ORDER : The petitioner, working as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg, Belagavi District is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order bearing No. XXXX 100 XXXX 2019 dated 29.11.2019 Annexure-H to the writ petition by which the 4th respondent is posted in place of the petitioner as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg without giving any posting to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent are in the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors in the 2nd respondent-Director of Municipal Administration. The petitioner was posted to work as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg by order dated 06.12.2018 Annexure-C. Earlier to his posting to Ramdurg, the petitioner was working at Athani from 05.02.2016. Under Annexure-D notification dated 25.03.2019 in view of the election to the Lok-Sabha-2019, the petitioner was posted to work as Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Haliyal. After completion of the election process, again the petitioner was posted back to work as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg under notification dated 12.06.2019. When he was working as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg, under notification bearing No. XXXX 100 XXXX 2019 dated 29.11.2019 Annexure-H, the 4th respondent was posted in place of the petitioner who was working at Town Municipal Council, Laxmeshwar, Gadag District without providing any posting to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to report to the competent Authority requesting for further posting. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. The 4th respondent filed I.A.No.1/2020 under Section 151 of CPC praying for vacation of interim order granted by this Court on 10.12.2019. The averment made in the application is that the transfer of 4th respondent in place of the petitioner is approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and that he had taken charge of the post on 03.12.2019 and the petitioner was relived of his duties on 03.12.2019 itself. 4. No statement is filed on behalf of the Government. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned counsel, Sri.S.B.Hebballi appearing for respondent No.4. 6. 4. No statement is filed on behalf of the Government. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned counsel, Sri.S.B.Hebballi appearing for respondent No.4. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the transfer of 4th respondent in petitioner’s place and not providing posting to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and opposed to the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013. He submits that the petitioner has not completed minimum tenure at Ramdurg as Chief Officer. The petitioner has a minimum tenure of two years at Ramdurg. He was posted to Ramdurg under notification dated 06.12.2018 and he has been transferred out of Ramdurg within a period of one year. Therefore, it is a premature transfer. It is further submitted that Clause 9(b) of the transfer guidelines provides for premature transfer but the same shall be effected with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister that too after recording reasons for such transfer. In the instant case, no reasons have been recorded for transferring the petitioner and no approval of the Hon’ble Chief minister is taken for petitioner’s transfer. Moreover, the petitioner contends that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and he retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 24.04.2021. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner has no cause of action to challenge the writ petition since he had not been transferred out of Ramdurg. It is only the 4th respondent is posted as Chief Officer, City Municipal Council, Ramdurg. Until and unless the petitioner is provided with a posting, he has no locus standi to challenge the posting of 4th respondent. In that regard the 4th respondent relies on the decision of this Court reported in 2016 (4) KCCR 3612 in the case of Alla Saheb Vs. The State of Karnataka through its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Bengaluru and Others. Further, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent would contend that the transfer and posting of the 4th respondent is approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister as required under Clause 9(b) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. The State of Karnataka through its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Bengaluru and Others. Further, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent would contend that the transfer and posting of the 4th respondent is approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister as required under Clause 9(b) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. He invites the attention of this Court to Annexure-R1 produced along with the application for vacating stay in support of his contention that the approval of Hon’ble Chief 4th Minister for transfer and posting of the respondent as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg. Further, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.11.2019, the petitioner was relieved from his duties as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg. It is further submitted that the petitioner, as per Annexure-R3-Charge Transfer Certificate, handed over charge to the 4th respondent, hence, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge posting of the 4th respondent after handing over charge to the 4th respondent. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 submits that, in public interest, the 4th respondent is posted in place of the petitioner, directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority for further posting. Further, she submits that the transfer guidelines as per the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 would not be applicable to the transfer and posting of Chief Officers of the City/Town Municipal Council. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the view that the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed for the following reasons: (a) There is no dispute that the petitioner, who was working at Athani and who had completed his two years tenure at Athani, was transferred to work as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg, Belagavi District, under notification, dated 06.12.2018, issued by the 1st respondent. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner was working as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg. Under the impugned order, the 4th respondent is posted in place of the petitioner and no posting is given to the petitioner, and the impugned order requires the petitioner to report to the competent authority for further posting. