The court affirmed that transfer orders must respect Tribunal directions and applicable guidelines, recognizing the petitioner's right to his assigned post unless public interest dictates otherwise.

ORDER :

B M SHYAM PRASAD, J.

The petitioner in Application No.3683/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] has called in question the first respondent's Order dated 12.08.2025 posting him as an 'Executive Officer', Taluka Panchayat, Belur, Hassan District. The first respondent has shown that the petitioner was awaiting posting. The Tribunal has not granted an interim order at the initial stage, but the petitioner has reported to duty at Belur, Hassan District where he is presently working. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 04.12.2025, has rejected the petitioner's application, and consequentially, the third respondent will continue to work as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South and the petitioner will have to continue to work as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Belur.

2. The Tribunal, after referring to the earlier rounds of litigation before it in the Application in No.2305/2025 and before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.23915/2025 as regards the petitioner being transferred as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South, has rejected the petitioner's application opining that when the order dated 12.08.2025 is implemented, it would be impermissible to either cancel or modify such order insofar as the petitioner and the third respondent. The Tribunal has also observed that the order dated 12.08.2025 is with the post facto approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister.

3. This Court must refer to the cause for the earlier proceedings and the outcome in such proceedings to address the petitioner’s grievance with the first respondent's order dated 12.08.2025 and the Tribunal's order. When the Transfer Order dated 20.05.2025 is issued posting the petitioner as the 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South, he was working as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Hiriyur. The petitioner is relieved on 21.05.2025, and Dr. Bindu G [the incumbent 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South] has called in question the decision to transfer the petitioner in her place in the Application No.2305/2025.

4. The Tribunal has directed the parties to maintain status quo, and consequently, Dr. Bindu G continued to function as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South and the petitioner, who was relieved on 21.05.2025, has reported to duty with the Head Office. The Tribunal has disposed of Dr. Bindu G's application in No.2305/2025 on 08.07.2025 with the directions that read as under:

“Under such circumstances, we direct the respondent authorities to provide suitable posting to the applicant within a period of two weeks from today and after providing posting, the applicant has to give way to the 3^rd respondent to take charge as per the impugned order. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. The interim order granted earlier is vacated."

5. The petitioner has approached this Court with the writ petition in W.P. No.23915/2025, and the petitioner's case is that he was constrained to approach this Court because notwithstanding the Tribunal's specific directions as aforesaid, he is not permitted to assume the office of the 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South. This Court, on 12.08.2025 in such writ petition, has called upon the first respondent to explain why no posting is provided to Dr. Bindu G from 20.05.2025.

6. It is at this stage that the first respondent has issued the impugned order dated 12.08.2025, and under this order, the first respondent has not only posted Dr. Bindu G as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Nelamangala but the third respondent is also posted as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Bengaluru South with the petitioner being posted as 'Executive Officer' at Taluka Panchayat, Belur. This Court must observe that in this order, the first respondent has shown that the petitioner was awaiting posting, and this is notwithstanding the Tribunal's direction that Dr. Bind