Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, T.M.NADAF
Vijaya Muni B. S/o Shri Basavaraju – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer order context and implications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. tribunal's interpretation of transfer orders (Para 5) |
| 3. contentions regarding transfer orders and cases (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's analysis and conclusion on proceedings (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
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
Once a valid transfer order is executed, it should not be interfered with, emphasizing governmental discipline and lawful authority.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
Transfer orders in public service are valid unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
A deputationist has no vested right and can be repatriated for valid reasons, and public interest and administrative exigencies are valid grounds for transfer.
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....
The Charge Memo based on an invalid order is unsustainable; therefore, the High Court under Article 226 is justified in quashing the Tribunal's directive for further inquiries.
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
