ORDER : Since common and akin issues are involved in these matters, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Facts in Writ Petition No.8637/2020: 2. The petitioner – Smt. Kavitha B.L. joined the service of the State of Karnataka in the Department of Excise as Sub-Inspector by direct recruitment on 21.05.2004. She served as Sub-Inspector of Excise at Jeevan Bheema Nagara Range, Bangalore East District from February 2005 to October 2009. Thereafter, in the month of October 2009, she was promoted as Inspector of Excise and was posted at Shashi Distillery Private Limited. During August 2014, she was transferred as Inspector of Excise, Vijayanagara Range, Bengaluru. From 4th of April 2018 to July 2018, she has served as Inspector of Excise at Dandeli Range, Uttar Kannada District during the Karnataka State Assembly elections. It is averred that on completion of Election duty, the said petitioner was not given any posting at the earlier post, but was transferred to a Non-Executive post i.e., at M C and A, Bengaluru, as an Inspector of Excise. Thereafter, she was retransferred to Vijayanagar Range, Bengaluru and further transferred and posted to the post of Inspector of Excise, Adugodi Range, Bengaluru vide order dated 05.12.2018. It is alleged that respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.05.2020 has again transferred the petitioner from the post of Inspector of Excise, Adugodi Range, Bengaluru South District to KSBL Depot, Sakalawara Depot2, Bengaluru. Respondent No.3 Mr. Suresh R.O. has been transferred to the place of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2020, the petitioner had preferred Application No.1793/2020 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal has rejected the said application along with Application No.1792/2020 vide common order dated 23.06.2020. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court. Facts in Writ Petition No.8641/2020 3. The petitioner Smt. Hemavathi C.H. joined the service of the State of Karnataka in the Department of Excise as Sub-Inspector by direct recruitment on 15.11.2011. After completion of her training period, in the month of May 2012, she was posted at Shivamogga as Sub-Inspector of Excise and has served in various other posts during her tenure of service. That on 28.01.2019 by an order of respondent No.2, the petitioner was transferred and posted to the post of Inspector of Excise, Sampangiramanagara Range, Bengaluru South District. After completion of her training period, in the month of May 2012, she was posted at Shivamogga as Sub-Inspector of Excise and has served in various other posts during her tenure of service. That on 28.01.2019 by an order of respondent No.2, the petitioner was transferred and posted to the post of Inspector of Excise, Sampangiramanagara Range, Bengaluru South District. It is averred that again vide order dated 29.05.2020, respondent No.2 has prematurely transferred the petitioner from the post of Inspector of Excise, Sampangiramanagara, Bengaluru South District to United Spirit Kumbalgodu, Bengaluru Urban District. Challenging the said order of transfer, an application was preferred by the petitioner in Application No.1792/2020 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru. The Tribunal has rejected the said application as devoid of merits vide common order dated 23.06.2020 along with Application No.1793/2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. Submissions of the petitioners: 4. The posting of a Government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters to take up the duties of a new post would be a ’transfer’ within the meaning of Clause 3(d) of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka. The petitioners are Group C employees and therefore are entitled to continue in the post of Inspector of Excise, Adugodi Range (Smt. Kavitha B.L.) and Sampangiramanagara Range (Smt. Hemavathi C.H.) till they complete four years of service from 05.12.2018 and 28.01.2019 respectively. The impugned order is premature in nature as the petitioners are entitled to hold the post until they complete four years of tenure. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. A.S. Ponnanna contended that the order of transfer is contrary to the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013. Further, the mandatory requirement of prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was not complied with. The petitioners have been prematurely transferred at the behest of respondent No.3 in both the cases who are politically influential persons. The impugned order is passed in a mechanical manner and suffers from legal and factual malafides. Learned Senior counsel argued that the State Government cannot take shelter under Rule 7 of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 as no new post is created. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in making certain observations mush against the well settled principles of law. The impugned order is passed in a mechanical manner and suffers from legal and factual malafides. Learned Senior counsel argued that the State Government cannot take shelter under Rule 7 of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 as no new post is created. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in making certain observations mush against the well settled principles of law. The finding of the Tribunal that the Government shall treat all Ranges in Bengaluru Urban District as one office/unit/place or Headquarters for the purpose of transfer is against the Full Bench decisions of this Court in the following cases: 1. Mr. Chandru H.N. vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 1585. 2. Sri. S.N. Gangadharaiah, K.A.S. vs. The State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2015 KAR 1955. Submissions on behalf of the State of Karnataka: 6. