- 1 - WP No.38263 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.38263 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) IN W.P. NO.38263 OF 2025: BETWEEN: SRI VIJAYA KUMAR CHAVADANNAVAR S/O. LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (NOW WITHOUT POSTING) RESIDING AT NO.18 23RD CROSS, 2ND BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SUBRAMANI M.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - WP No.38263 of 2025 RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 3. SRI K. SRINATH S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH ORDER DATED 04/12/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.3761/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) II) CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW APPLICATION NO.3761/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22-01-2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - WP No.38263 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T.) The petitioner, belonging to the cadre of Chief Engineer in the Panchayath Raj Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as 'PRED') has filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Application No.3761/2025 and consequently to allow Application No.3761/2025 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case of petitioner is as under: The petitioner belongs to the first respondent's department (hereinafter referred to as 'DPAR'). Previously the petitioner was in Public Works Department. By an order dated 07.10.2013 issued by respondent No.1 under Rule 16-A(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, the petitioner, who was in the cadre of Superintending Engineer, has been permanently absorbed to the PRED, which is a sub-department within second respondent, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department (hereinafter - 4 - WP No.38263 of 2025 referred to as 'RDPR'). Thereafter by a notification dated 11.12.2019 issued by first respondent-DPAR, the petitioner has been promoted from the cadre of Superintending Engineer to the cadre of Chief Engineer and he was posted as Chief Engineer, PRED at Bengaluru. 3. The PRED is a separate department within second respondent - RDPR. There is a separate cadre and recruitment rules for the PRED, which is called as the Panchayath Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021. As per the said rules, the cadre strength in respect of the cadre of Chief Engineer is only one post. The post of Chief Engineer is the head of the PRED. The petitioner has served in PRED for last 11 years and he has got unblemished service throughout. As a Chief Engineer from 11.12.2019, the petitioner was the head of the department in PRED and he has introduced several measures to reduce financial burden to the State exchequer. 4. On 03.10.2024, the second respondent RDPR issued a notification, deputing the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer, Rural Development Commissionerate, whereas, one Sreenivas N, who was already working as Engineer-in-Chief at Karnataka Rural Road Development Agency (KRRDA) has been - 5 - WP No.38263 of 2025 given additional charge in respect of the post of the petitioner, i.e., Chief Engineer, PRED. Therefore, the petitioner had earlier filed application No.4886/2024 before the Tribunal, wherein, he challenged the impugned notification dated 03.10.2024 issued by RDPR Department and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.2025. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had filed W.P. No.5518/2025 before this Court and said writ petition came to be allowed on 18.06.2025. In the said order, the notification dated 03.10.2024 deputing the petitioner to Karnataka Rural Development Commissionerate and further giving additional charge of post of Chief Engineer, PRED to Sreenivas N., third respondent therein came to be quashed and order of the Tribunal in Application No.4886/2024, came to be set aside. 5. After passing of order dated 18.06.2025 in writ petition, the petitioner submitted representation dated 04.07.2025 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 (DPAR and RDPR Departments) and requested the authorities to continue his service at PRED. As on 30.07.2025, one T.D. Nanjundappa was working on deputation from Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as 'PWD') as Chief Engineer, PRED and he was retiring from service on attaining the age of - 6 - WP No.38263 of 2025 superannuation on 31.07.2025. Therefore, the petitioner was anticipating that he would be posted as Chief Engineer, PRED as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules and as per the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5518/2025 dated 18.06.2025. However, the first respondent - DPAR issued impugned notification dated 30.07.2025 and by virtue of the same, the third respondent, who is in the cadre of Engineer-in-Chief in Water Resources Department, has been transferred to the post of Chief Engineer, PRED by temporarily upgrading the said post as Engineer-in-Chief. Thus, being aggrieved by the Notification dated 30.07.2025, the petitioner filed Application No.3761/2025 before the Tribunal. However, the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed this petition. 