Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.V. ANJARIA, C.J., K.V. ARAVIND, J.
Sri K.S. Sudhakara, S/o shivaramegowda – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 1146 OF 2024 (S-TR)
Decided on : 03-09-2024
Transfer - Employment - Transfer Guidelines 2024 - The court interpreted the Transfer Guidelines 2024, emphasizing the statutory nature of the guidelines, the necessity of minimum tenure for government servants, and the applicability of these guidelines to both transfers and deployments, ultimately affirming the learned Single Judge's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and respondent No.3, both Environmental Officers, were involved in a dispute over a transfer order issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, with respondent No.3 challenging the transfer as premature and in violation of Transfer Guidelines 2024.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer of respondent No.3 violated the minimum tenure provisions of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, which apply to both transfers and deployments, and that the reasons for the transfer were not justified.
Issues: Whether the transfer of respondent No.3 constituted a violation of the Transfer Guidelines 2024, particularly regarding the minimum tenure requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Transfer Guidelines 2024 are statutory in nature and apply to both transfers and deployments, requiring adherence to minimum tenure provisions unless specific exceptions are met.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's order quashing the transfer of respondent No.3.
Key Points: - The Transfer Guidelines 2024 apply to both transfers and deployments, mandating minimum tenure unless exceptions in Clause 7 are met (!) (!) (!) . - Group-B officers are entitled to a minimum posting period of two years under Clause 6 (!) (!) (!) . - A transfer or deployment that reduces the minimum required tenure is considered premature unless it falls under the circumstances specified in Clause 7 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
This intra-court appeal by respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.19154 of 2024 is aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2024.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. M. K. Prithveesh for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr. A Mahesh Choudhary for respondent No.2 and learned Senior advocate Mr. D. R. Ravishankar on behalf of learned advocate Mr. R. Siri for respondent No.3.
Brief facts
3. Respondent No.3-writ petitioner joined the services of respondent No.2-The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Board) as Assistant Environmental Officer in the year 2003, later promoted as Deputy Environmental Officer in the year 2019 and posted on transfer as Environmental Officer at Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, under order dated 06.03.2023.
4. The appellant joined respondent No.2-Board as an Assistant Environmental Officer in May 1999 and was later promoted to the cadres of Deputy Environmental Officer in April 2010 and Environmental Officer in October 2019. The appellant was posted at the Head Office in Bengaluru.
5. Respondent No.2, by the Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 Annexure-D, transferred respondent No.3 as Environmental Officer to Head Office, Bengaluru and the appellant as Environmental Officer to Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru.
6. Respondent No.3 questioning the Office Memorandum (transfer order) preferred Writ Petition No.19154 of 2024, contended that the transfer is premature and in violation of transfer guidelines. The appellant filed a detailed statement of objections asserting that the transfer of respondent No.3 from the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, to the Head Office, Bengaluru, is not a transfer. It was contended that transfer guidelines framed by the State are not applicable, as it is the case of deployment.
7. Learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.07.2024, set aside the transfer holding the same in contravention of Transfer Guidelines 2024.
Submissions
8. Sri M.K. Prithveesh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2024 is the order of deployment as per Transfer Guidelines 2024, dated 25.06.2024. The appellant's transfer from the Head Office, Bengaluru, to the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, cannot be termed a transfer. Respondent No.3 has been posted from the Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, to the Head Office, Bengaluru. By virtue of the posting, no prejudice or hardship would be caused to respondent No.3.
8.1. It is further submitted that the transfer in question is only a deployment. Transfer guidelines define 'Transfer' and 'Deployment'. It is submitted that the Transfer Guidelines 2024 are made inapplicable to deployment by an Explanation to 'Deployment'.
8.2. It is further stated that the English version of Transfer Guidelines 2024 differs. In other words, it is submitted that in the Kannada version, it is clear that transfer guidelines are not applicable in case of deployment. Whereas, in the English version, though it is stated that deployment was not to be considered as transfer, the inapplicability of the Transfer Guidelines 2024 in the case of deployment is missing. Further, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge, by referring to the English version of the explanation, has held that the transfer in question is in violation of Transfer Guidelines 2024.
8.3. Learned advocate further submits that posting of respondent No.3 from Regional Office, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, to Head Office, Bengaluru is a case of Deployment and Transfer Guidelines 2024 are not applicable. When transfer guidelines are not applicable, requirements to record reasons are not necessitated.
8.4. Learned advocate in support of his submissions relies on the following judgments,
(ii) Sri Dinesh Kumar G.T. vs. The State of Karnataka and other in Writ Petition No.2491 of 2022, date
The Transfer Guidelines 2024 apply to both transfers and deployments, mandating a minimum tenure for government servants unless specific exceptions are met.
Transfers of office bearers must adhere to statutory guidelines; failure to do so constitutes arbitrariness, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice, and a transfer can be made in administrative exigencies. The communication from the Chief Minister was a request or....
Point of Law : Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer orde....
Transfer policies are directory, not mandatory, and courts will not interfere unless there is clear malafide or statutory violation.
Transfers within service are at discretion of authorities based on administrative needs, not strictly bound by service tenure guidelines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of transfer and posting should be exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, based on administrative exigency and public interes....
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers made on administrative grounds are valid unless shown to be arbitrary or malicious.
Transfer orders must adhere to established guidelines; failure to do so constitutes arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Statutory transfer powers under Rule 226 IREC prevail over policy guidelines; no interference with administrative exigency transfers absent mala fides, despite tenure/policy deviations or personal ha....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
