- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 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.17849 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI LOKESH K N S/O NAGARAJU K.L, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WORKING AS SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001, RESIDING AT NO.268, N.T.I. LAYOUT, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, PHASE - I, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 092. PH: 7624999796 Email ID: lokesh810@gmail.com …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 2. DR. ROHINI V.J., HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR, WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AS SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T.M.CHOWDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2596/2025 IN SO FAR AS NON GRANT OF INTERIM ORDER OF STAY AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT INTERIM RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN APPLICATION NO.2596/2025 (ANNEXURE-B), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, working as Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the non-grant of interim order of stay of order of transfer dated 13.06.2025 posting respondent No.2 in his place, without showing posting to him under order dated 17.06.2025 in Application No.2596/2025 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), is before this Court. 2. Heard Sri. K.Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Sri.T.M.Chowda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Sri.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk in pursuance to notification dated 05.09.2024. As the said order of transfer was challenged in Application No.4401/2024 before the Tribunal, the petitioner could report to duty only on 09.09.2024. It is his submission - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 that the transfer of petitioner under notification dated 13.06.2025 is premature and without providing any posting. Learned counsel would submit that the posting of respondent No.2 in place of the petitioner without providing any posting to the petitioner was challenged in Application No.2596/2025 and it is the grievance of the petitioner that the Tribunal failed to grant interim order of stay of the impugned posting of respondent No.2 in his place. Further learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to impugned interim order passed by the Tribunal dated 17.06.2025 and submits that although the Tribunal records that the transfer of the applicant, is premature, without posting and also records that he has not handed over the charge to the respondent No.2, declined to grant interim order as prayed for. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted before the Tribunal that the respondent No.2 has assumed the charge of the post of Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk and based on the said submission, Tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of passing the order i.e., 17.06.2025. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 4. Sri. K.Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not handed over charge and the respondent No.2 has not assumed the charge. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Annexures - R1 and R2 filed by the respondent No.2 along with memo dated 23.06.2025 and submits that, in fact, the respondent No.2 was relieved from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya on the afternoon of 16.06.2025 and letter submitted to Deputy Commissioner (Annexure - R3) dated 16.06.2023 would indicate that she is reporting to duty at the transferred place i.e., Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk on the forenoon of 16.06.2025, which cannot be believed. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the respondent No.2 has not assumed charge. Hence, he prays for granting interim order as prayed before the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that, respondent No.2 assumed duty in terms of CTC placed on record at Annexure - R4 as per the oral instruction and direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 6. This Court on 23.06.2025, on the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 supra directed the respondent No.2 to file an affidavit to that effect. Accordingly, respondent No.2 filed an affidavit dated 24.06.2025 reiterating that her assumption as Special Tahsildar at the Office of the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk on oral instruction of the Deputy Commissioner. Taking on record the said affidavit, learned AGA was directed to get the affidavit of Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District as to whether the Deputy Commissioner has permitted/instructed orally to respondent No.2 to assume duty as Special Tahsildar. 7. Learned AGA has filed an affidavit dated 25.06.2025 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District wherein the Deputy Commissioner has stated that the respondent No.2 herself assumed the charge and he has not given any oral or written instruction to assume charge to respondent No.2. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the word "Forenoon" in Annexure - R3 - letter dated 16.06.2025 submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban is a typographical error and be read as "Afternoon". - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 9. Learned AGA referring to affidavit dated 25.06.2025 of the Deputy Commissioner would submit that the Deputy Commissioner has not permitted or given oral instruction to respondent No.2 to assume the post of Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, following points arise for consideration:- 1. In the facts and circumstances, whether the petitioner would be entitled for stay of impugned order dated 13.06.2025 insofar as posting of respondent No.2 in his place? 2. Whether the respondent No.2 has assumed the post of Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk on 16.06.2025? 11. The answer to the above points would be 'Affirmative' and 'Negative' respectively, for the following:- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 R E A S O N S Admittedly, the petitioner was posted as Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk under notification dated 05.09.2024 and he took charge of the said post on 09.09.2024. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are in the cadre of Tahsildar, Grade-I which is a Group - B post. Under impugned notification dated 13.06.2025, the respondent No.2 is posted in place of the petitioner without providing any posting to the petitioner. Whether the transfer of petitioner is premature or whether the petitioner is liable for transfer on any other ground, is a matter for Tribunal to decide. But, as the posting is not given to the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to continue in the said post i.e., Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, till the disposal of the application before the Tribunal, as observed by this Court in Seema H. vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.48499/2016 dated 16.09.2016. 12. The Tribunal after observing that the transfer of the applicant is premature and also without posting only on the ground that the respondent No.2 has assumed the charge of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 the post, directed the parties to maintain status quo. The question is whether the respondent No.2 has assumed the charge on the material made available before the Tribunal as well as before this Court. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a memo dated 23.06.2025 enclosing O.M. dated 16.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District and also letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.06.2025 and CTC dated 16.06.2025 for assuming duty as Annexure - R4. 14. A perusal of O.M. dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure - R1), Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, it is seen that respondent No.2 is relieved of her duties on the afternoon of 16.06.2025. As the respondent No.2 is relieved of her duties at Mandya on the afternoon of 16.06.2025 as stated in Annexure - R3 - letter dated 16.06.2025 as well as CTC dated 16.06.2025 Annexure - R4, the respondent No.2 could not have assumed the duty of the post of Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk on the forenoon of 16.06.2025. In other words, before she is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 relieved at Mandya, she could not have reported to duty as Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that it is a typing mistake, cannot be believed as both the letter addressed to Deputy Commissioner dated 16.06.2025 and CTC dated 16.06.2025, it is typed as ‘C¥ÀgÁºÀß’ (forenoon). The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 assumed the charge of the post of Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk on the oral instructions of the Deputy Commissioner is also false and baseless as the Deputy Commissioner in his affidavit dated 25.06.2025 has made it clear that he has not given any oral or written instructions to respondent No.2 to assume charge. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.06.2025 passed in Application No.2596/2025 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is modified staying the impugned notification bearing No.E-KamE 15 ATS 2025 dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure - A6) insofar as posting respondent No.2 in place of petitioner during the pendency of the application before the Tribunal. The - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22154-DB WP No. 17849 of 2025 petitioner shall continue as Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk during the pendency of the above stated application. 17. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the application within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All contentions of the parties are left open. 18. It is open for the respondent No.2 to seek appropriate posting during the pendency of the application before the Tribunal. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32