Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 512 (KAR)

Sanjeevkumar S/o Sharanappa v. State of Karnataka

2025-06-20

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2025
ORDER : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. 1. The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned transfer order dated 30.7.2024 thereby posting respondent No.5 to the place of petitioner vide Annexure-L. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and was later promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 10.07.2012. Following his promotion, he was transferred from GESCOM Division, Humnabad to the 33 KV C&M Division, GESCOM, Bidar by order dated 31.10.2023, where he was posted against a vacant post. 3. Subsequently, pursuant to the approval of the Managing Director, a new O&M City Sub-Division was created by bifurcating it from the existing O&M Division, Bidar. Respondent No.4 – GESCOM – issued an Official Memorandum renaming the residual division as O&M City Sub-Division, Bidar. The petitioner contends that the newly constituted sub-division was sanctioned with 18 posts, including one post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical). 4. The petitioner submits that since he was already working in the 33 KV C&M Division, Bidar, his post was administratively shifted to the newly created O&M City Sub-Division, and he assumed charge on 15.06.2024. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.5, who was serving at the 110 KV Sub-Station, KPTCL, Balki, Bidar District, misused political influence and enclosed a letter issued by the Minister for Municipal Administration and Haj seeking his posting in place of the petitioner. Apprehending displacement, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.3 on 11.07.2024 (Annexure-H), highlighting that he had only recently been posted to the 33 KV C&M Division on 31.10.2023 and that his post was shifted to the newly created sub-division with effect from 15.06.2024. He therefore requested to be allowed to complete the minimum prescribed tenure. 5. The petitioner asserts that he has served only 7½ months as Assistant Executive Engineer at the 33 KV C&M Division, Bidar, and 1½ months at the newly created O&M City Sub-Division, Bidar. He contends that the impugned order transferring him is premature and in violation of the Government's transfer guidelines, which mandate a minimum tenure of two years for Group-A officers. He also questions the legality of the transfer on the ground that it was effected without the prior approval of the Chief Minister, as required under the applicable transfer norms. 6. He contends that the impugned order transferring him is premature and in violation of the Government's transfer guidelines, which mandate a minimum tenure of two years for Group-A officers. He also questions the legality of the transfer on the ground that it was effected without the prior approval of the Chief Minister, as required under the applicable transfer norms. 6. In response, respondent No.5 has filed a detailed statement of objections, contending that the petitioner's posting to the new sub-division was only by way of deputation. It is further asserted that respondent No.5 was transferred to the post occupied by the petitioner on humanitarian grounds, as his family resides in Bidar and his children are pursuing education there. It is argued that since the petitioner has only been shifted within the same headquarters, it does not amount to a transfer under Clause (2), Sub-Clause (3) of Annexure-J to the transfer guidelines, and thus the challenge is misconceived. 7. By way of additional objections, respondent No.5 reiterates that the petitioner was merely deputed to the newly constituted Urban Sub-Division, Bidar, by order dated 15.06.2024, and therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge respondent No.5’s transfer to the said post. 8. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5. 9. The primary defence raised by the respondents, as seen from the additional statement of objections, is that the petitioner’s posting to the newly created O&M City Sub-Division, Bidar, was on deputation and hence not a general transfer. Therefore, according to the respondents, the Government’s transfer guidelines are not attracted. It is also contended that respondent No.4 lacked authority to transfer the petitioner to the 33 KV C&M Division, Bidar under the order dated 31.10.2023. Another justification offered is that respondent No.5 was transferred to Bidar on account of personal hardship, his family being based there and children enrolled in local schools. The allegation of political interference in respondent No.5's transfer is denied. 10. However, a holistic reading of the records indicates that the petitioner was initially transferred to the 33 KV C&M Division, Bidar by order dated 31.10.2023, and upon creation of the new City Sub-Division, his post was merely shifted pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2024, which was duly approved by the Managing Director. 10. However, a holistic reading of the records indicates that the petitioner was initially transferred to the 33 KV C&M Division, Bidar by order dated 31.10.2023, and upon creation of the new City Sub-Division, his post was merely shifted pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2024, which was duly approved by the Managing Director. The petitioner's assumption of charge is evidenced by documents at Annexures-D, E, and F. Therefore, the subsequent posting to the newly created sub-division must be treated as a continuation of the original transfer order dated 31.10.2023, and consequently, the Government's transfer guidelines are fully applicable. 