The Transfer Guidelines have statutory force and confer enforceable rights upon government servants. Premature transfers without prior approval of the Chief Minister and transfers made with malafide intentions are contrary to the Transfer Guidelines and cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT

B. Veerappa, J. - The State Government filed the present writ petition to set aside the order dated 21.1.2020 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ( 'Tribunal' for short) in Application No.7360 of 2019.

2. The present 1st respondent, who is the applicant before the Tribunal in Application No.7360 of 2019, filed the said application questioning the Transfer Notification dated 11.12.2019 made in No.DPAR 204 SKT 2019 transferring him from the post of the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore to the vacant post of Joint Managing Director, Mangalore Smart City, Mangalore. The applicant has contended that the said transfer notification is illegal and contrary to the Transfer Guidelines as per the Government Order dated 7.6.2013. He also contended that he was working in the post of Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore only from 17.8.2018 and he has not completed the minimum tenure of two years, as required for transfer of Group-'A' Officers in the transfer guidelines. He further contended that the applicant has been prematurely transferred for the 6th time within a span of two years without giving any cogent reason. He also contended that the applicant is staying with his family and his children have joined school in Mangalore for the said academic year. He further contended that no administrative exigencies are made out for his premature displacement from the said post. Moreover, the order of transfer has been made without the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister as required for any transfer for administrative reasons. He further contended that a transfer is a malafide when it is made not for professed purpose such as in normal course or in the public interest or administrative interest or in exigency of service, but for other purpose i.e, to accommodate any another person. On these contentions, the applicant sought to allow the application.

3. The Tribunal considering the averments made in the objections filed by the State, has recorded a finding that the minimum period of stay of the applicant at the place, where he is working as Assistant Commissioner, is not yet completed and therefore, it is a premature transfer and there is no prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, if it is for the administrative reasons. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the application and the Notification dated 11.12.2019 issued by the State Government in so far as it relates to transfer of the applicant and posting of the present 2nd respondent in place of the applicant, was set aside. Hence, the State filed the present writ petition.

4. The present 2nd respondent has not challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, the State filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Though the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as long back as on 21.01.2020, the State Government filed the present writ petition only on 25.9.2020. While filing the writ petition, the State Government has not produced the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister or the objections filed before the Tribunal, if any or the Transfer Guidelines. issued by the State Government.

5. We have heard Sri P.B. Achappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner State as well as Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1.

6. Learned AGA contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the notification dated 11.12.2019 in so far as it relates to transfer of the applicant and posting of the present 2nd respondent in his place, cannot be sustained. He would further contend that since the applicant was on a transferable post, he has no right to challenge, in case of transfer made under public interest and administrative exigencies. The order of transfer is a part of service conditions of an Officer and the Courts should not interfere ordinarily in such matters, in the exercise of jurisdiction under A