6. Heard Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel for Sri Subramani M.A., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for third respondent and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per the Panchayath Raj - 7 - WP No.38263 of 2025 Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021, the post of Chief Engineer is required to be filled up only by way of promotion and the petitioner is the person who has been promoted in accordance with law as per notification dated 11.12.2019 and that the posting of an officer from Water Resources Department is not legally sustainable. Therefore, the notification dated 30.07.2025 issued by the first respondent is not in accordance with law. 8. Further, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that previously, respondent No.2 had illegally issued notification dated 03.10.2024 deputing petitioner to a non-sanctioned post in Karnataka Rural Development Commissionerate, making additional charge arrangement for the post of Chief Engineer, PRED and the said notification was quashed by this Court in W.P. No.5518/2025, though the said order was communicated to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 04.07.2025, however, respondent Nos.1 and 2 without taking into consideration the order of this Court, have illegally posted third respondent in PRED, by creating a post called "Engineer-in-Chief". In PRED, there is only one sanctioned post of Chief Engineer and there is no post of Engineer-in-Chief at all. As per the Panchayath Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021 and - 8 - WP No.38263 of 2025 having regard to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.5518/2025, the only option legally available for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is to post the petitioner as Chief Engineer in PRED. 9. He further contended that, the Tribunal also failed to notice that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not in accordance with law right from the date of issuing the earlier notification dated 03.10.2024, deputing the petitioner to a non- sanctioned post and said illegal action is being continued again by issuing the notification dated 30.07.2025, temporarily upgrading the post and posting the third respondent. 10. He further contended that, the Tribunal ought to have noticed that the respondent authorities have temporarily upgraded the post of Chief Engineer, PRED, as Engineer-In- Chief, without amending the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of Panchayath Raj Engineering Department. Though the word used in impugned notification as 'transfer', but when an Officer from Water Resources Department is posted, it cannot be called as transfer at all, but it has to be treated as 'deputation' only, but there is no provision for deputation in PRED. When the pay scales of these two posts are different, respondent Nos.1 and 2 - 9 - WP No.38263 of 2025 ought not to have upgraded the post. The impugned notification is issued only to accommodate the third respondent. 11. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that notification dated 30.07.2025 is also contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 and the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. 12. He further contended that the respondent authorities are preventing the petitioner from holding the post of Chief Engineer, Panchayath Raj Engineering Department, from 03.10.2024. The Petitioner had unblemished service record for 30 years. When such being the position, depriving the petitioner, a post which he is legally entitled to hold, is an unjustifiable action. 13. He further contended that the petitioner is retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of November 2026. Now, the petitioner has got less than one year service. Keeping in mind the said aspect, it is wholly improper to keep the petitioner out of the post of Chief Engineer, PRED. - 10 - WP No.38263 of 2025 14. He further contended that the petitioner has made representation dated 04.07.2025 to respondent Nos.1 & 2 and requested them to continue him in PRED. The respondent authorities have intentionally kept the said request pending. On 30.07.2025, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have acted swiftly to post third respondent to the post of Chief Engineer, PRED. This clearly demonstrates malafide intentions and the arbitrariness, which is writ large. 15. He further contended that several officers from the public works department, including the petitioner, have been absorbed permanently in the PRED by the second respondent as per order dated 07.10.2013 as per the irrevocable options submitted by them. Thereafter, recruitment rules have been framed by the State Government to PRED. By giving posting through deputation, the very purpose of permanent absorption to PRED is defeated. On all these grounds, the Senior counsel prayed to allow the petition. 16. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions: 1. M.V.Dixit and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3802. - 11 - WP No.38263 of 2025 2. Union of India and Others vs. N.K. Mohan Ram in WP No.21009/2012 (S-CAT) disposed by this Court on 10.07.2012. 17. The respondents have filed statement of objections to the petition. Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3, contended that the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 30.07.2025, by which respondent No.3 has been posted as Engineer-in-Chief, PRED, Bengaluru, in place of one Sri T.D.Nanjundappa, who retired from service on 31.07.2025 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for relief as sought for by the petitioner. In fact, respondent No.3 is a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) graduate and the petitioner is a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) graduate. Both the petitioner and respondent No.3 were initially appointed to the cadre of AEE-Division-1 through the Karnataka Public Service Commission in the Public Works Department and thereafter they were further promoted to the cadre of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer based on seniority-cum-merit. Respondent No.3 was further promoted in the cadre of Engineer-in-chief in Water Resources Department. 18. The counsel further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the posting of respondent No.3, - 12 - WP No.38263 of 2025 since the petitioner does not hold a lien over the post as on the date of passing the impugned order. 