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri. R. Subramanya, submitted that the impugned order dated 29.05.2020 is not a transfer order. For administrative reasons, the Excise Department has sent a proposal for reorganization of the Divisional Offices as well as Bengaluru Urban, Belgaum and Mysore Districts. Restructure/reorganization of the existed State Excise Intelligence Bureau, Bengaluru, was made with an intention to control the excise related crimes by implementing the enforcement activates effectively and also to restructure/refix the geographical boundaries to reduce the official work pressure. Accordingly, the State Government has issued the Government Order dated 08.11.2017 by reorganizing the existing Bengaluru Division into Bengaluru Division (North) and Bengaluru Division (South) and 48 Ranges into 52 Ranges, Belgaum District into Belgaum (North) and (South), Mysuru District into Mysuru Urban and Mysuru Rural Districts etc., for smooth and effective administration as well as effective enforcement activities. 7. However, the implementing Notification was issued on 29.05.2020 to give effect to the reorganization/restructuring order dated 08.11.2017 after obtaining the approval from the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Subsequent to the issuance of the Notification dated 29.05.2020, all the existing officers have lost their existence along with the posts as well as Drawing and Disbursing (DDO) code and new offices have been set up with a new Drawing and Disbursing code for drawing and disbursing the salaries of the staffs. Indeed, the order dated 29.05.2020 makes it clear that it is an order of reorganization/restructure of the Department as directed by the State Government, as such the submission of the petitioners that they are prematurely displaced is misconceived. Indeed, the order dated 29.05.2020 makes it clear that it is an order of reorganization/restructure of the Department as directed by the State Government, as such the submission of the petitioners that they are prematurely displaced is misconceived. Adugodi Range as well as Sampangiramanagara Range involved herein are restructured and new Ranges are formulated. The posts against which the petitioners were working are no longer in existence. Accordingly, the same cannot be termed as premature transfer. The petitioner in W.P.No.8637/2020 has been working in Bengaluru right from her inception into service in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Excise from 21.05.2004 to till date, even after promotion of Inspector of excise. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.8641/2020 is working in Bengaluru continuously from 2016. 8. Reliance was made on Clause 7(ii) of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013. It was submitted that pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.05.2020, the respondent No.3, in both the cases, have taken charge at the respective Ranges and the petitioners have also reported for duty in the respective post of duty as provided under the impugned order 29.05.2020. The Tribunal considering these relevant vital aspects has rightly dismissed the applications preferred by the petitioners which requires to be confirmed by this Court. 9. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in support of his contention that transfer being an incidence of service, the Court should be reluctant to interfere with the alleged transfer as the same is not vitiated by malafides or made in violation of any statutory provisions or passed by an incompetent authority. Submissions on behalf of the respondent No.3 in both the cases: 10. Learned counsel Sri. M.S. Bhagwat supporting the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Notification dated 29.05.2020 has been issued by the respondent No.2 exercising the powers under Section 55 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 as a consequence of reorganization and redistribution of jurisdiction of the officers of the Excise Department and as a matter of policy decision. Clause 7(ii) of the Transfer Guidelines makes it clear that an exception is carved out when new officers/posts are created or posts have fallen vacant due to various reasons. Under the erstwhile division, the entire Bengaluru was divided into four Districts whereas the same has been now divided into eight Districts. Clause 7(ii) of the Transfer Guidelines makes it clear that an exception is carved out when new officers/posts are created or posts have fallen vacant due to various reasons. Under the erstwhile division, the entire Bengaluru was divided into four Districts whereas the same has been now divided into eight Districts. Inviting the attention of the Court to the prayer column of the writ petitions, it was argued that the prayer sought in the applications is obnoxious since Sampangiramanagar Range being abolished, no posting can be given to the petitioner in W.P.No.8641/2020 as prayed, at Sampangiramanagar. 157 postings have been created in view of reconstruction/reorganization of the Excise Department. Thus, justifying the order of the Tribunal, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. Analysis. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are : (1) Whether the impugned order of alleged transfer dated 29.05.2020 issued by the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka – Respondent No.2 is justifiable? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 29.05.2020? (3) Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in treating the transfer of an employee of Group C or D from one Secretariat Department to another Secretariat Department or from one office to another in the same Headquarters, as ‘transfer’? 