1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO.14474/2020 (S TR)

BETWEEN

MOSES KETAN H VYAS

S/O HARISH J S

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS ASSESSOR

WARD NO 22

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER

J C NAGAR RANGE

MUNIREDDY PALYA

HEBBAL, BENGALURU – 24.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SRINIVAS V, ADV. – PHYSICAL HEARING)

AND

1.

THE COMMISSIONER

BBMP, N R SQUARE

BANGALORE – 560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)

BBMP, N R SQUARE

BANGALORE - 560001

2

3.

SRI N. KRISHNA

AGED ABOUT MAJOR

ASSESSOR,

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER

MATHIKERE SUB DIVISION

BANGALORE

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 – PHYSICAL

HEARING; SRI. SHANKAR S. BHAT, ADV. FOR R-3 –PHYSICAL

HEARING)

****

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH THE TRASFER ORDER DATED:04.12.2020 ISSUED BY

THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT

PETITION ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard Sri.Srinivas V, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Shankar S. Bhat, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2.

The petitioner in this writ petition is calling in

question the order dated 04.12.2020, by which the petitioner,

3

who was working at J.C. Nagar Sub-Division is transferred to

Mathikere Sub-Division.

3.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

petition as borne out from the pleadings and what are

necessary for the consideration of the present lis are as

follows:

The petitioner, who was earlier working as Revenue

Inspector was promoted as an Assessor on 28.05.2020. Being

promoted and transferred to work as an Assessor at J.C.Nagar

Sub-Division, Bengaluru Ward No.22, the petitioner claims to

have reported to the said place on 23.06.2020. After about

five months of the petitioner functioning as Assessor at the

said ward, it transpires that a Member of Legislative Assembly

issued a ‘Tippani’ seeking transfer of the petitioner out of

J.C.Nagar Sub-Division to and to bring in 3^rd respondent in his

place. Accepting the said note of the MLA, the competent

authority issued an Office Order transferring the petitioner out

of J.C.Nagar Sub-Division to Mathikere Sub-Division and 3^rd

4

respondent to the place of the petitioner. It is this Office Order

that is called in question in the writ petition.

4.

The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The BBMP

has formulated Guidelines of Transfer pursuant to an

undertaking given by the Commissioner, BBMP, before this

Court, which became a part of the decision of this Court in the

case of Sri. Somanna vs. The Commissioner and Others

reported in 2014 2 AIR KANT R 649. It is on that

undertaking, the initial Guidelines dated 20.03.2014 was

notified by the BBMP. In the said Guidelines, the officers of

Group A and B would have a tenure of posting at a place/ward

for a minimum period of two years and for the other officers,

the Guidelines would vary according to the group.

5.

The petitioner is a Group B Officer, who is entitled

to continue in a particular place of posting for a minimum

period of two years in terms of the Guidelines. Guidelines

dated 20.03.2014 are iterated by the BBMP in its subsequent

5

Guidelines in the year 2019, which also depicts the same

minimum tenure for Group A and B officers.

6.

Following

the

aforesaid

Guidelines

and

the

minimum tenure stipulated in the Guidelines, this Court in

plethora of cases have interfered with the orders of transfer,

which were admittedly made in public interest and in the wake

of administrative exigencies on the ground that it is violative

of the Guidelines regul