19. Learned counsel further contended that all the Head of the Department posts of Chief Engineer and above are filled by respondent No.1/DPAR in terms of Schedule-II of the Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1977. The Karnataka Government (Allocation of Business) Rules were amended on 16.09.2020 vide Notification dated 30.11.2021. The DPAR was involved in the process of promotion to the cadre of Chief Engineer, since the post of Chief Engineer is held by officers of the rank of Head of the Department. The DPAR fills the post of Chief Engineer from the combined seniority list of PWD, the Irrigation Department, and RDPR maintained by the PWD. As per the said Rules, the administrative control to appoint, promote, and post officers eligible for appointment/promotion/posting in respect of ‘Head of the Department’ posts was delegated to the concerned departments. Subsequently, the said amendment was annulled vide Notification dated 11.06.2024, and the administrative control to appoint, promote, and post officers in respect of Head of the Department posts was once again reverted to the DPAR in terms of the Karnataka Civil Services (General - 13 - WP No.38263 of 2025 Recruitment) Rules, 1977. Therefore, the posting of respondent No.3 as Engineer-in-Chief, PRED, was issued by the competent authority and is in accordance with law 20. Learned counsel further submits that Rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in General Recruitment Rules or the rules of recruitment that are specially made in respect of any service or post, the Government may appoint an officer holding an equivalent grade by transfer or by deputation from any other service of the State for recruitment to which the general recruitment rules apply. It is contended that this provision overrides the provisions of recruitment and irrespective of the provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules; the Government is empowered to depute the Government servant in equivalent posts under State Civil Services. 21. Learned counsel further contended that, once the Government Employee has completed the maximum tenure in that post, ordinarily, he/she will not have any right to complain when somebody is sought to be posted to his/her place. - 14 - WP No.38263 of 2025 22. Learned counsel further contended that, as admitted by the petitioner, he is a Group-A officer holding the post of Chief Engineer in the PRED since 11.12.2019 and he has completed the maximum tenure in that position. Hence, the petitioner has no legal right to hold the post of Chief Engineer after the completion of his tenure. 23. Learned counsel further contended that, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 was made with a malafide intention. The order was issued in the interest of the public and for administrative reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order was issued only to accommodate respondent No.3. He further submits that the impugned order was issued after the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, as required under the transfer guidelines and the order was issued in the interest of the public. 24. Learned counsel further contended that, no Government servant has a right to seek for a particular posting. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Union of India and Another vs. Deepk K Niranjannath Pandit, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 404, has held that the Government - 15 - WP No.38263 of 2025 servant cannot claim a posting as of right to a place of his choice. Further, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the transfer order of respondent No.3. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. 25. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 vehemently contended that, the petitioner has been working in the cadre of Chief Engineer in Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department, Bengaluru and has been waiting for posting since 03.10.2024. By virtue of order dated 30.07.2025, the third respondent has been posted as Engineer- in-chief soon after superannuation of one T.D.Nanjundappa. In fact, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the posting of third respondent, since he does not hold a lien over the post as on the date of passing of the impugned order. Further, the petitioner has completed the maximum tenure in PRED as Chief Engineer, thus, he has no legal right to hold the post of Chief Engineer after completion of his tenure. Further, the learned AGA has reiterated the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.3. - 16 - WP No.38263 of 2025 26. On the contentions raised, the following points arise for our consideration. 1. Whether the order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 creating temporary post of Engineer-in-Chief is in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978? 2. Whether the posting of respondent No.3 as Engineer-in-Chief to PRED from Water Resources Department is valid? 3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the transfer order of respondent No.3 or the consequential orders? Reg. point Nos.1 to 3: Since point Nos.1 to 3 requires common discussion, we take these points for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence. 27. The petitioner belongs to first respondent's department. Previously, the petitioner was in Public Works Department as Superintending Engineer and later he was permanently absorbed to the PRED. Thus, PRED is a separate department within Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department and there is separate Cadre and Recruitment Rules for the PRED namely the Panchayath Raj Engineering Services - 17 - WP No.38263 of 2025 (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021. The record reveals that the cadre strength in respect of the cadre of Chief Engineer is only one post. The post of Chief Engineer is head of the PRED. Whereas the petitioner taken contention that, DPAR created temporary post of Engineer-in-Chief in PRED, which is contrary to Section 3 of Karnataka Civil Service Act, 1978. 