Government servants do not have a vested right to remain in a post; transfers must adhere to established guidelines and require prior approval from the Chief Minister to prevent arbitrary actions.

ORDER :

1. Since, common questions of law are involved in these matters, they are heard and taken up for consideration together.

2. Before proceedings to the contentions advanced by the parties, the facts relevant to the case on hand as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

2.1. IN W.P. No. 24786/2023

(a) Petitioner who is a Group ‘A’ Officer working in the Office of the 2nd respondent since her direct recruitment in June, 2012, was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (for short ‘DCCT’) from the cadre of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department vide order dated 27.09.2019 and it is in pursuance to the same, she was posted as DCCT (Audit 5.4), Divisional Goods and Service Taxes-5, Bengaluru. Subsequently, by an order dated 22.06.2022, petitioner was transferred to the place of one Sri. Appaji Patil who was working as DCCT (Enfocrcement-5), South zone, ‘B’ Block, VTK-02, Kormangala, Bengaluru and she reported for the duty at the said place on 23.06.2023. In pursuance to the same, she has worked in the said place for a period of nearly 1 year 2 months.

(b) In this background, an order of vice-versa transfer dated 12.09.2023 came to be passed by the respondent-State transferring the petitioner to the place that is fell vacant, post transfer of one Smt. Amrutha Kittur, i.e., DCCT (Audit 4.8), Divisional Goods and Service Tax-4, ‘A’ Block, VTK-02, Koramangala. Consequently, respondent No. 3 was posted to the place of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in A. No. 4160/2023, on the ground of it being premature and dehors the Transfer Guidelines, 2013 and the Tribunal after hearing the parties to the lis, vide order dated 20.10.2023, was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner. Calling-in-question the legality of the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(c) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has reported to the current place-in-question pursuance to the Government Transfer Notification dated 22.06.2022 and learned Senior counsel also stresses upon Rule 8 of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 and submits that petitioner being a Group ‘A’ Officer, is in a righteous position to hold lien over a post for a period of two years from the date of transfer and subsequent reporting for duty and in the case on hand, the petitioner has been displaced from the current place-in-question within the period of nearly one year and two months, which is contrary to law laid down by this Court in the case of N. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P. No. 33158/2017 decided on 28.07.2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph No. 12 of the Order held as under:

“12. There seems to be certain logic in limiting the power of the State to transfer a person prematurely. The Transfer Policy has been issued in order to control the wide powers of the State in transferring an employee on the one hand, and in giving a sense of security to the employee on the other hand. Since the vast power of transfer can be abused by the State, it may play havoc with the lives of the people. Thus, it was imperative that the wide power should not be an unfettered power, but should be cribbed, cabined and confined within certain well known parameters. Thus, the transfer policy prescribes a procedure to be followed. Needless to say, once a procedure is established by law, the same must be followed by the State.”

(d) Relying on the same judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned Senior counsel would further contend that respondent No. 3 was posted as DCCT (Audit 4.8), Divisional Goods and Service Tax-4, ‘A’ Block, VTK -02, Koramangala vide order dated 09.12.2021. When the Transfer Notification dated 09.12.2021 is juxtapose the impugned Transfer Notification, he would submit that the transfer of the respondent No. 3 to the current place-in-question is also