B.S. Patil, J.

1. This matter is referred to the Full Bench to consider the following question:

“Whether the Rules relating to ‘transfer’ contained in the KCSR override the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 and whether it is permissible to transfer a Government servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in exercise of the power conferred in the Government Order dated 07.06.2013?”

2. The writ petition in which the order of reference to the Full Bench has been made, arises out of the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal while allowing the application has set aside the notification dated 24.08.2013 issued by the State Government transferring the petitioner who was working as Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore North, Bangalore District and posting him to the place of 2nd respondent- as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District. The Tribunal, by order dated 10.12.2013 allowed the application and quashed the notification in so far as it pertained to the posting of 2nd respondent to the place of petitioner.

3. It was contended before the Division Bench by the petitioner that posting of the 2nd respondent to the place of the petitioner could not be termed as ‘transfer’ as there was no change of headquarters. It was urged that the term ‘transfer’ having been defined in Rule 8(49) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short, ‘KCSR’), meant movement of a Government servant from one headquarters station to another such station. As the transfer in the case on hand did not involve change of headquarters, there was no transfer in the eye of law, and therefore, the Tribunal committed error in not following the provision contained in Rule 8(49) of the KCSR defining the term ‘transfer’. Petitioner relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.RAMACHANDRA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS in W.P.No.53164/2013 disposed of on 05.12.2013.

4. Per contra, Counsel for the 2nd respondent urged that the 2nd respondent was transferred by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 which defined the term ‘transfer’. As per the said definition, ‘transfer’ meant posting of a Government servant from one headquarters to another headquarters or from one office to another within the headquarters to take up duties of a new post. He placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of CHANDRU.H.N. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS – 2011(3) KLJ 562, wherein dealing with a similar Government Order issued earlier, it has been held that the Government Order had statutory force.

5. In the wake of the contentions urged before the Division Bench on the basis of the decision rendered in K. Ramachandra’s case supra, the Division Bench has, having referred to the provisions contained in the KCSR and the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 regulating transfer of Government servants, has come to the conclusion that definition of the term ‘transfer’ contained in KCSR cannot be read into the Government Order because Rule 8(49) of the KCSR had no overriding effect on the executive order dated 07.06.2013. Division Bench has observed that the decision rendered by another Division Bench in K. Ramachandra’s case required re-consideration. This is how the matter is referred to the Full Bench.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Narayan Bhat, learned Advocate General Mr. Ravi Varma Kumar for the State and the learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.S. Rajagopal for the 2nd respondent.

7. It is contended by the learned Advocate General and also by the counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 3 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the Act’), which deals with regulation of recruitment and conditions of service, the State Government is empowered to make Rules by issuing notification subject to the provisi