28. The recruitment to the posts in the PRED is regulated by the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021, made by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in supercession of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021. Rule 2 provides that in respect of each category of post, specified in column (2) of the Schedule to the Rules, the method of recruitment shall be as specified in the corresponding entry in column (3). Item No.1 in the Schedule to the said Rules relates to the post of Chief Engineer. The method of recruitment prescribed for the said post is as follows: "by promotion, by selection from the cadre of Superintending Engineer" - 18 - WP No.38263 of 2025 29. The minimum qualification for the post of Chief Engineer is that, he/she must put in service of not less than 3 years in the cadre of Superintending Engineer. Therefore, the recruitment to post in the PRED is by way of promotion. So also the recruitment to the posts in the Water Resources Department is governed by the Karnataka Water Resources Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2014, made by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 2 of said Rules provides that in respect to each category of posts, specified in column (2) of the Schedule to the Rules, the method of recruitment shall be as stated in column (3). Item No.1 in the Schedule to the said Rules relates to the post of 'Engineer-in-chief'. The method of recruitment prescribed for the said post is as follows: "By promotion, by selection from the cadre of Chief Engineer" and there is no minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Engineer-in-Chief under the said Rules. 30. As per the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021, the method of recruitment and minimum qualification prescribed for - 19 - WP No.38263 of 2025 recruitment of Officers and employees to all posts under Sub Rule (2) viz., "(2) Submission of Options for absorption in Panchayath Raj Engineering Department by various category employees of Public Works, Ports and Inland Water Transport Department undertaken as per the Government Order No.RDP 160 SSK 2019 (1) dated 16.05.2020 is deemed to have been exercised/undertaken under these rules. The seniority of the persons who have so expressed their willingness shall be determined with reference to their inter-se- seniority in the parent department in accordance with the Karnataka Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1957 after absorption in Panchayath Raj Engineering Department in concurrence with their parent department." 31. Prior to the enactment of the Civil Services Act, the Rules relating to the method of recruitment and minimum qualifications were governed by Rules made in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, whereas creation of cadres, fixing of cadre strength and prescribing pay scales, were done by separate executive orders issued under Article 162. This is on the ground that the power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 can be exercised only for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service, and not for creation or abolition of posts, which power vested in the State under Entry No.41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. - 20 - WP No.38263 of 2025 32. Article 162 of the Constitution defines the extent of executive power of the State. It provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has the power to make laws. The proviso to Article 162 provides that in any matter, with respect to which the legislature of the State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon Union or Authorities thereof. 33. The scope of Article 162 and corresponding Article 73 of the Constitution of India with reference to the executive power of the Union has been enunciated in the case of Rai Saahib Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1955 SC 549. 34. In V.R. Shambulinga vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1980 (1) KAR L.J. 394, this Court observed that: "……………… in the absence of any law made by the legislature, the executive has the power to create or abolish any post or posts. In fact, notification sanctioning the cadre strength of each category of posts in any service of the State is always issued by the State in exercise of its executive power. Provisions for regulating - 21 - WP No.38263 of 2025 recruitment are only incorporated in the rules made under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution." 35. Thus, it is clear that as the executive power of the State is co-extensive with that of the State Legislature, the State Executive may make rules relating to any matter within the competence of State Legislature. But, once the Legislature enacts a law regulating the matter, the executive power can be exercised only in accordance with such law and not otherwise. Therefore, when the State Legislature has enacted the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 regulating creation and abolition of posts and requirement and conditions of service, and such law made by the State Legislature occupies the field, it follows that the executive power of the State under Article 162 cannot extend to regulating or providing for the very same matters. It can only make Rules or Regulations in accordance with the law made by the State Legislature. Therefore, after coming into force of the Civil Services Act, creation and abolition of posts can only be by way of Rules made in the manner prescribed in Section 3(2) of the said Act and not by any executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. The field of regulation of creation and abolition of posts, method of recruitment and conditions of service is now occupied by an enactment of State Legislature. Therefore, - 22 - WP No.38263 of 2025 exercise of power with regard to regulation of the matters falling in the occupied field can only be in accordance with the said Act and not otherwise by an executive order. 