The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific reasons for issuing orders for modification or cancellation of transfers, the need to disclose reasons for premature transfers, and the statutory nature of transfer guidelines, emphasizing the adherence to them and deprecating the practice of seeking postings of choice in violation of the guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Ravi V. Hosmani, J. - Though this matter was listed for hearing on I.A. No.1/2020 for vacating interim order dated 07.02.2020 granted by this Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally and disposed of by this order.

2. This Writ Petition assails the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'KSAT', for the sake of convenience) in Application No.5689/2019. By the said order, KSAT has allowed the Application and set aside notification No.dated 11.09.2019 insofar as the Applicant and respondent no.2 therein.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, for respondent no.3 through Video Conference; and also Sri. T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned AGA, who appeared in person for respondent nos.1 and 2.

4. Sri R. Anil Kumar was the applicant in Application No.5689/2019 before the KSAT. Smt. P.V. Poornima was arrayed as respondent no.2. In the said Application, Sri R. Anil Kumar (respondent no.3 herein) had challenged Notification bearing No.dated 11.09.2019 issued by respondent no.1 canceling the earlier transfer Notification dated 06.09.2019 in respect of Smt. P.V. Poornima and posting Sri R. Anil Kumar, as SLAO-II, KIADB (BMICP), Bengaluru.

5. The facts briefly stated are that, the applicant - Sri R Anil Kumar, was working as the SLAO, Yettinahole Project, Doddaballapura. On 29.06.2019, he was transferred to the post of SLAO-II, KIADB. He replaced Smt. P.V. Poornima, who was working in the said post, since 2017. He took charge on 04.07.2019. Within two weeks, i.e. under a Notification dated 15.07.2019, they were reverted back. The order dated 15.07.2019 was challenged by Sri R. Anil Kumar in Application No.4271/2019. During its pendency, an order dated 19.08.2019 was passed by the Government, modifying the Notification dated 15.07.2019 and Sri R. Anil Kumar came to be transferred to the post of SLAO-II, KIADB. Taking note of the order dated 19.08.2019, Application No.4271/2019 was disposed of. Immediately thereafter, the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 came to be issued and Smt. P.V. Poornima, who was under transfer as the SLAO, Singataluru, Lift Irrigation Project, Hoovina Hadagali, Ballari, in terms of order dated 06.09.2019 was modified and she was brought back as the SLAO-II, KIADB, Bengaluru. She replaced Sri. R. Anil Kumar in the post, who in turn was transferred to the post of SLAO-II, KIADB (BMICP), Bengaluru. As stated earlier, challenging this order, Application No.5689/2019 was filed before KSAT.

6. Upon service of notice, the State Government did not file statement of objections. However, Smt. P.V. Poornima entered appearance and filed objections. In her objections, it was contended that both Sri. R. Arun Kumar and Smt. P.V. Poornima were officials belonging to the Revenue Department, whose services were lent to the Commerce and Industries Department. The impugned order was only an order of deputation by the Commerce and Industries Department to particular posts and was not a transfer. Therefore, transfer guidelines were not attracted. Alternatively, even if it were considered to be as 'transfer', it had prior approval of the Chief Minister and was not contrary to the Transfer guidelines. Yet another contention was that Sri R. Anil Kumar, was merely shifted within KIADB from one subject i.e., SLAO-II, KIADB to SLAO-II, KIADB (BMICP), which did not involve change of headquarters and therefore, it was not an order of transfer.

7. On consideration of the case, the KSAT held that even a change of office (within KIADB) was a transfer, by referring to the Full Bench decision in S.N. Gangadharaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) ILR(Kar) 1955 . It further held that the transfer was premature. Regardless of prior approval by the Chief Minister, as the impugned order of transfer did not contain any detailed reasons and hence the premature transfer