ORDER : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 vide Annexure "A" issued by the first respondent. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner was posted to work as a Chief Officer in Bajpe Town Panchayat-Dakshina Kannada District on 09.05.2025. The post of Chief Officer is a Group 'C' post. The minimum tenure is four years, as per the Transfer Guidelines. The petitioner assumed charge on 12.05.2025. Notwithstanding the said fact, in the middle of the Academic Year, beyond the transfer period, the petitioner has been transferred to the post of Manager in Puttur Municipality prematurely on 26.09.2025. The said order of transfer is wholly misconceived and is liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Sri. Rathna Prasad P., Chief officer, Bappalige, Puttur, filed an application for vacating the interim order. It is stated therein that the petitioner was working as a Office Manager and was directed to work on temporary basis as a Chief Officer in Bajpe Town Panchayat on own pay scale with certain conditions. The petitioner was posted to the office of respondent No.3 to the post of Office Manager with the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.4. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as a Chief Officer in Bajpe Town Panchayat, Dakshina Kannada and the post of Chief Officer is a Group 'C' post, the minimum tenure of which is 4 years, as per the Transfer Guidelines. He submits that the petitioner assumed charge as a Chief Officer on 12.05.2025 and in the middle of the Academic Year, by violating the Transfer Guidelines, the impugned order of transfer has been passed and hence, the impugned order is premature one. 7. He submits that the petitioner assumed charge as a Chief Officer on 12.05.2025 and in the middle of the Academic Year, by violating the Transfer Guidelines, the impugned order of transfer has been passed and hence, the impugned order is premature one. 7. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) Judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of: - K.S.Sudhakar v. The State of Karnataka and others, in Writ Appeal No.1146 of 2024 decided on 03.09.2024; (ii) Judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of: - K.G.Amarnatha v. The State of Karnataka and Others in WP No.33195/2017, disposed of on 28.07.2017; - Siddalingaprabhu vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in WP. No.101477 of 2018, disposed of on 02.03.2018. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Manager and his post is a Group "C" post. The post of the Chief Officer is a cadre post and belongs to the cadre of the Karnataka Municipalities (Administrative) Service ["KMAS"]. 9. He submits that the order of transfer of the petitioner as a Chief Officer is only temporary and an administrative decision; whenever the officers in the KMAS Chief Officers' cadre become available, the petitioner was to report at the place the Government directs him to report, and the General Transfer Guidelines are not applicable in cases where Office Manager is posted as Chief Officer of Town Panchayat Post Office. Admittedly, the petitioner does not belongs to KMAS cadre and Annexure "B" is only temporary, as such, the Transfer Guidelines are not applicable to the case on hand. He also submitted that the petitioner having accepted the conditions mentioned in Annexure "B", is estopped from contending that the impugned order is in violation of the Transfer Guidelines. 10. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) Decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of: - Smt. Saroja Patil vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in WP No.26625 of 2024 , disposed of on 15.11.2024; - Sri. 10. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) Decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of: - Smt. Saroja Patil vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in WP No.26625 of 2024 , disposed of on 15.11.2024; - Sri. Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.18081 of 2019, disposed of on 22.11.2019; (ii) Judgments of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of: - Sri. Manjappa vs. The state of Karnataka and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Kar 5704; - Smt. K.S Bagoji vs. The state of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.100427 of 2022 disposed on 02.02.2022; 11. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 adopts the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 13. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was posted to work as a Chief Officer in Bajpe Town, Panchayat vide Notification dated 09.05.2025 as per Annexure 'B'. The post of Chief Officer is a Group 'C' post. 14. As per Annexure 'B', it was ordered that the petitioner be posted to the vacant post of Chief Officer in Bajpe Town Panchayat with immediate effect and, in public and administrative interest, until further order, subject to certain conditions, which read as follows: (Notification is in Kannada, as such, same is translated to English): "(1) The transfer of Office Manager to the post of Chief Officer of Town Panchayat is temporary and an administrative decision. The Government reserves the right to repatriate/return them to the original post/reassign them elsewhere at any time. (2) The Office Manager shall report promptly to the place designated by the Government whenever in future, the officers of KMAS Chief Officer's Cadre becomes available. (3) The general transfer guidelines are not applicable in cases where an Office Manager is appointed as the Chief Officer of a Town Panchayat and that the condition that minimum/maximum period of service is allowed to be served at a specific place is not applicable." 15. On going through the contents of Annexure "B", it is clear that the petitioner was posted as a Chief Officer of Town Panchayat temporarily and for administrative reason. The Government has the right to return to his original post, i.e., as an Office Manager. On going through the contents of Annexure "B", it is clear that the petitioner was posted as a Chief Officer of Town Panchayat temporarily and for administrative reason. The Government has the right to return to his original post, i.e., as an Office Manager. Whenever the officers of KMAS Chief Officers become available, and the general and the transfer guidelines are not applicable in cases where an Office Manager is posted as Chief Officer of Town Panchayat. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in KMAS cadre and Annexure "B" order is only a temporary one i.e., till the arrangement is made or till the KMAS officers are available. The petitioner, having accepted the conditions mentioned in Annexure "B", is estopped from contending that the impugned order is in violation of the Transfer Guidelines. Admittedly, condition No.3 in Annexure "B" is very clear that the Transfer Guidelines are not applicable. Hence, the petitioner does not have any right to continue as a Chief Officer of Bajpe Town Panchayat, and the posting of the petitioner as a Chief Officer of Bajpe Town Panchayat was purely a temporary arrangement, which could be altered at any time and there is no vested right for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order at Annexure "A". 