12. The Government order dated 22.11.2001 relating to transfer of Government Servants which has come into force from 22.11.2001 whether has statutory force or not was the question of law considered and answered by the Full Bench of this Court in Mr. Chandru H.N., supra. The Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that the Executive Order issued in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India in the absence of rules providing for regulating the transfer and providing guidelines therein, will have statutory force and can be enforced. As such, the Government Order dated 22.11.2001 has statutory force. The said Transfer Guidelines dated 22.11.2001 are modified vide Government Order dated 07.06.2013. It has been further clarified vide Government Order dated 14.06.2013 that if transfer is made during annual general transfer, the benefit of Clause 9(a) could not be available. Government Order dated 14.10.2015 indicates the modification of the minimum period of 3 years to 2 years, applicable to Group A and B Officers. It has been further clarified vide Government Order dated 14.06.2013 that if transfer is made during annual general transfer, the benefit of Clause 9(a) could not be available. Government Order dated 14.10.2015 indicates the modification of the minimum period of 3 years to 2 years, applicable to Group A and B Officers. For the purpose of the present dispute, the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 would be relevant. 13. The relevant Clauses of the said Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 are: “7. The transfers should not be considered beyond the month of June, except in the following circumstances by the competent authority; (i) xxxxxx (ii) Where new offices/posts are created or posts have fallen vacant due to retirement, promotion, resignation, reversion, dismissal, death, compulsory retirement or when a direct recruit is to be posted on his first appointment or a promotee has to be posted on promotion or due to any unforeseen circumstances and when the posts are required to be filled immediately; (iii) Where the transfer is necessitated in particular cases, only due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons, restricting the number of such annual transfers to minimum after recording reasons for the same in writing. Such cases shall be submitted to the Chief Minister without fail and transfer shall be made after obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister. (iv) xxxxx (v) xxxxx 9. 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; xxxxxxxx (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.” 14. 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.” 14. Now the fulcrum of dispute revolves round the postings made by the order dated 29.05.2020 in respect of the petitioners along with other 155 employees of Excise Department and the real controversy would be whether it is a ‘premature transfer’? Clause 3(d) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 defines transfer as under: “3(d) ‘Transfer’ means the posting of a Government servant from one headquarters to another headquarters or from one office to another within the same headquarters, to take up duties of a new post or in consequence of a change of headquarters; Note : Movement of a Government servant within the same office/unit from one post to another one or desk/compilation to another one under the same head office shall not be treated as transfer.” 15. In terms of Clause 7, generally the transfer should not be considered beyond the month of June except in the circumstances prescribed therein. One such exception in Clause 7(ii) is where new offices/posts are created. Another exception as provided under sub-clause (iii) is where the transfer is necessitated in particular cases, restricting the number of such annual transfers to minimum after recording the reasons for the same in writing and obtaining the prior approval of the Chief Minister. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were transferred vide order dated 05.12.2018 and 28.01.2019 to the post of Inspector of Excise Adugodi Range, Bengaluru South District (Smt. Kavitha B.L.) and to the post of Inspector of Excise Sampangiramanagar Range, Benglauru South District (Smt. Hemavathi C.H.) respectively. Both the petitioners being Group C employees, Clauses 8 and 9 of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 are referred to, in support of the ground of premature transfer. It would be apt to refer to the preamble of the Notification No.FD 131(i) EPS 2017 dated 29.05.2020, which is issued by the Government of Karnataka exercising the powers under Section 55 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The said notification specifies the name of the District/Sub-Division/Range, Head of the Office location, areas falling within the jurisdiction and boundaries. It would be apt to refer to the preamble of the Notification No.FD 131(i) EPS 2017 dated 29.05.2020, which is issued by the Government of Karnataka exercising the powers under Section 55 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The said notification specifies the name of the District/Sub-Division/Range, Head of the Office location, areas falling within the jurisdiction and boundaries. Range 22 shows the Inspector of Excise as the head of the office location; Kanteerava Stadium, Cubbon park, Maharani College, Freedom Park, Corporation Circle, Vidhana Soudha, Richmond Circle, U.B. City as the areas falling within the jurisdiction. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the Government Order dated 08.11.2017 Annexure – A1, Range 22 relates to Sampangiramanagar and Range 41 relates to Adugodi. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General made an effort to clarify the same that in terms of the Notification dated 29.05.2020 produced by the State at Annexure – R2 referred to above, Sampangiramanagar is not coming within the Range22. The impugned order dated 29.05.2020 refers to (1) The Government Order dated 08.11.2017 (wrongly typed as 8.11.2019) (2) Government Notification No.AaEe 131 EPS 2017 dated 29.05.2020 (3) Official Memorandum dated 08.05.2020 issued by the Office of the Excise Commissioner. 17. The said Official Memorandum/Government Order dated 29.05.2020 clearly specifies that in order to reorganize/reconstruct, new posts are created. 