1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.14958/2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. USHA R W/O RAMESH B.R. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34, ELEGANT SILVER OAK APTS. 1ST FLOOR, FLAT NO.103 SPENCER ROAD FRAZER TOWN POST BENGALURU – 560005 WORKING AS: AUDIT OFFICER KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU-560029. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2 VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE AUDIT & ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TTMC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC, SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU- 560027. 3. SRI H. MUNIRAJU FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR AUDIT OFFICE REGISTRAR GENERAL’S OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI HARSHAVARDHANA, ADV. FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A). ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.05.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.259/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 16.06.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF 3 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner, aggrieved by allowing of challenge to transfer by respondent No.3 in Application No.259/2025 dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 belong to State Accounts Department and they are in the cadre of Audit Officers. Petitioner was working as Audit Officer at KIDWAI whereas respondent No.3/applicant before the Tribunal was promoted as Audit Officer under order dated 13.09.2024 and was posted as Audit Officer to High Court of Karnataka to a vacant post. Before reporting to duty at High Court of Karnataka, it is stated that under communication dated 28.10.2024, 4 third respondent was posted to the place of petitioner as Audit Officer at KIDWAI. The petitioner aggrieved by the said posting of the third respondent to her place, questioned the said posting before the Tribunal in Application No.5130/2024. The Tribunal under order dated 06.01.2025 dismissed the petitioner’s application holding that the petitioner has completed her minimum tenure at KIDWAI. Thereafter, under Annexure-J, a communication dated 17.01.2025 issued stating that the posting of the petitioner as Audit Officer to High Court of Karnataka was cancelled and the petitioner was continued as Audit Officer at KIDWAI. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure-J) and O.M., dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure-K) continuing the petitioner as Audit Officer at KIDWAI, third respondent approached the Tribunal in Application No.259/2025. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 07.05.2025 allowed the application, set side the communication 5 dated 17.01.2025 and O.M., dated 18.01.2025 continuing the petitioner as Audit Officer KIDWAI and directed the respondents to continue the third respondent as Audit Officer, KIDWAI Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru till he completes the tenure or his transfer is necessitated in accordance with law. Questioning the said order, petitioner who was third respondent before the Tribunal is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Vivek Subba Reddy for Sri.Vijaya Shekara Gowda.V, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Shiva Reddy for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.Harshavardhan for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.Vivek Subba Reddy would submit that the order of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous and is the result of non- 6 consideration of material on record. He would submit that the third respondent failed to report to duty on his promotion and posting as Audit Officer to High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. Having failed to report to duty, he got his choice of posting to KIDWAI, disturbing the petitioner. A person who fails to report to duty would not be entitled for any relief, which the Tribunal has failed to note. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that respondent No.3 without reporting to duty at the place of posting i.e., High Court of Karnataka, brought political influence to get posting as Audit Officer at KIDWAI, where the petitioner was working. As respondent No.3 has brought political influence has misconducted himself, as such the Tribunal ought to have dismissed his application. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Harshavardhan appearing for the third respondent 7 would submit that the petitioner has completed her tenure of two years at KIDWAI and she was liable for transfer. It is his submission that a person who has completed his/her tenure would not be entitled to continue in the same posting. Further, learned counsel would also submit that petitioner has also brought political pressure to get the order of posting of the petitioner cancelled and to continue herself at KIDWAI. Learned counsel would submit that on his posting as Audit Officer at KIDWAI under communication dated 28.10.2024, respondent No.3 reported to duty and was working since then. Within three months of his posting to KIDWAI under impugned communication dated 17.01.2025 and O.M. dated 18.01.2025, respondent No.3 was disturbed which was premature. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to order passed by the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has rightly observed that the petitioner also used political influence to get 8 modification of the order of transfer. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties placed reliance on several decisions relating to transfer and we have gone through the same. During the course of this order, if necessary, those decisions would be referred. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, Whether the order under challenge requires interference at the hands of this Court? 8. Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons: The petitioner and respondent No.3 are in the cadre of Audit Officers belonging to second respondent 9 – State Accounts Department. The Audit Officer which is Group-A/B post is provided with minimum tenure of two years at the place of posting under Government Order dated 25.06.2024, which lays down the transfer guidelines. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted to work as Audit Officer at KIDWAI under O.M., dated 14.12.2021 and she has completed her tenure at KIDWAI as on the date of respondent No.3’s posting under communication dated 28.10.2024. Having completed her tenure at KIDWAI as Audit Officer, petitioner has no right to continue at KIDWAI. No Government servant or Civil servant has a right to continue in a posting of his choice or to stick to a particular posting. 10. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.3 have alleged against each other that each one of them have brought 10 political influence to get posting. The writ petition records would indicate that both the petitioner and respondent No.3 have brought political influence to get their posting which they ought not to have done. 11. The petitioner having failed in her challenge to the posting of respondent No.3 in her place in Application No.5130/2024 under order dated 06.01.2025 is not justified in getting continuation of her posting at KIDWAI, that too, when the earlier order of posting of third respondent is implemented. 12. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy has placed on record the service particulars of petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate ground on 06.08.2005 in Bengaluru and since then, she is in Bengaluru for more than 20 years. She has not served outside Bengaluru in her service. So also, respondent No.3 was initially appointed on 11 compassionate ground in the year 2001, has not gone out of Bengaluru, for the last 25 years he is working at Bengaluru. Both the petitioner and respondent No.3 are fighting to get posting at Bengaluru itself. The petitioner and respondent No.3 who are working as Audit Officers belonging to second respondent – State Accounts Department are in a State Cadre and they are liable to be posted anywhere in the State. Since both the petitioner and respondent No.3 have worked at Bengaluru for more than 20 years, the State i.e., first and second respondents shall have to take appropriate action to post the petitioner and respondent No.3 out of Bengaluru. 13. The Tribunal under impugned order on appreciation of the material before it has rightly come to the conclusion that the impugned order is passed without assigning any reasons as stipulated in transfer guidelines and only to accommodate the third 12 respondent (petitioner herein) to continue in a particular place, even though she had completed her tenure in the said place. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. 14. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT: bms