ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), Bengaluru, in Application No.7360 of 2019, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the notification of transfer, the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal has filed the instant writ petition. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows: The 1st respondent herein was transferred and posted as Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru by an order dated 08082018 and in terms of the order of transfer, he reported to duty on 17.8.2018. Even before the completion of minimum tenure as stipulated in the guidelines of transfer, the Government issued a notification on 11.12.2019 transferring the 1st respondent from the post of Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru to Mangaluru Smart City Project. This was challenged by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal in application No.7360/2019. The Tribunal considering the fact that the transfer was contrary to the guidelines dated 07.06.2013, on two counts that transfer was premature and was without the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, quashed the impugned order and directed that the 1st respondent be put back to the same place i.e., as Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru. Aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal has preferred the instant petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order of the Tribunal was erroneous and contrary to law, as the Hon’ble Chief Minister had approved the transfer of the 1st respondent on 04.12.2019 and the notification was issued on 11.12.2019 and since there was prior approval and premature transfer after the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was permissible and it does not vitiate the order of transfer . 4. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that there are no reasons recorded in writing by the competent authority for effecting transfer, there is no prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the transfer is effected before the completion of minimum tenure of two years which mandatorily requires reasons to be recorded in writing and prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. He further contends that the 1st respondent assumed the charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru on 17.8.2018 and the post of Assistant Commissioner is a GroupA post . He further contends that the 1st respondent assumed the charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru on 17.8.2018 and the post of Assistant Commissioner is a GroupA post . In terms of Clause8 of the guidelines dated 7.6.2013, the minimum tenure prescribed for a GroupA officer in a post is two years. The notification subsequently issued on 11.12.2019 transferring the 1st respondent out of the post of Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru to Mangaluru Smart City Project and bringing in the writ petitioner to his place was thus, premature and contrary to the guidelines. 5. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the transfer of the 1st respondent was in public interest and owing to administrative exigency, no illegality is committed by the Government in issuing the impugned notification of transfer dated 11.12.2019. 6. Upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties and on perusing the papers before us, it is clear that a GroupA Officer is entitled to a minimum tenure of two years at a post in terms of Clause8 of the guidelines of transfer dated 07062013. The transfer of the 1st respondent on 11.12.2019 was before the completion of minimum tenure of two years. In terms of the said guidelines, Clause9 stipulates that a transfer can be effected before the completion of minimum tenure, only if the reasons recorded in writing by the competent authority are placed before the Hon’ble Chief Minister and his prior approval is obtained. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the file was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Minister after the impugned notification of transfer was issued for a post facto approval which is in contravention of Clause7 (iii) of the guidelines dated 07.06.2013. The guidelines dated 07.06.2013 are declared to have a statutory force by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of GANGADHARAIAH S.N. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in 2015 ILR (KAR) 1955. Thus, the transfer of the petitioner to the place of the 1st respondent whereby, the 1st respondent was disturbed before completion of a period of two years, is premature and there are no reasons recorded in writing. Hence , it is in contravention of guidelines dated 07.06.2013. 7. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, they are distinguishable on the facts obtaining in each of the cases. Hence , it is in contravention of guidelines dated 07.06.2013. 7. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, they are distinguishable on the facts obtaining in each of the cases. The judgment of this Court in the case of SRI BASAVARAJAPPA MALI PATIL Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in WRIT PETITION NO.20074/2018 D.D. ON 05.06.2018, which was a case where the impugned transfer had the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and it was observed by this Court that the petitioner therein had not been transferred without any rhyme or reason. In the other judgment relied on, in the case of SRI R.S.PYATIGOUDAR VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in WRIT PETITION NO.202031/2019 D.D. ON 24.07.2019, was a case of posting an officer under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules in the place of the petitioner therein. And the court observed that there was no malafide intention and mere irregularity of not mentioning the reason would not give any right to the party to challenge the order. 8. This Court in the case of RAJASHEKAR M. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2019 (1) AIR Kant R 489, the specific issue that fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was as follows: “1. Whether the Chief Minister has absolute discretion under Government Order No.DPAR 22 STR 2013, Bangalore, dated 07.06.2013 to give prior approval for premature/ delayed transfers referred to in para 9 thereof? This is the question that requires to be answered in this petition and it is answered in the negative. Under para 9(b) of the aforesaid Government Order, the Chief Minister, on perusal of the reasons recorded by the Competent Authority, may give his prior approval for premature/delayed transfer of a Government servant, only if he is satisfied that the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order.” and the aforesaid issue has been answered at paragraph Nos.6 and 7, following the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of GANGADHARIAH S.N. (supra), which reads 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. 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 to warrant premature / delayed transfer of a Government servant and the said reasons have to be placed before the Chief Minister to obtain his prior approval as mandated in para 9(b) of the Government Order. After perusal of the reasons, if the Chief Minister is satisfied that 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. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for State of Karnataka fairly submitted that prior approval of the Chief Minister was not preceded by recording of any reasons by the Competent Authority to show that the premature transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.4 would fall under any of the circumstances stated in para 9(a)(i) to (viii) of the Government Order. Hence, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of transfer as it was contrary to para 9 of the Government Order laying down guidelines for transfer of Government servants.” 9. In terms of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of GANGADHARIAH S.N. (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of RAJASHEKAR M. (supra), the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the impugned order of transfer dated 11.12.2019. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.7360/2019 does not warrant any interference. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.