157 employees of the Excise Department were posted to the posts mentioned therein in the interest of public and administration. A conjoint reading of the Government Order dated 29.05.2020 with the Government Notification dated 29.05.2020 makes it clear that the postings now made, impugned herein, cannot be construed as premature transfer as contemplated under Clause 9 of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013. The said postings are made for administrative reasons in the interest of public. Even otherwise, there is no legal inhibition for effecting any premature transfer for the reasons stated in Clause 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Transfer Guidelines subject to prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. 18. The said postings are made for administrative reasons in the interest of public. Even otherwise, there is no legal inhibition for effecting any premature transfer for the reasons stated in Clause 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Transfer Guidelines subject to prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. 18. The arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the mandatory requirement of obtaining the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is not complied with, has to be negated for the reason that para 187 of the Office Note – Annexure – R3 filed by the State makes it abundantly clear that the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister indeed was obtained on 07.11.2019. The copy of the same has been obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.8637/2020 which is made available before the Court along with the memo dated 08.07.2020. It is discernable that for the purpose of restructuring/reconstruction of the Excise Department in the interest of administration relaxing the guidelines dated 07.06.2013 as a special case, the impugned order was issued. Even to comply with the requirements of premature transfer, the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s approval has been taken for implementing the Government Order dated 08.11.2017. At the outset, though the postings made in terms of the impugned order dated 29.05.2020 could not be treated as the premature transfer, even assuming if it is premature transfer, the same is saved in view of the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister made on 07.11.2019. 19. It is significant to note that the petitioner in W.P.No.8637/2020 is working at Bengaluru since 21.05.2004. It is trite that the person who is long standing at one place is estopped from taking the plea of premature transfer. It is settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and Court should be very reluctant in interfering with the transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. The order of transfer could be interfered by the Courts and Tribunals in exercise of its power of judicial review only if the order is passed, alleging malafides or by an incompetent authority or in violation of any statutory provision. Thus, the scope of judicial review in respect of transfer of a Government employee is limited as the Courts cannot substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer. Thus, the scope of judicial review in respect of transfer of a Government employee is limited as the Courts cannot substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer. A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his/her choice. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in terms of the appointment, but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. These settled propositions of law are reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 20. The petitioner in W.P.No.8641/2020 is not entitled for the relief of posting at Sampangiramanagar Range 22 which does not exist in terms of the Government Notification dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure – R2). Similarly, in W.P.No.8637/2020, the petitioner cannot pick and choose the place of posting at Bengaluru for decades together. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative. 22. It is significant to note that the Tribunal while addressing the issues involved in the applications has proceeded to make some observations inasmuch as the transfer made within the same head quarters are not entitled to seek transfer grant/joining time etc., and the same has not considered while framing the guidelines dated 07.06.2013. While raising a question as to, an employee of Group C or D if transferred from one Secretariat Department to another Secretariat Department or from one office to another in the same headquarters, can it be treated as transfer, the Tribunal has expressed its opinion that the Government shall treat all Ranges in Bengaluru Urban Excise District as one office/unit/place or headquarters for the purpose of transfer. Further, an observation has been made that the State Government has not carried the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in S.N. Gangadharaiah, supra whereby it has been interpreted that the transfer from one office to another within the same head quarters to take up duties of a new post tantamounts to transfer. These observations, in our considered view, are unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 23. In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal declining to interfere with the impugned order of transfer cannot be held to be bad in law. These observations, in our considered view, are unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 23. In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal declining to interfere with the impugned order of transfer cannot be held to be bad in law. However, we have made it clear that the observation made by the Tribunal inasmuch as the fullbench decisions of this Court was unwarranted and unjustifiable. Such remarks cannot be approved. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION: For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the rejection of the applications by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.