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of case K.S.Sudhakar v. The State of Karnataka and others, in Writ Appeal No.1146 of 2024 decided on 03.09.2024. In the said case, respondent No.3 therein questioning the Office Memorandum (transfer order) preferred a writ petition contending that the transfer is premature and in violation of the transfer guidelines. The Division Bench considering the transfer guidelines held that respondent No.3 therein was on a deployment, and the Transfer Guidelines-2024 are applicable and the Guidelines provide for a minimum tenure of posting to a Government Servant at a place. 18. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was posted as a Chief Officer and the petitioner does not hold eligibility criteria for holding the post of Chief Officer and it was only on a temporary basis. The Chief Officer must be from the KMAS cadre. Admittedly, the petitioner does not belong to KMAS cadre. 19. 18. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was posted as a Chief Officer and the petitioner does not hold eligibility criteria for holding the post of Chief Officer and it was only on a temporary basis. The Chief Officer must be from the KMAS cadre. Admittedly, the petitioner does not belong to KMAS cadre. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.G.Amarnatha v. The State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P. No.33195 of 2017, disposed of on 28.07.2017. In the said cases, the petitioner therein was appointed as a Health Inspector and the post of Health Inspector was equal to the post of Chief Officer. It was held by this Court that once the guidelines have been framed and applied to the Deputationist, the State Government cannot be permitted to impose a condition, which would be contrary to the guidelines. Once a procedure has been established by the law, the State Government is bound to scrupulously follow the procedure. It cannot be permitted to deviate from the said procedure. It was further held that the premature transfer can be made, however, Guideline No.7(iii) and Guideline No.9(b) of the Transfer Guidelines prescribe the procedure to be followed in the case of premature transfer. 20. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Siddalingaprabhu vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in WP. No.101477 of 2018, disposed of on 02.03.2018. 21. Respondent No.4 placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench, disposed off on 15.11.2024 in the case of Smt. Saroja Patil vs. The State of Karnataka and others, in WP No.26625 of 2024 disposed of on 15.11.2024. The Division Bench has held that the arrangements are made due to exigency of service. The persons, who hold a post on in-charge/independent charge basis, do not have a right of lien to the position. They cannot exercise any substantive powers attached thereto. 22. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.18081 of 2019, disposed of on 22.11.2019. The relevant portion is at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment, which read as follows: " 8. They cannot exercise any substantive powers attached thereto. 22. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.18081 of 2019, disposed of on 22.11.2019. The relevant portion is at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment, which read as follows: " 8. However, in these proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner tried to assert that the impugned order is erroneous in as much as the grounds which are urged by him are not properly appreciated and that subsequent to the application being dismissed, there is change in the cadre and according to him, the 4 th respondent herein is said to be in the cadre of Warden, which is above that of the cadre of Office Manager, therefore he should not have been considered for the said post as against the entitlement of the petitioner who is posted to the said post on own pay grade basis vide order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure-A1). 9. In any event, this Court would not look into any of these things when admittedly posting of the petitioner to the post of Office Manager is only temporary arrangement. As could be seen from the order at Annexure-A1, the posting of the petitioner to the post of ‘Office Manager’ is until further orders on own pay grade basis. Hence, the same cannot be accepted as regular transfer and further his posting is also not shown as it is on permanent basis, in the order of transfer vide Annexure-A1. In that view of the matter, the posting of 4th respondent as ‘Office Manager’ cannot be found fault with either by the petitioner herein or any other person in his cadre." 23. In that view of the matter, the posting of respondent No.4 as the Office Manager cannot be found fault with, either by the petitioner herein or any other person in his cadre. 24. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. K.S Bagoji vs. The state of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.100427 of 2022 disposed on 02.02.2022, in an identical set of facts, has held that the petitioner was posted as a Chief Officer at Ugar Khurd Town Municipal Council, on her own pay scale, which was purely temporary and conditional, namely that she could be recalled or redeployed at any other place. It was also mentioned in the said notification that the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 is not applicable to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that she was substantatively transferred as a Chief Officer of Ugar Khurd Town Municipal Council, and, held that the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 were not applicable to the petitioner therein as she did not belong to KMAS cadre. 25. Admittedly, in the instant case the petitioner did not belong to the KMAS cadre and she belongs to Group "C" cadre. but, she was placed in-charge of Group "B" post on temporary basis. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim continuation in the said post. 26. Considering the orders passed and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.4, the petitioner is not entitled to continue in the said post. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand, since, if the incumbency of the petitioner was temporary, she cannot claim continuation in the said post. 27. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition and same is dismissed. 28. In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.