The court emphasized that transfer orders must be based on documented reasons to avoid arbitrariness in public service postings.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in Application No.11057/2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi, the applicant therein has preferred this writ petition.

2. The applicant was working as a Junior Scale KAS Officer and was posted as Chief Administrative Officer of Belagavi Institute of Medical Sciences, Belagavi. He was subsequently promoted as a Senior Scale KAS Officer and by an order dated 26.09.2023, was posted as the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), National Highways Authorities of India Bagalkote, in the place of respondent No.3 herein. Respondent No.3 is in the cadre of Selection Grade KAS Officer. However, respondent No.3 was not given any posting pursuant to transfer of the petitioner to the said post. Pursuant to the said transfer, the petitioner took charge and reported to duty. However, within few days, on 03.10.2023, the said transfer of the petitioner was set at naught and respondent No.3 was directed to continue in the said post. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the Application No.11057/2023 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (‘KAT’ for short).

3. The KAT, on the ground that the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 is only a modification of the earlier order and that it is not a fresh transfer and for that reason, recording of reasoning is not necessary while passing the said impugned order and also on the ground that, under exceptional circumstances, through the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, an officer can be transferred and in the instant case, the said approval has been obtained, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The case of the petitioner is that, the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 is an order of transfer, wherein he has been transferred from the post of SLAO, National Highways Authority of India, Bagalkote, to which he was posted on 26.09.2023 and he has not been shown any post. It is further contended that the said transfer has happened within a period of a week and it is in violation of the Government Policy, wherein for all Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts, minimum period of service of an Officer at a particular place has to be two years, unless any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against them or there is an exceptional circumstance resulting in they being transferred. For that reason, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and suitable direction be issued to the authorities to continue the petitioner as the SLAO.

2. Per contra, the respondents submits that the impugned order is a cancellation of the earlier transfer order or at best can be considered as a modification of the earlier transfer order and cannot be treated as a fresh transfer order and the same is permissible under law. It is also contended that the respondent No.3 was serving as a Special Land Acquisition Officer under the National Highways Authority of India and the project is coming to an end because of which respondent No.3 is required to stay in that particular place and complete the said project, which is in the interest of the State and that though no reasoning is recorded in writing in the proceedings, that is the actual reason for which there was cancellation of transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and for that reason, the respondents justify the order passed by the KAT and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Admittedly, an Officer belonging to Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ should not ordinarily be transferred within a period of two years from him being transferred to a particular place. Further, Rule 7 of the Tran