Back
'CM Has Better Work': Karnataka HC Bars from Employee Transfer Meddling
In a stern rebuke to , the 's Division Bench has ruled that the (CMO) must cease directly entertaining transfer requests from government employees. Justices D.K. Singh and T.M. Nadaf emphasized that such routine matters belong solely to administrative departments, freeing the state's "highest authority" for more pressing duties. The order came while disposing of Writ Appeal No. 2 of 2025 filed by Chethan S., an Assistant Engineer with , challenging a single judge's dismissal of his writ petition against transfer orders.
From Mutual Swap Dreams to Courtroom Drama
Chethan S., stationed at BESCOM's Whitefield O&M Unit, sought a mutual transfer with another engineer, Sri. Somashekar HP. Despite securing a seemingly favorable note from the CMO in , BESCOM and parent entities like stuck to their administrative transfer orders. Chethan had a history of litigation—filing multiple writs since to stall postings—piggybacking on CMO endorsements that overrode departmental decisions.
The saga escalated in Writ Petition No. 21759/2024, where the single judge on , upheld the transfers, questioning the CMO's role in issuing such notes for Group B and C employees. Media reports highlighted how these interventions bred "heartburn" among staff, fueling endless court battles. Chethan appealed, securing interim on , amid the annual transfer cycle.
Appellant's Plea: CMO Note as Trump Card
Chethan argued that the CMO's approval for his mutual transfer was binding, rendering BESCOM's orders arbitrary. His counsel, , portrayed departmental intransigence as defiance of higher executive sanction, urging quashing of transfers and enforcement of the mutual swap.
Respondents' Counter: Rules Over Recommendations
KPTCL, BESCOM, and rival employees countered that CMO communications are merely , not directives. They stressed compliance with Cadre Rules, DPAR transfer guidelines, and seasonal policies. The respondents accused Chethan of via writs, insisting departments hold final authority post-scrutiny.
Chief Secretary's Affidavit Seals the Deal
The Division Bench, probing the single judge's pointed remarks on CMO overreach, summoned clarity from Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh. Her , affidavit confirmed: CMO notes are non-binding recommendations, with transfers decided departmentally after DPAR guideline review. CMO staff were sensitized to curb mechanical approvals, as flagged earlier.
Drawing on this, the Bench dissected the malaise: routine CMO involvement undermines departmental autonomy, invites litigation, and diverts leadership from governance priorities.
Punchy Quotes That Pack a Punch
The judgment bristles with memorable lines underscoring judicial frustration:
"We are of thethat the transfers and postings of the employees should be left to the concerned administrative departments and the highest authority of the State should not devote his time in such matters nor should interfere..."
"Hon'ble Chief Minister has better and more important work to perform than interfering with the transfers and postings of the employees of the State Government and Government undertakings."
"No request for transfer and posting should be entertained by the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister directly. The matter should end at the level of the department itself."
These echo the single judge's suspicion of unauthorized CMO issuances, now officially addressed.
Till April, But Policy Reigns Supreme
The Bench disposed of the appeal with interim relief: Chethan's Whitefield posting remains undisturbed until the next transfer season in . Departments may then transfer him per rules. A copy goes to the Chief Minister for compliance.
This ruling reinforces transfer policy sanctity , curbing executive shortcuts and potential favoritism. It signals to employees: bypass departments at your peril, as CMO nods won't override rules. For Karnataka's bureaucracy, expect smoother seasons ahead—minus VIP interventions—and fewer writs clogging courts.