36. Whereas in the instant case, the Tribunal was of the view that, "in the present case it is not clear whether the post has been upgraded as a part of restructuring. As per the impugned order, the post of Chief Engineer is temporarily upgraded to Engineer-in-Chief in public interest and as such the respondent-State has justified the upgradation of post and the decision is administrative in nature. There is no change of eligibility criteria as the post has been temporarily upgraded to the Engineer-in-Chief. The respondent-State having discretion to manage its posts in the public interest have temporarily upgraded the post. Thus, the petitioner not being eligible for the post of Engineer-in-Chief cannot be considered". 37. The Tribunal further held that, "upgrading the post of Chief Engineer to that of Engineer-in-Chief is the decision of respondent Nos.1 and 2/Government. Merely because the petitioner was hopeful to be posted to that post, the petitioner cannot contend that he should be posted to same post of Chief Engineer (PRED). Thus, the petitioner cannot question - 23 - WP No.38263 of 2025 temporary upgradation of post with posting of an eligible person as Engineer-in-Chief under Rule 16 of KCS (General Recruitment) Rules by the competent authority". 38. The Tribunal also observed that "the petitioner has worked in the post of Chief Engineer (PRED) from 2019 to 2024 and has completed his maximum period of tenure. Therefore, he has no right of complaining against temporary upgradation of post of Chief Engineer to Engineer-in-Chief by competent authority. It is not the case where the petitioner has been denied a promotion as per C and R Rules, due to temporary upgradation of post". 39. The Tribunal further held that, "the post has been upgraded temporarily in administrative need by DPAR which is the competent authority. The upgradation emphasizes only higher pay scale of Engineer-in-Chief without altering the responsibilities of the post and there is no demotion or displacement or malice towards the petitioner evident in the impugned order". Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 40. In the light of the above observation, let us examine Rule 16 of KCS (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977: - 24 - WP No.38263 of 2025 "16. Relaxation of rules relating to appointment and qualifications:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, the Government may, for reason to be recorded in writing- (a) appoint to a post- (i) an officer of the Defence Services, an All India Service or a Civil Service of the Union, or the Civil Services of any other State; (ii) an officer holding a post of an equivalent grade, by transfer or by deputation from any other service of the State for recruitment to which these rules apply: [Provided that appointment by transfer under this sub- clause shall not be made unless the officer has passed the examination prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974 for the post to which he is proposed to be transferred] [Provided further that, where it is necessary in public interest to appoint an officer belonging to a service which has no equivalent grade, an officer holding a post in the next lower grade in such service may be appointed by deputation for a period not exceeding two years: Provided also that no such appointment shall be to a post which is equivalent to or higher than the next promotional post to such officer in such other service.] (iii) an officer who by bodily infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the post which he holds; Provided that appointment under this sub-clause shall not be:- (1) to a post lower than that held by such officer save with his consent; (2) to a post higher than the post held by such officer except when the Government is of the opinion that there is no other equivalent post to which such officer can be appointed: [(iiia) an officer who by bodily infirmity is temporarily incapacitated for the post which he holds: Provided that the duration of appointment under this sub-clause shall not be for a period longer than the duration - 25 - WP No.38263 of 2025 of the bodily infirmity on account of which he is held to be incapacitated to hold the post in the service to which he belongs.] (iv) in the State Civil Services Class 1, on deputation, a person with specialised qualifications in the service of a University established by law in India and holding an equivalent post for such period not exceeding five years and on such terms as the Government may in each case determine; [Provided that, whereas the Government is of the opinion that in view of the special circumstances of a case the period of deputation has to be extended beyond five years as stipulated under this clause, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the same for a further period of one year at a time subject to a maximum of three years, so however, that the total period of deputation including the extended period shall not exceed eight years.] (b) relax, by notification, for such period as may be specified therein, the qualifications prescribed for purposes of direct recruitment in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, if candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications are not available : Provided that in the case of a post for which recruitment is required to be made in consultation with the Commission, such relaxation shall not be made except after consulting the Commission." 41. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 does not belong to PRED and in fact he is an employee of Resources Department and that as per the Panchayath Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021, the post of Chief Engineer is required to be filled up only by promotion and hence, posting of respondent No.3 to PRED is contrary to the aforesaid Rules. - 26 - WP No.38263 of 2025 42. For better understanding, let us reproduce the notification dated 11.12.2019: ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 35 ¸ÉêÀÄÄE 2018 ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಸ ಾಲಯ, ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು, ಾಂಕ: 11/12/2019. ಅಸೂಚೆ "#ೕ ಜಯಕು&ಾ' ಚವಡಣ+ವ', ಅೕ,ಕ ಇಂ./ಯ', 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ5 ಮತು8 - ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಇವ@0ೆ ೇತನ Aೆ#ೕB ರೂ.90500-123300ರ ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ' ಹುFೆG0ೆ ಾHಾಪನI ಬK8 /ೕK, ಇವರನುI ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು ("#ೕ MದGಗಂಗಪO ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಇವರು ಾಯ/ವPಸುQ8ರುವ ಹುFೆG) ಇRS0ೆ ತ,ಣಂದ Tಾ@0ೆ ಬರುವಂUೆ Vಾಗೂ ಮುಂನ ಆFೇಶದವ<ೆ0ೆ ೇ1M ಆFೇ"MFೆ. ಕಾಟಕ <ಾಜDYಾಲ ಆFೇAಾನುಾರ ಮತು8 ಅವರ Vೆಸ@ನRS, ("#ೕ .. ಸುನಂದ), ಸಾರದ ಅೕನ ಾಯದ", MಬZಂ ಮತು8 ಆಡ[ತ ಸುಾರ2ಾ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ (ೇ ೆಗಳ]-3). ಇವ@0ೆ, 1. ಪ#ಾನ ಮVಾ>ೇಖYಾಲರು (ಎ ಮತು8 ಇ) ಕಾಟಕ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 2. ಸಾರದ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ", ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು, 3. ಸಾರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ", ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 4. &ಾನD ಮುಖD ಮಂQ#ಯವರ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ"/ಪ#ಾನ ಾಯದ", ಾನ ೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 5. ಸಾರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ", >ೋೋಪcೕd ಬಂದರು ಮತು8 ಒಳಾಡು ಜಲಾ@0ೆ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಾಸೌಧ. 43. Later, the petitioner challenge the order dated 03.10.2024 issued by first respondent transferring the petitioner as Chief Engineer at Commissionerate, Rural - 27 - WP No.38263 of 2025 Development Department and posting one Sreenivas N. in his place as Chief Engineer, PRED. The notification dated 03.10.2024 is reproduced as under: ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ¸ÀASÉå: 0ಾ#ಅಪ 304ಎf ಎf ೆ2024 ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಸ ಾಲಯ ಬಹುಮಹKಗಳ ಕಟgಡ ೆಂಗಳರು, ಾಂಕ: 03.10.2024 ಅಸೂಚೆ "#ೕ ಜಯಕು&ಾ' ಚವಡಣ+ವ', ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ ಇವರನುI ಾವಜ/ಕ Vಾಗೂ ಆಡ[Uಾತlಕ Pತದೃmgnಂದ ತ,ಣಂದ Tಾ@0ೆ ಬರುವಂUೆ Vಾಗೂ ಮುಂನ ಆFೇಶದವ<ೆ0ೆ 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ5 ಆಯುಾ8ಲಯ ೆಂಗಳರು ಇRS ?ಾR ಇರುವ ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ' ಹುFೆG0ೆ /cೕಜೆ oೕ>ೆ ೇ1M ಆKMFೆ. ಸದ@ಯವರ /cೕಜೆnಂದ Uೆರ ಾದ ಹುFೆG0ೆ "#ೕ "#ೕ/ ಾf f f f ಎp, ಪ#ಾನ ಇಂ./ಯ', PÉ.Dgï.Dgï.r.J. ೆಂಗಳರು ಇವರನುI Vೆಚುqವ@ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°èj¹ ಆFೇ"MFೆ. ಕಾಟಕ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è (ZÉÃvÀ£À. JA) ಸಾರದ ಅೕನ ಾಯದ", (ೇ ೆಗಳ]-3). 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ5 ಮತು8 - ಪಂ. <ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ ಇವ@0ೆ, 1. ಮVಾ>ೇಖYಾಲರು, ಕಾಟಕ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 2. &ಾನD ಮುಖDಮಂQ#ಯವರ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ", ಾನೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 3. ಸಾರದ ಾಯದ"ಗಳ], MಬZಂ & ಆಡ[ತ ಸುಾರ2ೆ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ. 4. ಆಯುಕ8ರು 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ5 ಆಯುಾ8ಲಯ ೆಂಗಳರು. 5. ಸಾರದ ಉಪ ಾಯದ"ಗಳ], M.ಆ.ಸು. ಇ>ಾ?ೆ (ೇ ೆಗಳ]) ಾನ ೌಧ. 6. ಸಾರದ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ"ಯವರ ಆsತ ಾಯದ"ಯವರು, ಾನ ೌಧ. ೆಂಗಳರು. 7. ಪ#ಾನ ಇಂ./ಯ', ಕಾಟಕ 0ಾ#1ೕಣ ರೆ8 ಅ3ವೃ5 ಸಂೆH, ೆಂಗಳರು. 6. ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 9. ಸಾರದ ಅೕನ ಾಯದ", M.ಆ.ಸು.ಇ>ಾ?ೆ (ೇವಗಳ]-6), ಾನ ೌಧ, 10.&ಾನD 0ಾ#.ಅ.ಪಂ.<ಾ= ಸ ವರ ಆಪ8 ಾಯದ", ಾಸೌಧ. - 28 - WP No.38263 of 2025 11. ಸಾರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ"ಯವರ ಆಪ8 ಾಯದ", 0ಾ#.ಅ.ಪಂ.<ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ 12.ಸಾರದ Aೇಷ ಾಯದ" (ಆಡ[ತ-1) ಇವರ ಆಪ8 ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ 0ಾ#.ಅ.ಪಂ.<ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ. 13 Aಾ?ಾ ರuಾ ಕಡತ/ Vೆಚುqವ@ ಪ#Qಗಳ]. 44. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 03.10.2024, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.4886/2024 and same was dismissed on 23.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No.5518/2025, challenging the Notification issued by respondent No.2 dated 03.10.2024 and the order of the Tribunal dated 23.01.2025. In turn, the Co-ordinate Bench allowed the writ petition and the operative portion of W.P. No.5518/2025 dated 18.06.2025 reads as under: i) Writ petition is Allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 23.01.2025, in Application No.4886/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Benglauru, is set-aside. iii) Impugned Notification bearing No.RDP/304/SSK/2024, dated 03.10.2024, Annexure-A4 is quashed. 45. On 30.07.2025, the first respondent issued one more notification posting respondent No.3 to PRED as Engineer- in-Chief. The said notification is reproduced as under: - 29 - WP No.38263 of 2025 ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 152 J¸ï¹E 2025 ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಸ ಾಲಯ ಾನ ೌಧ ೆಂಗಳರು, ಾಂಕ: 30.07.2025 ಅಸೂಚೆ "#ೕ x.K. ನಂಜುಂಡಪO ಪ#ಾನ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು, >ೋೋಪcೕd ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಪ#ಸು8ತ, /cೕಜೆ oೕ>ೆ ಪ#ಾನ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು, ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೇಂದ# ಕyೇ@, ೆಂಗಳರು ಇವರು ಾಂಕ: 31.07.2025 ರಂದು ವcೕ/ವೃQ8 VೊಂದRದುG, ಸದ@ಯವರ ವcೕ/ವೃQ8nಂದ ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ' ವೃಂದೆz /«ÄäÃಕರಣ0ೊಳ{Rರುವ ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೇಂದ# ಕyೇ@, ೆಂಗಳರು ಈ ಹುFೆGಯನುI ಆಡ[Uಾತlಕ Pತದೃmgnಂದ ಪ#ಾನ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು ವೃಂದೆz UಾUಾzRಕ ಾd ಉನIQೕಕ@M, ಸದ@ ಸHಳೆz, "#ೕ "#ೕಾ} ೆ. ಪ#ಾನ ಅ3ಯಂತರರು, ಅ2ೆಕಟುg ಸುರ,Uಾ ¸ÀA¸ÉÞ ಆನಂದ<ಾ~ ವೃvÀÛ ೆಂಗಳರು ಇವರನುI ಮುಂನ ಆFೇಶದವ<ೆ0ೆ ವ0ಾnM ೇ1MFೆ. ಕಾಟಕ <ಾಜDYಾಲರ ಆFೇAಾನುಾರ ಮತು8 ಅವರ Vೆಸ@ನRS, (£ÁUÀ¥Àà J¸ï ¥ÀjÃl) ಸಾರದ ಅೕನ ಾಯದ", MಬZಂ ಮತು8 ಆಡ[ತ ಸುಾರ2ೆ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, (ೇ ೆಗಳ] -3) ಇವ@0ೆ: 1. ಪ#ಾನ ಮVಾ>ೇಖYಾಲರು, (f&ಎf.