S. Sujatha J.

1. The petitioner has called in question the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ‘Tribunal’), dated 19.07.2018 passed in Application No.5339/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein has been rejected.

2. The petitioner contends that while he was working as First Division Assistant in District Police Office, Bidar, the 2nd respondent by an order dated 29.05.2018 promoted him to the post of Section Superintendent and posted in the existing vacancy at District Police Office, Bidar. Similarly, the 4th respondent was also promoted and posted to the Police Range Office, Ballari, by virtue of the same order.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 4th respondent without relieving himself from Bidar, managed to obtain an order dated 02.07.2018 re-posting him to Bidar and the petitioner was posted to Ballari in his place, further the 4th respondent directly reported as the Section Superintendent before the Range Office, Ballari on 04.07.2018, and relieved on 05.07.2018 and reported as a Section Superintendent before the District Police Office, Bidar. Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 02.07.2018, the petitioner filed Application No.5339/2018 before the Tribunal, which came to be rejected. Hence, this present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel Sri Mahesh Patil appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was promoted and posted to Bidar on 29.05.2018 and thereafter within a short span of 32 days of his posting, he has been disturbed and again posted to Ballari at the instance of the 4th respondent, which is a premature transfer. It is submitted that the impugned transfer order dated 02.07.2018 is in contravention of Clause-8 and 9 of the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka. Secondly, it is submitted that the order of transfer impugned herein is not in public interest. No reasons are assigned for effecting premature transfer, which is mandatory requirement in terms of the transfer guidelines. Thirdly, it is submitted that no approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was obtained for passing premature transfer order impugned herein. Fourthly, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be disturbed from the post from which he was transferred on 29.05.2018 before four years as per Clause-8 of the transfer guidelines. Nextly, it is submitted that respondent No.4 is working at Bidar consecutively for about 32 years with effect from 24.02.1986. It is only at the instance of the 4th respondent the impugned transfer order dated 02.07.2018 has been passed disturbing the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel argued that the Tribunal failed to consider these aspects in the right perspective, which necessarily requires to be interfered with. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of K.G. Jagadeesha vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Writ Petition No.48988/2016 (D.D. 06.10.2016).

5. Learned counsel Sri B.C.Jaka, appearing for the 4th respondent inviting the attention of the Court to Clause-9 of the transfer guidelines prescribed as per Government Order dated 07.06.2013 would submit that the employee due for transfer after completion of tenure at a place or posting or post has less than two years of service for retirement is a ground for premature transfer. The 4th respondent is due for retirement on 22.07.2020. Clause 9(a) (i) of the GO dated 07.06.2013 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Considering the same in the background of the representation submitted by the 4th respondent on 24.03.2018 prior to the order of transfer dated 29.05.2018, the present impugned transfer order dated 02.07.2018 has been passed which is in conformity with transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013. It is further submitted that the spouse of the 4th respondent is working at Bidar,