Transfers of government servants can be initiated by MLAs based on public grievances if consistent with procedural guidelines and approved by the Chief Minister, and are generally not subject to judicial interference.

ORDER :

S.G.PANDIT, J.

The petitioner, Tahasildar Grade-I is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2025 in Application No.02/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting his prayer to quash the impugned order of transfer and posting of respondent No.4 in his place under notification dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-A6).

2. Brief relevant facts are that, the petitioner is working as Tahasildar, Grade-I which is a Group-A post at Bangarpet, Kolar District in pursuance to notification dated 31.07.2024. A show-cause notice dated 22.08.2024 was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why he was not in the office on 22.08.2024 when the Deputy Commissioner visited the office of the Tahasildar. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply stating that he was on field duty which was accepted as satisfactory by the Deputy Commissioner and the matter stood closed.

3. It is stated that in a Bagar Hukum Committee meeting held on 28.11.2024, certain differences arose between the petitioner and the Member of Legislative Assembly, Bangarpet Constituency on one of the issue and the said Member is said to have threatened the petitioner of transfer. The Member of Legislative Assembly, Bangarpet Constituency addressed a letter dated 13.12.2024 alleging that there are complaints against the petitioner from the public and sought transfer of the petitioner with a request to post the fourth respondent in his place. Thereafter, impugned order dated 31.12.2024 transferring the petitioner and posting the fourth respondent is passed. Questioning the said order of transfer and posting, petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.02/2025, wherein interim order of stay was passed on 03.01.2025 and vide impugned order the application was dismissed. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as the impugned order of Transfer dated 31.12.2024, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Jayanth Dev Kumar for petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and learned senior counsel Sri.Uday Holla for Sri.Kapildev C. Ullal, learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers as well as Xerox copy of the note sheet relating to the transfer.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Jayanth Dev Kumar for petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned order of Transfer is premature; opposed to transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024; and the impugned order of transfer is not in the interest of public and at the instance of the local MLA. Learned counsel for the petitioner elaborating his submission would submit that the petitioner is a Group-A Officer of the State Government and Group-A officers are provided with minimum tenure of two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not even completed six months of service at Bangarpet and the transfer is totally premature.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the transfer of the petitioner is not in the interest of public, but it is only at the instance of the local MLA. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to letter dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure-R3) by the local MLA to the Revenue Minister stating that as there is complaint against the petitioner from the public, to transfer the petitioner from Bangarpet and to post the fourth respondent in his place. Since the transfer of the petitioner is at the behest of the MLA, the same requires to be interfered with. Learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARVESH KUMAR AWASTHI VS. U.P. JAL NIGAM AND OTHERS, (2003) 11 SCC 740 and submits that if the transfer is at the behest of MLAs/MPs, it requires interference, as bett