ಎ)/(ಇ & ಆ'.ಎf.ಎ) ಕಾಟಕ Vೊಸ ಕಟgಡ, ಆK• ಭವನ, ಅಂ:ೆ Yೆxg0ೆ ಸಂ?ೆD:5398, ೆಂಗಳರು-01 2. ಪ#ಾನ ಮVಾ>ೇಖYಾಲರು, (ಎ ಮತು8 ಇ), ಕಾಟಕ, Yಾ• Vೌf ರೆ8, ಅಂ:ೆ Yೆxg0ೆ ಸಂ?ೆD:5329, ೆಂಗಳರು-01 3. ಸಾರದ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ", ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಾನೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು: 4. ಸಾರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ", ಾನೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು, 5. &ಾನD ಮುಖDಮಂQ#ಯವರ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ"/ ಪ#ಾನ ಾಯದ"/ಾಯದ", ಾನೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 6. ಸಾರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ"/ಸಾರದ ಪ#ಾನ ಾಯದ"/ಸಾರದ ಾಯದ"/ಜಲಸಂಪನೂlಲ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ/>ೋೋಪcೕd ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಾಸೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು. - 30 - WP No.38263 of 2025 7. ಸಾರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖD ಾಯದ", 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ5 ಮತು8 ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಬಹುಮಹKಗಳ ಕಟgಡ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 8. &ಾನD ಉಪ ಮುಖDಮಂQ#ಯವರ ಆಪ8 ಾಯದ", ಾಸೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು: 9. ಸಾರದ ಾಯದ", MಬZಂ ಮತು8 ಆಡ[ತ ಸುಾರ2ೆ ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ಾನೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 10. ಮುಖD ಇಂ./ಯ', ಪಂ:ಾಯ; <ಾ= ಇಂ./ಯ@ಂL ಇ>ಾ?ೆ, ೇಂದ# ಕyೇ@, 0ಾ#1ೕ2ಾ3ವೃ5 ಭವನ, ಆನಂದ<ಾ~ ವೃತ8, ೆಂಗಳರು 11. ಸಾರದ ಉಪ ಾಯದ", M.ಆ.ಸು.ಇ>ಾ?ೆ (ೇ ೆಗಳ]), ಾನೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು. 12. ಖTಾೆ ಆಯುಕ8ರು, ಖTಾೆ ಆಯುಾ8ಲಯ, 6ೇ ಮಹK, ೆ.‚.M.J¯ï d#ೕp ƒR„ಂL ಅರಮೆ ರೆ8, ೆಂಗಳರು- 560001. 13. ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁj 14. Aಾ?ಾ ರuಾ ಕಡತ/ Vೆಚುqವ@ ಪ#Q. 46. Therefore, it appears that the State Government posted third respondent from Water Resources Department to PRED, by creating temporary post of Engineer-in-Chief, which is not at all created under statue by well established principles of law. 47. After coming into force of the Civil Services Act, the creation and abolition of posts can only be effected by way of Rules made in the manner prescribed under Section 3(2) of the said Act and not by any executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. The field relating to the creation and abolition of posts, method of recruitment and conditions of service is now occupied by an enactment of the State Legislature. Therefore, the exercise of power with regard to matters falling within the occupied field can only be in - 31 - WP No.38263 of 2025 accordance with the said Act and not otherwise by way of an executive order. 48. Further, Rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, states that notwithstanding anything contained in the General Recruitment Rules or the Rules of Recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, the Government may appoint to a post an officer holding a post of an equivalent grade by transfer or by deputation from any other service of the State for recruitment to which the General Recruitment apply. The said provision of General Recruitment Rules will not override the provisions of Recruitment Regulations and hence, irrespective of the provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, the Government is not empowered to depute respondent No.3 to PRED. 49. It is contended by the third respondent, who belongs to Water Resources Department that Section 3(1) merely provides that the State Government may, by notification, make rules relating to recruitment and conditions of service, and specify the different categories of posts, number of posts, nature of posts and scale of pay; and that Section - 32 - WP No.38263 of 2025 3(1) is only an enabling provision permitting the State to make Rules in the manner stipulated and until Rules are made under Section 3(1), the executive power is not taken away in regard to matters specified in Section 3(1). It is submitted that as no Rule as contemplated in Section 3(1) has been made prescribing the cadre strength of the PRED or their number and nature of posts in each category in respect of PRED, the executive power of State to create or abolition of posts is not taken away; and as a consequence, the State can by executive order, bifurcate any cadre or create a cadre by reducing the strength of an existing cadre and at the same time, create new cadre consisting of the downgraded or upgraded posts. 50. A combined reading of Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Civil Services Act shows that the said contention raised by the respondents is not tenable. As noticed above, executive power in regard to a subject comes to an end when a law is made in regard to such subject by the State Legislature and such law occupies the field. Prior to the enactment of Karnataka State Civil Services Act, the recruitment and conditions of services were not regulated by any law made by the Legislature. In those circumstances, the manner of recruitment and minimum qualifications therefore - 33 - WP No.38263 of 2025 were regulated by Rules made under Article 309; and the creation and abolition of posts with prescription of cadre strength and pay scales were regulated by executive orders under Article 162 of the Constitution. 