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner was working as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg. Under the impugned order, the 4th respondent is posted in place of the petitioner and no posting is given to the petitioner, and the impugned order requires the petitioner to report to the competent authority for further posting. The petitioner being a government servant rightly obeyed the transfer order and handed over charge to the 4th respondent under AnnexureR3. As no posting is given to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent contended that the petitioner has no cause of action to challenge the notification dated 29.11.2017 by which the 4th respondent is posted in his place, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Alla Saheb (supra). In the said decision, the petitioner was not given posting and the respondent was posted in his place. In the facts and situation of the said case, this Court held that there is no cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the posting of the respondent. But the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the identical facts wherein Assistant Conservator of Forests was transferred posting the respondent in his place without showing any posting to the petitioner while dealing with the said fact-situation, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.48499 of 2016, disposed of on 16.09.2016 at para 6 held as follows: “6. There are two serious infirmities in the transfer order. One is that when the petitioner is transferred from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, there is no clear posting order at a particular post of the petitioner. Unless the petitioner is lifted from one place and posted at another place, it cannot be said that any vacancy has arisen of the petitioner and such an exercise of the power cannot be appreciated even if one keeps in mind the administrative circumstances for the public interest as the case may be. It is hardly required to be stated that when ‘A’ is posted in place of ‘B’ from one place to another then only there will be a vacancy of ‘A’ and ‘B’ can be posted at the place of ‘A’. It is hardly required to be stated that when ‘A’ is posted in place of ‘B’ from one place to another then only there will be a vacancy of ‘A’ and ‘B’ can be posted at the place of ‘A’. If ‘A’ is lifted and his posting is kept in lurch and ‘B’ is posted vice-A such practice cannot be appreciated and deserves to be rather deprecated and the reason being that the officer who is lifted from one place is not certain at which place he has to join the duty and unless he joins the duty at different place, it cannot be said that vacancy in law had arisen at his original place. So long as there is no vacancy at the original place, the question of posting is without any foundation. Hence, the said transfer order can be said to be with the exercise of legal malafide.” (b) Yet another decision reported in ILR 2017 KAR 86 in the case of Alla Saheb vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development and Others, in an identical fact situation, the Division Bench of this Court has held that such transfer is bad in law and opposed to the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013. In view of the above two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, the decision 4th cited by the learned counsel for the respondent would not come to the aid of the 4th respondent. (c) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has not completed his tenure as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg, and his transfer is premature and opposed to the transfer guidelines as per the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 issued by the Government and, if at all the Government intends to effect premature transfer, the Government has to obtain approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister as required under clause 9(b) of the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 which the government has failed to take in respect of the transfer of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, vehemently contended that the Government has taken prior approval of the Chief Minister before effecting the posting of the 4th respondent in place of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, vehemently contended that the Government has taken prior approval of the Chief Minister before effecting the posting of the 4th respondent in place of the petitioner. The 4th respondent, along with his application for vacating stay, has placed Annexure-R1, on the basis of which the counsel for the 4th respondent contended that the Hon’ble Chief Minister has approved transfer of the 4th respondent. A perusal of annexure-R1 would indicate that the proposal was placed before Hon’ble Chief Minister for posting of 4th respondent as Chief Officer, Ramdurg Town Municipal Council, in place of the petitioner, but there is no corresponding approval for transfer of the petitioner from out of Ramdurg Town Municipal Council. Moreover, as required under Clause 9(b) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013, no reasons are forthcoming and no reasons are recorded by the competent authority for premature transfer of the petitioner and posting of 4th respondent. Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 requires recording of reasons for effecting premature transfer. This Court considering clause 9(a) and (b) of the government order dated 07.06.2013 in the case of Rajashekar M Vs. State of Karnaktaka and Others reported in 2019(2) KLR 352, at para 6 has held as follows: “6. As could be seen from para 9 of the Government Order extracted above, premature/delayed transfer of Government servants is permitted in the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) with the prior approval of the Chief Minister. It requires the Competent Authority to record reasons stating as to how the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order, only then the Chief Minister may give his prior approval for premature/delayed transfer of the Government servant. If prior approval is given by the Chief Minister for transfers not falling under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order, it will be invalid in law and any premature/delayed transfer made pursuant thereto will be illegal and hence is liable to be set aside.” A reading of the above would make it clear that for effecting premature transfer, prior approval of the Chief Minister is necessary and recording of reasons also would be necessary. In the instant case, no reasons are forthcoming nor have any reasons been recorded for premature transfer of the petitioner and for posting the 4th respondent in his place. Moreover, the petitioner contends that he would retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. The government, while effecting transfer of the petitioner and posting of the 4th respondent in petitioner’s place, ought to have taken note of the petitioner’s retirement as required under Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. (d) The impugned notification dated 29.11.2019 states for transfer and posting to the post of the Chief Officer, the general transfer guidelines would not be applicable. To the Court query to the learned Additional Government Advocate as to on what basis the said clause is incorporated in the impugned order, the learned additional Government Advocate was unable to answer the same. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent was also not in a position to answer as to on what basis the said clause is incorporated. There is nothing in the Government Order dated 07.6.2013, to show that the exclusion of transfer guidelines to the cadre of Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council or the City Municipal Councils. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent today along with a memo has placed on record notification dated 27.01.2020 to show that one Shri S.H.Naikar, is posted as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Laxmeshwar, from where the petitioner was transferred and posted as Chief Officer, CMC, Ramdurg. The same would not assist the 4th respondent in any way. The transfer and posting of 4th respondent in place of the petitioner without providing any posting to the petitioner is wholly contrary to the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. Hence, the impugned notification bearing No. No XXXX 100 XXXX 2019 dated 29.11.2019 Annexure-H is set aside. The petitioner to continue as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg, till he completes his tenure with all other exceptions. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.