The court clarified the distinction between transfers in public interest and at the officer's request, emphasizing that seniority depends on the nature of transfer under applicable rules.

1. Leave granted.

2. Does the transfer or reappointment of a government employee from one post to another impact his / her seniority in the new post, and if so, is such seniority contingent upon whether the transfer was made in public interest or at the employees own request? This is the short question that has arisen for our consideration.

3. The fundamental principle underlying the relationship between the State and its employee is that it is governed by administrative rules, rather than contractual agreements. In view of the power of the State to modify the terms and conditions of services by unilaterally amending the Rules, this kind of employment is defined as status (Footnote No.1). Therefore, when grievance of an employee is brought to a Court or a Tribunal, the primary question is about the Rule that governs the services. At this stage there is no value judgment about the executive action, unless of course when the Rule itself is challenged on the ground of invalidity or arbitrariness. So, we simply look at the Rule that governs the services and determine whether the action is in consonance with the mandate of the Rule.
Footnote No.1 : State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors. , (2023) 3 SCC 773 declared the consequence of status as,
"(iii) The hallmark of status is in the legal rights and obligations imposed by laws that may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government without the consent of the employee.
(iv) In view of the dominance of rules that govern the relationship between the Government and its employee, all matters concerning employment, conditions of service including termination are governed by the rules. There are no rights outside the provision of the rules."

4. The Rules that govern the service of the respondent are the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the 1977 Recruitment Rules') and Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as the '1957 Seniority Rules'). The context in which interpretation and application of these Rules are to be found in the facts of the case, which, to the extent that they are relevant for our consideration, are as follows.

5. The respondent was appointed as a Staff Nurse in the Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy, State of Karnataka in the year 1979. She submitted a representation to the government and requested to change her cadre to First Division Assistant on medical grounds. Following her request, the government sought opinion of the Director of the Department who asked the respondent to appear before the medical board for examination. The board submitted its report on 22/04/1985 indicating that the respondent was in fact suffering from bronchitis and that she will not be able to carry out the duties of a Staff Nurse.

6. Following the decision of the government accepting her request change of cadre, the respondent was asked to submit a consent letter, which she did on 03/06/1985 indicating that "with reference to the above subject, I hereby give my consent for the offer to change designation to clerical nature of work in the pay scale of Rs.630-1200 and to take seniority below the last person". Accepting her consent to be placed below the last person in the transferred post, orders of temporary posting, followed by final order dated 19/04/1989 was issued by the government changing the cadre of the respondent from Staff Nurse to First Division Assistant on medical grounds and to take the position below the last candidate. The relevant portion of the order is as under:
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT
Subjec