51. Once the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 was enacted and came into force on 04.03.1992, the field relating to recruitment and conditions of service (including creation of abolition of posts, fixing the number and nature of posts) became a field occupied by law made by the State Legislature. The law is made in regard to 'recruitment' in a wider sense which includes not only the method of recruitment, but also creation and abolition of posts by specifying different categories of posts in different branches of public service specifying total number of posts, nature of such posts and scales of pay admissible to such posts. As the field relating to creation and abolition of posts is occupied by an enactment of the State Legislature, regulating the entire field of recruitment, the State can abolish or create posts only by making rules as contemplated in Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services Act and not by an executive order under Article 162. - 34 - WP No.38263 of 2025 52. We are, therefore, of the view that the cadre strength of PRED could not have been altered by the Government by issuing an executive order under Article 162 on 30.07.2025, but it is only by way of making Rules as contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services Act. 53. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that all rules relating to matters referred to in sub-section (1) and in force on the date of commencement of Civil Services Act shall be deemed to be the rules made under sub-section (1) of Section 3 and shall continue in force until they are modified or replaced by rules made under the said Act. 54. When the State Government issues notification sanctioning the establishment of any particular cadre, or creating or abolishing any post or determining the strength of each cadre and character of the post therein, such notification issued in exercise of executive power under Article 162 will have to be considered as "Rules made by the Government under any law for the time being in force". In fact, such executive order is not permissible. - 35 - WP No.38263 of 2025 55. The categorical provision in sub-section (3) of Section 3, after the State Civil Services Act, 1978 came into force, the State can modify or replace any notification or Government control relating to establishment of cadres or fixing the strength of the cadre or number and character of the posts only by the rules made in terms of Section 3(2) of Civil Services Act and not by any Executive Order under Section 162. 56. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to PRED department, in Panchayath Raj Rural Development Department, who is working as Chief Engineer in the PRED, against posts which is to be filled exclusively by promotion from the PRED. If any order is passed by the Government in violation of the recruitment rules, the PRED who are denied those posts will be the persons aggrieved. Any attempt to undermine such independence, will lead to unhealthy results. 57. If it is to be held that the petitioner do not have any locus standi, then the result will be that any illegal decision relating to such a matter by PRED/respondent Nos.1 and 2, will not be open to question at all. The contention that the - 36 - WP No.38263 of 2025 petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 30.07.2025 or the consequential order is untenable. 58. From the material on record and from the rival contentions, it is clear that, it is unfortunate how at the highest level, highly placed officers with blemishless records are being treated at the fag end of their career. The transfer orders are passed without there being any vacancy and the Senior officers are made to suffer being helpless and if they were to approach the Tribunals and Courts and get the relief, action is taken against them vindictively and in order to justify their action, actions are taken against the said Officers, which is a clear case of abuse of the power. Under these circumstances, the notification issued by respondent No.1 dated 30.07.2025 is contrary to the rules. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal on 04.12.2025 as well as the Notification dated 30.07.2025 issued by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained and they have to be set aside. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits. 59. Admittedly, the petitioner will superannuate in the month of November, 2026. By virtue of the order passed on 03.10.2024 and on 30.07.2025, the petitioner has become a - 37 - WP No.38263 of 2025 scapegoat at the hands of the persons who are wielding power without responsibility. The Tribunal has not done justice to the person to whom injustice has been caused. This is a fit case where the extraordinary power of this Court under Article 226 has to be exercised, as justice has been done to the petitioner. We are satisfied that this is a fit case where exemplary cost has to be imposed on respondent Nos.1 and 2 for causing inconvenience to the petitioner, as respondent Nos.1 and 2 has not complied the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.5518/2025 disposed on 18.06.2025. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, we answer Point Nos.1 to 3 accordingly and pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed; ii) The impugned order dated 04.12.2025 passed by Tribunal in Application No.3761 of 2025 is set aside and consequently, the Notification dated 30.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed; iii) The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential reliefs and benefits. - 38 - WP No.38263 of 2025 iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. v) Parties to bear their respective costs. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/MN