- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12888 WP No. 22443 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22443 OF 2023 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SATHISHA S/O LATE VISHWANATHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS WARDEN, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL AND SCIENCE COLLEGE (S.C - 199), AROORU, BRAHAMAVAR, UDUPI - 576 217. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KMF BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12888 WP No. 22443 of 2023 AND SCIENCE COLLEGE (S.C -199), AROORU, BRAHAMAVAR, UDUPI - 576 217. 4. SRI MANJUNATHA HUGGE, WORKING AS WARDEN, MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL MADANAKAKERE (P.J-614), JAGALURU, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. D.T. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 30/09/2023 IN NO. SAKAE- MDS/69/2023 (BHA-1), BENGALURU, PASSED BY R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ONLY IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER AND R4 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged his transfer by respondent No.2 in terms of the memorandum bearing No.SakaE- MDS/69/2023 (Bha-1) dated 30.09.2023, Annexure-E. 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Warden in respondent No.2 on 18.07.2012 and he reported to duty at Morarji Desai English Medium Residential School (B.C.M), Koteshwara, Kundapur District and worked there for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12888 WP No. 22443 of 2023 10 years. The petitioner claims that he was transferred to Morarji Desai Residential School (S.C), Aruru on 14.06.2022 when general transfers were effected. He reported to duty on 21.06.2022. It is contended that respondent No.1 passed an order dated 30.09.2023 directing the Executive Director to relieve the petitioner from Morarji Desai Residential School (S.C), Aruru and posted the respondent No.4 at the same place and directed the transfer of the petitioner to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Residential School, Shringeri, Chikkamagaluru District. The petitioner contends that he should be transferred within the District as he is a Group-C employee. He also contends that his transfer is in violation of the transfer guidelines issued by the State Government on 15.06.2023. He contends that his wife is also working in Udupi and that she has given birth to a child on 05.06.2022, therefore, he contends that his presence in Udupi is necessary. He also contends that the distance between Udupi and Chikkamagaluru is 173 Kms and therefore, the impugned transfer of the petitioner is without considering the aforesaid factors. Besides this, he contends that as per the transfer guidelines, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the same - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12888 WP No. 22443 of 2023 post for 7 years and hence, the impugned order of transfer is in violation of the transfer guidelines. 3. The petition is opposed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 who contend that the petitioner has been working in Udupi District from the day he was appointed. It is also contended that the petitioner was not transferred to Aruru under the general transfer, but it was on the request of the petitioner. He contends that there is vacancy in Shringeri and as the petitioner has worked continuously for more than 7 years in the same district, he was liable to be transferred. He also contends that at the time of his appointment, the petitioner was well aware that his appointment is subject to transfer. He further contends that the probationary period of the wife of the petitioner would be declared shortly, in which event she also may be transferred. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner cannot use this to remain in Udupi forever. The learned Additional Government Advocate also supported the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is unexceptionable and therefore, the petition does not merit consideration. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12888 WP No. 22443 of 2023 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. The respondent No.4 though served with notice has not appeared. It is now stated that respondent No.4 is transferred to Dharwad and that he has taken charge at Dharwad. 6. As per the transfer guidelines, which is in force, an employee is entitled to request for transfer to a place where his wife / spouse is working and if the distance between the place of his work and the place of work of his spouse cannot be covered by road within one hour. In the case on hand, the petitioner was undoubtedly working in Udupi District from the date of his appointment i.e., 2012. It was on his request, that he was transferred within Udupi District in terms of the order dated 14.06.2022. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was transferred to Aruru under general transfer is incorrect. 7. Be that as it may, since it is stated by the petitioner that his wife is also working in the same institution at Udupi - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12888 WP No. 22443 of 2023 and that she has given birth to a child, in view of the transfer guidelines stated above, the petitioner is entitled to be continued in the same post. Now that respondent No.4 is transferred to Dharwad where he has assumed charge, continuing the petitioner at the same post would prejudice none. 8. As stated by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 if the probationary period of the wife of the petitioner is declared, it is open for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to transfer the petitioner and his wife to an appropriate place. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to continue the petitioner at Aruru. It is however open for the respondent No.2 to take such steps as are required after the probationary period of the wife of the petitioner is declared. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK