The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.7.2017, passed by the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, whereby the petitioner has been kept as awaiting posting order.

2. In a short compass, the facts of the case are that on 22.7.1995, the petitioner was initially appointed in a Grama Panchayat. By order dated 22.12.2012 his services were regularized w.e.f. 27.2.2005. By order dated 23.2.2013, he was posted as Bill Collector in a vacant post at the City Municipal Council, Chikkaballapur. Thereafter, by order dated 11.12.2014 he was promoted to the post of First Division Revenue Inspector, and posted at the City Municipal Council, Chintamani. On 29.7.2015 the petitioner was transferred from Chinthamani to Hebbagodi. He joined his services in Hebbagodi on 1.9.2015. When things stood thus, by order dated 20.7.2017, respondent No.3 has been posted to the post held by the petitioner, and the petitioner was kept waiting posting order. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Satish K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court :

Firstly, relying on the case of Miss. Seema H., v. State of Karnataka And Others (Writ Petition No.48499/2016, decided by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 16.09.2016), the learned counsel has contended that an employee cannot be kept awaiting posting order. For, such an order tantamounts to mala fide. Since the petitioner in the present case is being kept awaiting posting orders by the impugned order dated 20.7.2017, the order deserves to be interfered with.

Secondly, relying on the case of K. G. Jagadeesha v. State of Karnataka And Another (Writ Petition No.48988/2016, decided by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 6.10.2016), the learned counsel has pleaded that in the case of premature transfer, consent of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is required under Guideline Nos.7(iii) and 9(b) of the Transfer Policy. However, in the present case, no consent was sought from the Hon’ble Chief Minister prior to passing of the transfer order dated 20.7.2017. Hence, the requirement of Guideline No.7(iii), and Guideline No.9(b) of the Transfer Policy have been violated. Thus, the transfer order dated 20.7.2017 is an illegal one.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for State has pleaded that, the transfer policy is merely a guideline. Thus, it is not mandatory in nature, but is only directory in nature.

Secondly, the State has ample power to keep a person awaiting posting order.

Thirdly, during the pendency of the present petition by the order dated 25.7.2017, the petitioner has been transferred to Srinivasapura. Therefore, the petitioner is no longer kept awaiting posting orders.

Fourthly, petitioner in his petition has never raised the issue with regard to the premature transfer. Even if the said issue has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner orally before this Court, by the order dated 25.07.2017, the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was sought and given. Therefore even the requirement of Guideline No.7(iii), and Guideline No.9(b) of the Transfer Policy, have been fulfilled in the present case.

5. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Guideline No.9(b) of the Transfer Policy, and pleaded that the said provision, clearly prevents and prohibits the Principal Secretaries, or the Secretaries of the Government, to issue a rectification approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Therefore, a subsequent rectification after the passing of the transfer order is prohibited by Guideline No.9 (b) of the Transfer Policy. Moreover in the case of Shivaji A Kawale v. The State of Karnataka And Others, (in Writ Petition No.200881/2017, also decided by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 06.06.2017), it has been clearly observed that, “the rectification by the Hon’ble Chief Minister is not permissible subsequent to the passing of the transfer order. The approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minist