BEARING

NO.

B12(1)PR/88/2023-24,

DATED

05/08/2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-C AND

CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R1 TO R3 TO CONTINUE THE

PETITIONER

AS

ASSISTANT

REVENUE

OFFICE,

GANDHINAGAR,

BBMP

WITH

ALL

CONSEQUENTIAL

BENEFITS, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner was transferred as an Assistant

Revenue Officer, Gandhi Nagar from the post of Assistant

Revenue Office, BBMP that he was holding at Govindaraja

Nagar/Rajajinagar, CAC on 17.02.2023. He is aggrieved

- 3 -

by order dated 05.08.2023, whereby respondent No.4 is

posted in his place.

It is his contention that by virtue of the order of

transfer made in respect of 17.02.2023, he has an assured

tenure of two years as per the Government Order dated

07.06.2013, and the consequential posting of respondent

No.4 in his place amounts to a premature transfer and he

also contends that the procedure prescribed under the

Government Order dated 07.06.2013 has not been

followed in respect of a premature transfer.

The learned counsel for the BBMP, Sri.B.L.Sanjeev,

on instructions, submits that the petitioner was transferred

on

17.02.2023

and

the

present

posting

given

to

respondent No.4, as a result of which, the petitioner would

be disturbed, does amount to a premature transfer.

The learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the

other hand, contends that respondent No.4 was initially

transferred on 07.01.2022, he was posted as an Assistant

- 4 -

Revenue Officer at Gandhi Nagar. It is also his case that

by an order dated 31.01.2023 passed at the instance of

the Election Commission, the petitioner was transferred

from Gandhi Nagar to Yeshwantpur and as a result of the

decision rendered by the two Division Benches of this

Court, on the completion of the elections, the petitioner

was bound to be re-transferred and accordingly, the

impugned order has been passed posting him back to the

original place of posting and therefore, no fault can be

found with the said posting.

5.

The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the

decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in

W.P. No.31053 of 2018 (S-KAT) and connected cases,

which is based on the judgment rendered in the case of

the Election Commission of India vs. State of

Karnataka – (2013) 6 Kar.L.J. 363 to support his

contention.

6.

It is, no doubt, true that in those Division Bench

rulings, this Court has stated that the order of transfer

- 5 -

made pursuant to a direction of the Election Commission,

a person would have to be transferred and thereafter re-

posted to his original place. However, a Full Bench of this

Court in Chandru.H.N.¹ and S.N.Gangadaraiah² has

held that an order of transfer made under the Government

Order has statutory force and is enforceable. The said

Government Order states that an employee transferred

cannot be disturbed for a period of two years and in the

event, the order of transfer is to be modified and a person

is required to be transferred prematurely, the procedure

prescribed therein would have to be followed.

7.

In fact, the Full Bench has held that Government

Order dated 07.06.2013, has a statutory force and will

have to be construed as a statutory provision in relation to

a transfer.

8.

In light of this, it is clear that the petitioner’s transfer

on 17.02.2023, by virtue of the Government Order dated

1 Chandru.H.N. v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2011 Kar 1585.

2 S.N.Gangadaraiah v. State of Karnataka and Antr., ILR 2015 KAR 1955

- 6 -

07.06.2013, assures the petitioner a tenure of two years

and he cannot be transferred, unless the procedure

prescribed in the said Government order is followed.

9.

The Counsel for BBMP admits that, the procedure

prescribed for premature transfer in the Government

Order dated 07.06.2013 has not been followed and as a

consequence, the order of posting made in favour of

respondent No.4 cannot be sustained and the same is,

accordingly, quashed.

10.

As a consequence, respondent No.4 s