ORDER : B M SHYAM PRASAD, J. The petitioner in Application No.3683/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] has called in question the first respondent's Order dated 12.08.2025 posting him as an 'Executive Officer', Taluka Panchayat, Belur, Hassan District. The first respondent has shown that the petitioner was awaiting posting. The Tribunal has not granted an interim order at the initial stage, but the petitioner has reported to duty at Belur, Hassan District where he is presently working. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 04.12.2025, has rejected the petitioner's application, and consequentially, the third respondent will continue to work as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South and the petitioner will have to continue to work as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Belur. 2. The Tribunal, after referring to the earlier rounds of litigation before it in the Application in No.2305/2025 and before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.23915/2025 as regards the petitioner being transferred as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South, has rejected the petitioner's application opining that when the order dated 12.08.2025 is implemented, it would be impermissible to either cancel or modify such order insofar as the petitioner and the third respondent. The Tribunal has also observed that the order dated 12.08.2025 is with the post facto approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. 3. This Court must refer to the cause for the earlier proceedings and the outcome in such proceedings to address the petitioner’s grievance with the first respondent's order dated 12.08.2025 and the Tribunal's order. When the Transfer Order dated 20.05.2025 is issued posting the petitioner as the 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South, he was working as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Hiriyur. The petitioner is relieved on 21.05.2025, and Dr. Bindu G [the incumbent 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South] has called in question the decision to transfer the petitioner in her place in the Application No.2305/2025. 4. The Tribunal has directed the parties to maintain status quo, and consequently, Dr. Bindu G continued to function as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South and the petitioner, who was relieved on 21.05.2025, has reported to duty with the Head Office. The Tribunal has disposed of Dr. 4. The Tribunal has directed the parties to maintain status quo, and consequently, Dr. Bindu G continued to function as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South and the petitioner, who was relieved on 21.05.2025, has reported to duty with the Head Office. The Tribunal has disposed of Dr. Bindu G's application in No.2305/2025 on 08.07.2025 with the directions that read as under: “Under such circumstances, we direct the respondent authorities to provide suitable posting to the applicant within a period of two weeks from today and after providing posting, the applicant has to give way to the 3 rd respondent to take charge as per the impugned order. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. The interim order granted earlier is vacated." 5. The petitioner has approached this Court with the writ petition in W.P. No.23915/2025, and the petitioner's case is that he was constrained to approach this Court because notwithstanding the Tribunal's specific directions as aforesaid, he is not permitted to assume the office of the 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South. This Court, on 12.08.2025 in such writ petition, has called upon the first respondent to explain why no posting is provided to Dr. Bindu G from 20.05.2025. 6. It is at this stage that the first respondent has issued the impugned order dated 12.08.2025, and under this order, the first respondent has not only posted Dr. Bindu G as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Nelamangala but the third respondent is also posted as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South with the petitioner being posted as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Belur. This Court must observe that in this order, the first respondent has shown that the petitioner was awaiting posting, and this is notwithstanding the Tribunal's direction that Dr. Bindu G must give way to the petitioner to take charge as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South. 7. Sri Raghavendra G Gayatri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because of the following: [a] The Tribunal has fallen in error in opining that it would be impermissible for it to intervene because the order dated 12.08.2025 is implemented only because the third respondent had reported to duty at Bengaluru South and the petitioner had reported at Belur. The Tribunal's reasoning is despite the Co-ordinate Bench's observation in 'T. Suneel Kumar, IPS v. State of Karnataka, rep. The Tribunal's reasoning is despite the Co-ordinate Bench's observation in 'T. Suneel Kumar, IPS v. State of Karnataka, rep. by Chief Secretary and others' , 2013 SCC Online Karnataka 2088 [b] The petitioner was not awaiting posting and in fact, he had the benefit of the Tribunal's direction that Dr. Bindu G must give way to him to report to duty in terms of the Order dated 20.05.2025. [c] The petitioner had reported to duty in terms of the Order dated 12.08.2025 subject to the outcome in the application and to avoid the consequence of an allegation that he had not reported at the place of posting. 