11. The records further reveal that the impugned transfer order has been issued at the behest of the Minister, as evidenced by the communication marked at Annexure-G. This Court considers the said recommendation material as relevant, and deems it appropriate to extract the same for reference, which reads as follows: 12. On a comprehensive evaluation of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was transferred from GESCOM Division, Humnabad to the 33 KV C&M Division, GESCOM, Bidar by order dated 31.10.2023. Subsequently, pursuant to the approval granted by the Managing Director, the newly created O&M City Sub- Division, Bidar was established through Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2024, and the petitioner’s post was accordingly shifted to this new division. The petitioner assumed charge of the said post, which is evidenced from Annexures-D, E, and F. The sequence of events clearly establishes that the petitioner’s current posting is a continuation of the original transfer order dated 31.10.2023. The attempt to treat the petitioner’s posting to the new sub-division as a deputation is factually and legally unsustainable. 13. Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that the petitioner was deputed to the newly created sub-division, it is a well-settled position in law that the Government’s Transfer Guidelines are applicable even to cases of deputation. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that even deputationists are entitled to the protection of minimum tenure of posting unless compelling administrative exigencies justify such a move. In State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav , (1995) 3 SCC 270 , the Supreme Court reiterated that frequent transfers and instability in postings without cogent justification are impermissible and run contrary to administrative discipline. In State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav , (1995) 3 SCC 270 , the Supreme Court reiterated that frequent transfers and instability in postings without cogent justification are impermissible and run contrary to administrative discipline. The Division Bench of this Court has also, in more recent judgments, held that the minimum tenure of two years prescribed under the Transfer Guidelines applies to all Government servants, including those posted on deputation, and deviation from the said guidelines requires valid justification supported by prior approval from the competent authority, specifically the Chief Minister where Group-A officers are involved. 14. In the present case, the impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside on the ground of its being premature, in clear breach of Clause 4(1)(a) of the Karnataka State Civil Services Transfer Guidelines, 2023, which mandates a minimum tenure of two years for officers holding Group-A posts. The petitioner has served for only 7½ months at the 33 KV C&M Division, and 1½ months at the O&M City Sub-Division, Bidar. There are no records to indicate the existence of any administrative exigency warranting such a transfer. More critically, the impugned order is vitiated by external influence, as it is made evident from Annexure-G, which contains a recommendation from a Minister requesting the transfer of respondent No.5 to the petitioner’s post. Such transfers initiated at the behest of elected representatives, particularly without adherence to the mandatory procedural safeguards, have repeatedly been deprecated by the Courts. In T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India , (2013) 15 SCC 732 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically observed that civil servants must be protected from whimsical or extraneous interferences in administrative matters and emphasized the need for fixed tenure to ensure independent and efficient functioning. 15. Furthermore, Clause 4(1)(b) of the Transfer Guidelines mandates that in cases involving transfer within the minimum tenure, such transfers must be preceded by prior approval of the Chief Minister. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that such prior approval was obtained before effecting the petitioner’s transfer. The failure to follow the prescribed procedure and the influence exerted by a political functionary render the transfer order legally unsustainable. 16. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the operation of the impugned transfer order has been stayed by interim order dated 02.08.2024. The failure to follow the prescribed procedure and the influence exerted by a political functionary render the transfer order legally unsustainable. 16. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the operation of the impugned transfer order has been stayed by interim order dated 02.08.2024. In view of the said interim protection, the petitioner has continued to serve in his present post without interruption. Consequently, by the efflux of time and due to the subsistence of the interim order, the petitioner has now completed a substantial portion of the minimum tenure prescribed under the Transfer Guidelines. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was initially posted to the 33 KV C&M Division, Bidar on 31.10.2023 and his post was shifted to the newly created O&M City Sub-Division, Bidar on 15.06.2024, it is evident that he has effectively discharged his duties in the same station for over seven months before the interim order and has continued in the same position thereafter. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the equities now tilt in favour of the petitioner and that interfering with his posting at this stage would defeat the very object of providing stability of tenure in service. Accordingly, this Court finds it just and proper to extend the benefit of its discretionary jurisdiction and grant relief in favour of the petitioner. 17. Therefore, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER : (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned transfer order dated 30.07.2024 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-K is hereby quashed. Consequently, impugned order dated 30.7.2024 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-L thereby posting respondent No.5 to the place of the petitioner also stands quashed.