ORDER : ALOKARADHE, J. Mr.Virupakshaiah P.H., learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.Shilpa S.Gogi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri.V.R.Sarathy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally. 2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), by which the original application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.01.2019, by which the petitioner was transferred from his present place of posting as Blood Bank Officer, Chigateri District Hospital, Davanagere as Blood Bank Officer, District Hospital, Gadag has been dismissed. 4. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was posted as Blood Bank Officer by an order dated 07.09.2019 in Chigateri District Hospital. By an order dated 31.10.2019, the petitioner was transferred from Chigateri District Hospital to work as Blood Bank Officer, District Hospital Gadag against the vacant post. The petitioner challenged the validity of the aforesaid order before the Tribunal inter aliaon the ground that the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulations of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staff) Act, 2011 has not been followed while passing the impugned order. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.12.2019 has dismissed the aforesaid application inter aliaon the ground that the petitioner does not hold the post of specialist and he is a Blood Bank Officer. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Blood Bank Officer and was holding the post of specialist and therefore, the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulations of Transfer of medical officer and other staff) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules’ for short) ought to have been followed before issuing the order of transfer. Since, the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed under the Rules, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the petitioner is a blood bank officer and does not hold the post of specialist. Since, the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed under the Rules, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the petitioner is a blood bank officer and does not hold the post of specialist. 7. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. In exercise of powers under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulations of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Act, 2011 has framed Rules viz., Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulations of Transfer of medical officer and other staff) Rules, 2011. Section 2(n) of the Act defines the expression ‘Specialist’, which reads as follows: “specialist” means a medical officer who has Post Graduate Degree or Post Graduate Diploma qualification and is working as specialist; 8. Rule 5 of the Rules, prescribes procedure for compulsory transfer of a specialist by a senior specialist to appropriate post and its procedure through counseling. In the instant case, from perusal of the definition of Section 2(n) of the Act as well as perusal of Schedule I appended to the Act, it is evident that the post of Blood Bank Officer does not fall within the purview of the definition of ‘Specialist’. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, it was not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules. The order of transfer does not suffer from any infirmity much less any statutory infraction as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules. The order passed by the Tribunal neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, we do not find any