the case of Somnath, Chief Accounts Officer vs. State of Karnataka which is not applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore it was his argument that the writ petition needs to be allowed, the order of the KSAT set aside and the Application No.20047/2019 on the file of KSAT allowed. He has garnered support for this argument from the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in the case of Shivakumar vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.202412/2018) 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent argued that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the transfer notification. The rules framed by KBJNL in the year 2012 have not been given into effect, it was not gazetted. Therefore the Government notification dated 29.10.1996 still prevails. According to the notification, the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer is to be filled by deputation from the cadre of Joint Controller. The third respondent belongs to this cadre and therefore there is nothing illegal if the third respondent was posted to the place of the petitioner. He further argued that posting the petitioner to the office of KBJNL, Basavana Bagewadi was purely temporary, his transfer notification indicates that he was transferred on OPG basis. This means his posting was temporary. Moreover, it was a deputation. It was not a regular transfer. The petitioner accepted his posting to Basavana Bagewadi on OPG basis and he cannot now say that he should not have been transferred prematurely. The tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that the petitioner’s application is devoid of merits and therefore this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Government Advocate appearing for first respondent justified the transfer of third respondent to the place of the petitioner. 7. The tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that the petitioner’s application is devoid of merits and therefore this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The Government Advocate appearing for first respondent justified the transfer of third respondent to the place of the petitioner. 7. The main reasons ascribed by the KSAT for rejecting the application are that the petitioner’s posting as Principal Chief Accounts Officer, KBJNL, is purely temporary, as the transfer notification indicates that the petitioner was given posting on his Own Pay and Grade (OPG); that it is settled law that whenever exigency arises, the government has ample power to effect premature transfer; that whenever premature transfer is effected, a conclusion cannot be drawn that such transfer is illegal; that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer and therefore he has no right to claim posting to the very same place. The KSAT has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) others vs. State of Bihar and others (AIR 1992 SC 532) to hold that if the government transfers a more qualified person to a particular post in administrative exigency, the tribunal or the courts shall not interfere. The KSAT has also followed its own decision in the case of Somnath, Chief Accounts Officer vs. State of Karnataka (A.No.156/2016). 8. Now if the findings of the KSAT are examined in the light of rival contentions urged by the counsel for parties, we find that the petitioner was actually transferred to the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer, KBJNL, Basavanabagewadi on 29.06.2018 vide AnnexureA2, but with a rider that on OPG basis. There is no dispute that the petitioner’s transfer on 01.10.2019 was premature. Since the petitioner’s counsel referred to the Recruitment Rules framed by KBJNL and that the third respondent’s counsel referred to a Government Notification dated 29.10.1996, we have to first examine as to which of the two prevails over the other. The notification dated 29.10.1996 shows that the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer, U.K.P. Alamatti is of the cadre of Joint Controller. The notification dated 29.10.1996 shows that the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer, U.K.P. Alamatti is of the cadre of Joint Controller. Rule 22 of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of KBJNL states that any of the posts in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ may be filled up by appointing a person in the employment of (a) State or Central Government or (b) a local authority or (c) a body corporate established by a State Act or Central Act etc. The corresponding schedule to these Rules indicates that the post of Principal Chief Accounts Officer, in the pay scale of Rs.36300-53850, may be filled up by deputing a person in the equivalent cadre from the State Government. There is no dispute with regard to pay scale of petitioner being Rs.36300-53850, but the question is whether these Rules have been given into effect? The petitioner has not produced any document to show that these Rules are in force, but the petitioner’s counsel referred to a Gazette Notification dated 27.06.2015 (Annexure-A9) and argued that this notification would lend support to the petitioner’s case. On perusing this Gazette Notification, we find that it was in relation to publication of Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2015. The petitioner cannot rely upon this Gazette Notification merely because his parent department is Karnataka State Audit and Accounts Services. But the counsel for second respondent has filed a memo stating that KBJNL is a Government of Karnataka owned company and is governed by its own Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. In exercise of the power under Article 177 read with Article 178(6), the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the company were framed on 09.07.2014, they were approved by the Company’s Board. It is also stated that Rule 22 pertains to the appointment by deputation. It is further stated that there is no provision in the Companies Act, 2013 to notify the Cadre and Recruitment Rules in the Government Gazette and therefore no such notification was issued. Therefore if memo is considered, Cadre and Recruitment Rules framed by the KBJNL are in force and the postings cannot be made according to the Government Notification dated 29.10.1996. Be that as it may. Therefore if memo is considered, Cadre and Recruitment Rules framed by the KBJNL are in force and the postings cannot be made according to the Government Notification dated 29.10.1996. Be that as it may. What is pertinent to mention here is that prior to posting of the petitioner as Principal Chief Accounts Officer, Alamatti, one Sri K.N. Gangadhar belonging to the cadre of Joint Controller was working there as Principal Chief Accounts Officer. Therefore it may be stated that even after Cadre and Recruitment Rules were given into effect, an officer of the cadre of Deputy Controller was not posted as Principal Chief Accounts Officer, probably there was no strict adherence to the Rules. 9. Now if Annexure-A2, the transfer notification dated 29.06.2018 is seen it becomes evident that the petitioner’s transfer to Alamatti was temporary, as it very clearly shows that the petitioner was transferred on O.P.G. basis, which he does not dispute and accepted it without any demur. The petitioner was a deputationist. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India and another [(2005) 5 SCC 362], a decision cited by the counsel for third respondent, has made it very clear that a deputationist may be repatriated to his parent department at any time and he has no vested right to claim continuance in the post where he is posted on deputation. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of coordinate bench of this court in the case of Shivakumar (supra). Indeed the facts in the cited case show that it was case of premature transfer; but the same is not helpful to petitioner because postings were given to the petitioner and the fourth respondent therein after promoting them; and the fourth respondent managed to obtain an order of his reposting to Bidar again where he was working before his promotion. The court noticed violation of transfer guidelines. The court noticed malafides in the second transfer notification and hence the writ petition was allowed. But in this case the ground on which the petitioner seeks to challenge his transfer from Alamatti, of course before completion of the term, is that the third respondent being an officer of higher cadre cannot be posted to his place. We have already stated that despite Recruitment Rules being framed by KBJNL, they appear to have not been followed strictly. We have already stated that despite Recruitment Rules being framed by KBJNL, they appear to have not been followed strictly. The posting of the petitioner was temporary and therefore we cannot uphold the argument of petitioner’s counsel. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed.