Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.G. Pandit, K. V. Aravind, JJ
SMT THEJAVATHI K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP No. 3819 of 2026|WRIT PETITION No. 3819 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Rajashekar
For the Respondents: V. Shivareddy
A party who withdraws their independent legal challenge to a transfer order cannot subsequently raise the argument of the transfer's prematurity in a separate proceeding initiated by another party regarding the same transfer.
Headnote:The petitioner, serving as a Labour Officer, challenged an order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The case involves a series of transfer and modification orders where the petitioner was initially transferred, then restored to her post via a modification order, which was subsequently set aside by the Tribunal following a challenge by the third respondent. The court found that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the modification order was justified. The primary issue was whether a party who has voluntarily withdrawn their own challenge to a transfer order can subsequently argue that the transfer was premature in a proceeding initiated by another party. The court reasoned that since the petitioner had an independent cause of action which she chose to withdraw without adjudication on merits, she is precluded from urging the plea of prematurity in the application filed by the respondent. The present writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronology of transfer orders and subsequent litigation before the administrative tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim of entitlement to a minimum tenure of two years for group-b posts. (Para 4) |
| 3. effect of withdrawing a legal challenge on the right to raise the same plea in a third-party application. (Para 6) |
| 4. dismissal of writ petition lacking merit based on the sequence of proceedings. (Para 7) |
Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 22/01/2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.4177/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard Sri.S. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This petition is filed by the respondent No.3 in Application No.4177/2025 impugning the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”).
3. The petitioner was appointed as Labour Officer and was posted at Madhugiri Sub-Division. The petitioner was also given additional charge of the post of Labour Officer, Tumkur Sub-Division. The petitioner reported for duty and assumed the additional charge at Tumkuru on 30.09.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner was regularly transferred as Labour Officer, Tumkur Sub-Division on 07.11.2023, and reported to the said post on 10.11.2023. In the year 2024, the probation of the petitioner was declared.
3.1 On 13.06.2025, the petitioner was transferred from Tumkuru Sub-Division to the Karnataka Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bengaluru, and respondent No.3 was posted in her place. The petitioner challenged the transfer order dated 13.06.2025 before the Tribunal in Application No.3089/2025. During the pendency of the application, on 12.09.2025, the transfer order was modified by continuing the petitioner as Labour Officer, Tumkuru Sub-Division and transferring respondent No.3 as Labour Officer, Karnataka Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bengaluru.
3.2 On 15.09.2025, the petitioner reported as Labour Officer, Tumkuru Sub-Division. In view of the modification of the transfer order impugned in Application No.3089/2025, the petitioner, on 15.09.2025, filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the application.
3.3 Challenging the order modifying the transfer dated 12.09.2025, respondent No.3 preferred Application No.4177/2025 before the Tribunal. On 18.09.2025, the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo as on that date. Thereafter, on 25.09.2025, the Tribunal passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 12.09.2025.
3.4 Challenging the said interim order, the petitioner preferred W.P. No.30035/2025 before this Court. The writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 30.09.2025, reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate all contentions before the Tribunal.
3.5 The petitioner filed a statement of objections in Application No.4177/2025 filed by respondent No.3. The Tribunal, by order on the memo dated 15.09.2025, dismissed Application No.3089/2025 as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Review Application No.141/2025 seeking review of the order dated 27.10.2025 permitting withdrawal of the application. Subsequently, the Tribunal proceeded to allow Application No.4177/2025 filed by respondent No.3 by setting aside the order dated 12.09.2025.
3.6 Impugning the said order, the petitioner is before this court.
4. Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is holding a Group-B post and is entitled to
