Once a valid transfer order is executed, it should not be interfered with, emphasizing governmental discipline and lawful authority.

ORDER :

1. The question for consideration in the present petition is: whether this Court must intervene with the order dated 23.09.2025 in Application No.3248/2025 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The third respondent and the petitioner are working as Section Officers with the Karnataka State Government Secretariat Department. The reason for the present dispute begins with the Notification dated 02.06.2025, and by this Notification, the third respondent, who was working with the School Education and Saksharatha Department, is posted in place of the petitioner with the Urban Development Department, Municipal Administration-1 [UDD MA-1], with the petitioner being posted to his place.

2. The petitioner and the third respondent have called this order in question with the Tribunal in their respective applications in No.2466/2025 and No.2836/2025. The third respondent has withdrawn his application [in No.2836/2025] resulting in the order dated 16.07.2025, and the petitioner has also withdrawn his application [in No.2466/2025] resulting in the order dated 17.06.2025. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development Department has written a Note dated 10.06.2025 recording that the petitioner has been rendering an excellent service and therefore the Notification dated 02.06.2025 must be withdrawn and he must be permitted to continue with the UDD MA-1.

3. On 25.06.2025, a clarification is sought for from the Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on whether the petitioner or the third respondent should be retained with the observation that both the petitioner and the third respondent are working in the same post. The response is dated 03.07.2025, and the response is that the petitioner and the third respondent must be continued in the posts that they held prior to 02.06.2025. An observation in this Report dated 03.07.2025 is that the third respondent, who is relieved by the School Education and Saksharatha Department, has reported to duty with the UDD MA-1 but there is no information about the petitioner having reported to his place in terms of the Notification dated 02.06.2025.

4. After the response dated 03.07.2025, the impugned Notification dated 07.07.2025 is issued. The petitioner is continued with UDD MA-1, and in modification of the Notification dated 02.06.2025, the third respondent is posted to the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department [Forest - A]. The third respondent has called this Notification dated 07.07.2025 in question with the Tribunal in Application No.3248/2025. The Tribunal has intervened to set aside the Notification dated 07.07.2025 as regards the petitioner and the third respondent holding that the third respondent is entitled to continue in the post of Section Officer, UDD MA-1 [as per the Notification dated 02.06.2025] directing the Authorities to provide suitable posting to the petitioner.

5. The Tribunal has rejected the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the Notification dated 02.06.2025 is only a Movement Order and not a transfer order concluding that once an order of transfer or movement is implemented, it should not be interfered with. The Tribunal's observation is because of the third respondent’s case that he had reported to duty in terms of the Notification dated 02.06.2025. It is now placed on record that the petitioner has been issued with the posting order and he is presently posted to the post shown to the third respondent [with the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department - Forest - A] in the Notification dated 07.07.2025.

6. Mr. H. C. Shivaramu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, canvasses that:

[i] the Tribunal has erred