The court upheld the administrative transfer order, emphasizing the importance of following relevant rules and regulations and allowing the petitioner to make a representation for accommodation in a convenient place if a vacant post was available.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), dated 5.1.2017 rejecting application No.34/2017, by which the petitioner had challenged his transfer order.

2. He was working as Assistant Director, Akshara Dasoha Program at Raibagh, Chikkodi Educational District from 31.08.2012. Since he had completed tenure of three years on that post, he was transferred by the impugned transfer order at Annexure A7, dated 26.12.2016 from the said post to the Government High School, Kankanawadi, Raibag Taluk, Chikkodi Educational District as Head Master.

3. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order before the Tribunal by the aforesaid application No.34/2017, which came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal with the following observations:

Since 31.8.2012 the applicant has been working as Assistant Director, Akshara Dasoha Programme at Raibagh, Chikkodi District. In other words, he has completed his tenure and was liable for transfer. As regards the alleged violation of the Rules, we have examined Rule 18 of the Rules as amended by Notification dated 23.4.2011. As per clause (d) of the Rule 18 of the Rules, the officers/teachers working in the posts mentioned therein who have completed three years of service in the same office may be transferred and the vacancies in the posts may be filled in public interest with the approval of the Government. The applicant has competed three years tenure in the same office. As per Clause (d)(6) of Rule 18 of the Rules, Officers/Teachers working in all types of posts in the Centrally sponsored Scheme(BRC/BRP/CRP/APC/Assistant Director/MMS and other posts who have completed three years in the same office are liable for transfer with the approval of the Government. In the impugned order of transfer dated 26.12.2016, there is a reference to Government Letter dated 26.12.2016 and the order of transfer in the first paragraph itself clearly states that as per the approval accorded by the Government in letter dated 26.12.2016 the impugned order of transfer has been issued. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 18 of the Rules. As regards the contention of the Applicant that since he is going to retire in June, 2018 he ought not to have been transferred, it is open for the Applicant to report for duty as per the impugned order of transfer and make a representation to the authorities to accommodate him in a place which is convenient to him, provided the same is vacant. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the Applicant. (Emphasis supplied)

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that (i) The petitioner was transferred in the mid-session vide order dated 26.12.2016, (ii) He was left with less than two years of service as he was due to retire in June 2018, (iii) There was no counseling procedure adopted in this present case, though it was so required as per Section 4 of Karnataka Sate Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Teachers) Act, 2007. He therefore submitted that the statutory provisions as well as relevant guidelines notified by the State Government in this regard have been violated by the respondent-State and therefore, the impugned transfer order deserved to be quashed and the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondent-State has opposed the said submissions and urged before us that the transfer is an incident of service and the impugned order is an administrative order. He submitted that since the petitioner had completed more than three years of service on the post of Assistant Director, Akshara Dasoha Program, at Raibagh, Chikkodi Educational District, therefore, it was considered appropriate to transfer him by the impugned order. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has left the petitioner free to make a representation to the Authorities concerned to accommodate h