The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer policy of the State is not absolute and cannot restrict the government's discretion to transfer employees based on administrative exigencies and public interest.

R.S. Chauhan, J.

1. The petitioner, Mr. H.R. Ramesh, is aggrieved by the two transfer orders: firstly, the order dated 6-5-2015 (Annexure-A) whereby Mr. B.A. Krishnegowda, the respondent No. 3, has been posted to Somwarpet on the post of Chief Officer at Town Municipal Council, a post held by the petitioner. By the said order, simultaneously, the petitioner has been kept "awaiting posting order" ('APO', for short). Secondly, the order dated 25-7-2015 (Annexure-Q) whereby the petitioner was subsequently posted as Chief Officer, Town Panchayat, Hannur.

2. The brief of the facts are that the petitioner happens to be a member of the cadre of Senior Health Inspector. Due to retirement of one Mr. M.S. Ranjan, by order dated 8-9-2014, the petitioner was posted on the post of Chief Officer Grade II, Somwarpet. Subsequently, by order dated 6-5-2015, the respondent No. 3, who happens to belong to the cadre of Community Affair Officer, has been posted in the place of the petitioner, and the petitioner was kept as APO. Subsequently, by order dated 25-7-2015, the petitioner who was kept as APO has been posted as Chief Officer, Town Panchayat, Hannur. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following pleas with regard to first transfer, namely, order dated 6-5-2015:-

Firstly, according to the transfer policy of the State once an employee is posted at a place, he would not be disturbed for four to five years. Since the petitioner was posted in 2014, he cannot be transferred in 2015. Such a transfer order is premature one.

Secondly, the respondent No. 3 happens to be a Community Affair Officer. According to the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service Rules, 1970, (for short, "the Rules of 1970") the post of Chief Officers Grade - II is to be filled in 33 1/3% by direct recruitment, and 66 2/3% by absorption. Furthermore, the absorption shall be made from four feeding cadres, namely Managers, Revenue Officers, Senior Health Inspectors belonging to Municipal Service, and Managers in the Office of DMA. According to the learned counsel, the post of Community Affair Officer is not a feeding cadre for absorption on the post of Chief Officer Grade-II. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 is not eligible for being appointed on the post of Chief Officer Grade - II.

Thirdly, according to Memorandum dated 3-5-2013 issued by the Government, a decision was taken that a Community Affair Officers cannot be appointed as Chief Officers.

Fourthly, although on 10-10-2014, the Government took a decision to merge the cadre of employees of Municipal Services with that of KMAS, Chief Officer Grade-II, but even such merger does not include the post of Community Affair Officer. Therefore, the transfer of respondent No. 3 to the post of Chief Officer is absolutely illegal.

Lastly, in case, the transfer order dated 6-5-2015 were to be set aside by this Court, the petitioner should be continued on the post from which he was displaced by the order dated 6-5-2015.

4. On the other hand, Mrs. Raffiunnisa, the learned counsel for the State, has pleaded that since the transfer of the respondent No. 3 on the post of Chief Officer is merely temporary in nature, the Government is justified in posting the respondent No. 3 on the said post, even if he does not possess the eligibility requirement for holding the said post.

5. Similarly, Mr. Muralidhar K.B., the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, has pleaded that firstly, the petitioner's initial transfer order dated 8-9-2014 (Annexure-E) clarifies that his transfer order to the post of Chief Officer is a temporary one. Moreover, he was liable to be transferred anywhere in the State. Therefore, if he was kept as APO, by the impugned order dated 6-5-2015, no illegality has been committed by the State.

Secondly, since the respondent No. 3 happens to be Group - 'B' Officer, and since the petitioner happens to be Group - 'C' Officer, the State was jus