ORDER : 1. The question for consideration in the present petition is: whether this Court must intervene with the order dated 23.09.2025 in Application No.3248/2025 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The third respondent and the petitioner are working as Section Officers with the Karnataka State Government Secretariat Department. The reason for the present dispute begins with the Notification dated 02.06.2025, and by this Notification, the third respondent, who was working with the School Education and Saksharatha Department, is posted in place of the petitioner with the Urban Development Department, Municipal Administration-1 [UDD MA-1], with the petitioner being posted to his place. 2. The petitioner and the third respondent have called this order in question with the Tribunal in their respective applications in No.2466/2025 and No.2836/2025. The third respondent has withdrawn his application [in No.2836/2025] resulting in the order dated 16.07.2025, and the petitioner has also withdrawn his application [in No.2466/2025] resulting in the order dated 17.06.2025. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development Department has written a Note dated 10.06.2025 recording that the petitioner has been rendering an excellent service and therefore the Notification dated 02.06.2025 must be withdrawn and he must be permitted to continue with the UDD MA-1. 3. On 25.06.2025, a clarification is sought for from the Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on whether the petitioner or the third respondent should be retained with the observation that both the petitioner and the third respondent are working in the same post. The response is dated 03.07.2025, and the response is that the petitioner and the third respondent must be continued in the posts that they held prior to 02.06.2025. An observation in this Report dated 03.07.2025 is that the third respondent, who is relieved by the School Education and Saksharatha Department, has reported to duty with the UDD MA-1 but there is no information about the petitioner having reported to his place in terms of the Notification dated 02.06.2025. 4. After the response dated 03.07.2025, the impugned Notification dated 07.07.2025 is issued. The petitioner is continued with UDD MA-1, and in modification of the Notification dated 02.06.2025, the third respondent is posted to the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department [Forest - A]. The third respondent has called this Notification dated 07.07.2025 in question with the Tribunal in Application No.3248/2025. 4. After the response dated 03.07.2025, the impugned Notification dated 07.07.2025 is issued. The petitioner is continued with UDD MA-1, and in modification of the Notification dated 02.06.2025, the third respondent is posted to the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department [Forest - A]. The third respondent has called this Notification dated 07.07.2025 in question with the Tribunal in Application No.3248/2025. The Tribunal has intervened to set aside the Notification dated 07.07.2025 as regards the petitioner and the third respondent holding that the third respondent is entitled to continue in the post of Section Officer, UDD MA-1 [as per the Notification dated 02.06.2025] directing the Authorities to provide suitable posting to the petitioner. 5. The Tribunal has rejected the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the Notification dated 02.06.2025 is only a Movement Order and not a transfer order concluding that once an order of transfer or movement is implemented, it should not be interfered with. The Tribunal's observation is because of the third respondent’s case that he had reported to duty in terms of the Notification dated 02.06.2025. It is now placed on record that the petitioner has been issued with the posting order and he is presently posted to the post shown to the third respondent [with the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department - Forest - A] in the Notification dated 07.07.2025. 6. Mr. H. C. Shivaramu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, canvasses that: [i] the Tribunal has erred in referring to the decision of the Division Bench in S. M. Shiva Kumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others , W.P. No. 20732/2024 and W.P. No. 20740/2024 decided on and such decision is not relevant to the present circumstances, 07.08.2024. [ii] the State Government is categorical that the third respondent had not reported to duty because he has secured only an acknowledgment from a Group 'C' employee, and this submission is in rebuttal of the assertion that the third respondent had reported to duty in terms of the Notification dated 02.06.2025. [iii] the petitioner was not relieved from the post of Section Officer, UDD MA-1 with appropriate memorandum and until such memorandum was issued, neither the petitioner could be relieved nor he could have reported to duty at his posting for the third respondent to report in his place. 7. As against these submissions, Mr. [iii] the petitioner was not relieved from the post of Section Officer, UDD MA-1 with appropriate memorandum and until such memorandum was issued, neither the petitioner could be relieved nor he could have reported to duty at his posting for the third respondent to report in his place. 7. As against these submissions, Mr. Nagaraj S. Jain, the learned counsel for the third respondent, submits that this Tribunal's reference is not to the decision in S.M. Shiva Kumar [supra] but to the decision in the case of K.S. Sudhakara Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others , W.A. No. 1146/2024 decided on 03.09.2024. and that this stands out because the Tribunal has referred to the decision of a Writ Court in H.R. Puttaraju Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others , W.P. No. 19154/2024 decided on 25.07.2024 and the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1146/2024 is as against the Writ Court's order. The learned counsel also emphasizes that the petitioner has been working with the UDD MA-1 for over a period of five years and his transfer from this Department to another Department is in the light of the same. 8. Mr. V. Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of these submissions. This Court must observe at the outset that the Notification dated 02.06.2025, while providing for interchange between the petitioner and the third respondent, is categorical that these two must report to duty with the Department where they are transferred and that they must ensure that the Communication about assuming charge is sent to the concerned Section. The petitioner and the third respondent have called in question this order with the Tribunal only to withdraw their respective applications. It is after the withdrawal of the application in No.2466/2025, the Notification dated 17.06.2025 is issued recording that the third respondent is relieved from the School Education and Saksharatha Department and he is called upon to report to duty in terms of the Notification dated 02.06.2025. 9. This Court does not find any force in the submissions by Mr. H. C. Shivaramu that a separate order was required to be issued to the petitioner to report to duty because the Notification dated 02.06.2025 in itself is categorical that the officers must report to duty to the place of posting and ensure that the document is sent to the concerned Section. H. C. Shivaramu that a separate order was required to be issued to the petitioner to report to duty because the Notification dated 02.06.2025 in itself is categorical that the officers must report to duty to the place of posting and ensure that the document is sent to the concerned Section. More crucially, the observation even while issuing seeking clarification in the Communication dated 25.06.2025 is that both the petitioner and the third respondent were in the same post with no material to indicate that the petitioner had reported to the place of his posting. 10. The Response dated 03.07.2025, in view of the Communication dated 25.06.2025, is for the petitioner’s continuation with the UDD MA-1, and this is because of the Communication dated 10.06.2025 addressed by the Hon’ble Minister. The petitioner, with the transfer order staring at him, should have reported to duty and continued prosecuting his remedy. In fact, he has filed his application in No. 2466/2025 against the transfer notification, which he withdrew on 17.06.2025 in anticipation of a favourable turn once the effort is begun with the Hon’ble Minister’s recommendation for his continuance. 11. The intervention with the impugned Notification dated 07.07.2025 thereafter is obviously at the petitioner’s intervention. Though the petitioner contends that this intervention is because the Authorities realized he was shifted inadvertently, there is nothing in the impugned Notification dated 07.07.2025 to even suggest this. The petitioner’s failure to report to duty at the place of transfer and his effort to pursue his grievance based on the Recommendation dated 10.06.2025, withdrawing the pending application, cannot augur well for the discipline that is expected in Government Service. As such, this Court does not find any reason to take exception with the Tribunal's conclusion. This Court has also noted the fact that the petitioner, who has been with the Urban Development Department for more than 5 years, is given a posting after the Tribunal's order. The question framed is answered against the petitioner and the petition stands disposed of.