With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the both the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and finally heard.

2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the application and has set aside the transfer order and has further issued consequential direction.

3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are employees of respondent No.1 in the Department of Public Works. On 20.06.2015 the respondent No.2 was transferred as Executive Engineer, PWD, Chitradurga, in place of one Mr. C.Thimmappa. Said Sri. C.Thimmappa challenged the transfer order before the Tribunal in application No. 5751/2015 and the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application on 28.07.2015, since the memo of withdrawal was filed. On 30.06.2016 respondent No.2 is transferred to Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chitradurga and the petitioner is transferred to Public Works Department, Chitradurga Division, in place of respondent No.2 by the impugned transfer order. As per petitioner on 09.08.2016 the petitioner assumed the charge.

4. On 11.08.2016 the respondent No.2 preferred an application before the Tribunal being No.7423/2016 challenging the transfer order. The Tribunal ultimately vide impugned order dated 17.08.2016 allowed the application and issued direction as preferred to hereinabove. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

5. We have heard Mr. M. Naga Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

6. It is undisputed position that the transfer order is a premature transfer, inasmuch as, earlier respondent No.2 was transferred on 20.06.2015 and he reported for duty on 11.08.2015 pursuant to the said transfer order. Thereafter, before completion of minimum period of two years, by the impugned transfer order dated 09.08.2016 he has been transferred to the other Department. Hence, the position of transferring the petitioner prior to the completion of minimum period of two years is undisputed. The tribunal did find that it is a premature transfer and the minimum period of two years is not maintained and no reasons were also assigned for disturbing the applicant at the present place and based on the same, the impugned transfer order has been set aside by the Tribunal.

7. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per the Government Notification dated 13.04.2016 in case of general transfer, there is no requirement to get the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and he submitted that it is only in respect of the transfer other than general transfer and as per the transfer policy, the approval of the Chief Minister is required. He further submitted that when any Officer is to be transferred in general transfer, then if the minimum period is not maintained as per Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy, it is within the power of the authority to transfer any employee to any other place. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the transfer order, which is on the mere ground that it was premature. He further submitted that respondent No.2 since he is placed at the same station but from one office to another, Tribunal ought not have interfered with the transfer order on the ground of hardship.

8. Whereas, Mr. H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that it is true that for premature transfer other than the general transfer approval of the Chief Minister is required. He also submitted that as per government order dated 14.06.2013 the said aspect is clarified in paragraph 9 (b) of the transfer policy and therefore, one cannot say that the transfer order is bad in law if the approval of the Chief Minister is no