8. Dr J S Halashetty, the learned counsel for the third respondent, submits that the Tribunal in disposing of Dr. Bindu G’s application in No.2305/2025 had not issued any specific direction to the Government to post the petitioner in her place, and therefore, the petitioner cannot draw any advantage from the Tribunal's observations in such order, and the learned counsel emphasizes, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in 'Shilpi Bose [Mrs] and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 1991 Supp [2] SCC 659 that the Courts should not interfere with the Transfer Order which is made in public interest and for administrative orders unless the Transfer Orders are made in violation of a mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafides and that the petitioner assert neither in the present case. 9. Dr J S Halashetty also proposes to underscore that a Government Servant does not have a vested interest to be at a particular place of posting. Sri Vikas Rojipura, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the first and second respondents, is heard in the light of the rival submissions and the Tribunal's reasoning. This Court must refer to the Co-ordinate Bench's observation in T. Suneel Kumar, IPS v. State of Karnataka, rep. by Chief Secretary and others' [supra], and the Co-ordinate Bench has observed thus: "54. In the other case the Tribunal has declined to grant the relief to the petitioner on the ground that the second respondent has taken charge. Here we would like to point out that a new service jurisprudence appears to have evolved over the years in this regard. In the other case the Tribunal has declined to grant the relief to the petitioner on the ground that the second respondent has taken charge. Here we would like to point out that a new service jurisprudence appears to have evolved over the years in this regard. The parties, Advocates and sometimes the Judges also think in terms that if the person transferred goes to the post to which he is transferred and takes charge, then the Court's power to set- aside the order of transfer does not exist. In fact, because of this understanding recently when the Government was indiscriminately passing orders of transfer contrary to statutory provisions, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal decided not only to stay such orders but also directed that the person who is relieved of his duty should be put back, to send a message to the Government and to the officials who have managed to get these transfer orders, that though the transfer has been given effect to, charge is taken, it has no value in the eye of law. ………….. Taking of charge or not taking of charge has no effect whatsoever in deciding the validity of an order of transfer. Once the order of transfer is quashed, the parties have to be relegated to the position as they stood prior to the order of transfer. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal is unsustainable and it is liable to be set-aside." This Court must opine that the Tribunal should have examined the merits of the petitioner's grievance with the Order dated 12.08.2025 although he had reported to duty. Therefore, there is a reason for interference, and the petitioner's grievance is examined in the light of the circumstances referred to above. 10. The first respondent's decision to post the petitioner at Belur is premised in the understanding that he was awaiting posting, and this is factually incorrect. The petitioner was not awaiting the posting in the ordinary sense but was awaiting appropriate orders in the light of the Tribunal's observation that Dr. Bindu G must report to her place of posting giving way to the petitioner to report as an 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South. If the petitioner's posting at Belur is wrongly premised, this Court must infer non-application of mind to the circumstances. 11. Bindu G must report to her place of posting giving way to the petitioner to report as an 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South. If the petitioner's posting at Belur is wrongly premised, this Court must infer non-application of mind to the circumstances. 11. Further, this Court is of the view that the first respondent could not have preempted the petitioner from reporting to duty as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South when the Tribunal had specifically observed in its order and this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.23915/2025 had called upon the first respondent to show why Dr. Bindu G was not issued with a posting. The first respondent, in clubbing the transfer of others with the petitioner being posted at Belur and placing the third respondent as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South has contrived an advantage that could not have been in the light of the Tribunal's order and this Court's observation. ORDER [a] The petition is allowed quashing the Tribunal's order dated 04.12.2025 in Application No.3683/2025 [Annexure-A] and the first respondent's Order dated 12.08.2025 insofar as the petitioner and the third respondent. [b] The first and second respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to report to duty as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South along with production of a certified copy of this order and permit the petitioner to complete his tenure at such place of posting in terms of the Transfer Guidelines unless the petitioner's transfer from such place is warranted in public interest and for administrative reasons and the decision is in accordance with the mandatory Transfer Guidelines. [c] Further, the first respondent is directed to issue, upon receipt of a certified copy of this order, necessary orders showing the posting for the third respondent.